Alan Sugar's picked another one - Apprentice up the duff....
Discussion
Ribol said:
Contributing to public services, no problem, we all use them.
No we don't. Lots of people pay for their own kids' education. Many people live in low crime areas where policing is very cheap.Most people have children, and most of them have a couple then stop. Socialising a small element of the costs hardly merits another template PH rant about the benefits-scrounging underclass.
HundredthIdiot said:
Ribol said:
Contributing to public services, no problem, we all use them.
No we don't.So if your house catches fire, someone puts a brick through your window, you get run over crossing the road, your bins are full, who are YOU going to call then?
Don't kid yourself, other than the odd one you like the rest of us you either use most of them or need access to them.
Ribol said:
HundredthIdiot said:
Ribol said:
Contributing to public services, no problem, we all use them.
No we don't.So if your house catches fire, someone puts a brick through your window, you get run over crossing the road, your bins are full, who are YOU going to call then?
Don't kid yourself, other than the odd one you like the rest of us you either use most of them or need access to them.
someone puts a brick through your window -> call glazier
you get run over crossing the road -> claim on private health insurance
your bins are full -> my bins are collected by a private company
HundredthIdiot said:
Ribol said:
HundredthIdiot said:
Ribol said:
Contributing to public services, no problem, we all use them.
No we don't.So if your house catches fire, someone puts a brick through your window, you get run over crossing the road, your bins are full, who are YOU going to call then?
Don't kid yourself, other than the odd one you like the rest of us you either use most of them or need access to them.
someone puts a brick through your window -> call glazier
you get run over crossing the road -> claim on private health insurance
your bins are full -> my bins are collected by a private company
heebeegeetee said:
cymtriks said:
The solution is obvious.
Stop paying people for perfectly normal activities that haven't been a problem for millions of years.
Here we are again.Stop paying people for perfectly normal activities that haven't been a problem for millions of years.
Look, what is hard to understand about this? We haven't lived like we do before, not for millions of years or for ever. We've never had the technology before, or the lifestyle or the health care. We've never had the longevity before, we've never had the rates of infant mortality before, we weren't able to survive all sorts of conditions before, such as appendicitis.
For millions of years, if you had appendicitis you died. If you had toothache, you went out of your mind with agony, and that went for everybody, men, women, children, rich, poor, young and old.
Now, if you want to live in todays society (and i presume you don't want to see your wife dying a screaming death in childbirth, or your little daughter screaming and screaming as she died from appendicitis) then it all has to be paid for.
heebeegeetee said:
Businesses, in effect, don't pay the costs of child care or whatever, their customers do. As we're all customers of businesses in one way or another, depending on how much we spend, we all end up contributing, and as we all need to make use of other people (that's every single one of us without exception) then what could be fairer than we all pay? What's the problem?
Actually the system is terribly unfair as different companies will have completely different exposure to the issue. Some may employ many women, some a few, one might employ someone who abuses the system completely while another just bins any CV with a girls name on it.Even if we ignore that we are still left with how work is divided amongst other employees, almost certainly not equally.
In summary, what could be more unfair due its totally indiscriminate methods?
How about I randomly pick a corner shop and force them to pay my gas bill. Fair by your argument as everyone needs fuel in modern society and the corner shop will just pass on the cost to its customers. If everyone chooses a random corner shop to pay their gas bill for them then society pays so in your words... ..what's the problem?
heebeegeetee said:
If you don't want to pay towards the cost of other people having children then fine, but don't have any interaction with any other people either.
I don't pay for their food, holidays, petrol, telly, etc either. Does that mean I should avoid everyone?Why can't each couple pay for their own families? Remember we are not talking about some horrible disease, injury or senility, we are talking about becoming a mum.
heebeegeetee said:
I don't see why the cost of providing society with *everything* (which in effect is what they would be doing|) should fall only to parents. I think we all should pay.
So why charge employers on a random basis?Why not scrap it. This would free up businesses from red tape and uncertainty while removing a very real (but repeatedly denied in a shameful "la,la,la, not listening, talk to the hand, etc" manner by our politicians) obstacle to equality in the workplace. OK, actually not quite in the workplace but in the interview room.
Alternatively bring it into the mainstream benefit system and increase the first few payments of child benefit.
Or just replace all benefits with just two, a flat rate that every adult gets and a variable rate based on circumstances and past contributions.
heebeegeetee said:
What's with all this two million years nonsense at people are spouting?
For 2 million years we managed without cars. For 2 million years we managed without anaesthetic. For 2 million years you could die of the most trivial reasons. For 2 million years there was little you could do about toothache. For the best part of two million years we had slavery and/or grinding poverty for millions of people. For 2 million years people were governed by a minority claiming to be divine.
For 2 million years like was immeasurably harder than it is now. Is anybody trying to say there was anything good about any of this? Who wants to go back to all that?
Jeez.
Because we keep hearing the argument that, somehow, these rules are essential to society and even essential to have children.For 2 million years we managed without cars. For 2 million years we managed without anaesthetic. For 2 million years you could die of the most trivial reasons. For 2 million years there was little you could do about toothache. For the best part of two million years we had slavery and/or grinding poverty for millions of people. For 2 million years people were governed by a minority claiming to be divine.
For 2 million years like was immeasurably harder than it is now. Is anybody trying to say there was anything good about any of this? Who wants to go back to all that?
Jeez.
This is utter rubbish. Society got on fine and children arrived without these rules. Hence the 2 million years statements.
People have simply voted themselves a payrise for doing no work whatsoever and are now trying to justify this with arguments by assertion (i.e. asserting, without any evidence at all, that this system is essential to the continuation of society).
cymtriks said:
heebeegeetee said:
What's with all this two million years nonsense at people are spouting?
For 2 million years we managed without cars. For 2 million years we managed without anaesthetic. For 2 million years you could die of the most trivial reasons. For 2 million years there was little you could do about toothache. For the best part of two million years we had slavery and/or grinding poverty for millions of people. For 2 million years people were governed by a minority claiming to be divine.
For 2 million years like was immeasurably harder than it is now. Is anybody trying to say there was anything good about any of this? Who wants to go back to all that?
Jeez.
Because we keep hearing the argument that, somehow, these rules are essential to society and even essential to have children.For 2 million years we managed without cars. For 2 million years we managed without anaesthetic. For 2 million years you could die of the most trivial reasons. For 2 million years there was little you could do about toothache. For the best part of two million years we had slavery and/or grinding poverty for millions of people. For 2 million years people were governed by a minority claiming to be divine.
For 2 million years like was immeasurably harder than it is now. Is anybody trying to say there was anything good about any of this? Who wants to go back to all that?
Jeez.
This is utter rubbish. Society got on fine and children arrived without these rules. Hence the 2 million years statements.
People have simply voted themselves a payrise for doing no work whatsoever and are now trying to justify this with arguments by assertion (i.e. asserting, without any evidence at all, that this system is essential to the continuation of society).
But so what? We're not going to go back to that time so what's the point in talking about it?
I just think, and i'm speaking as a non-parent, that the cost of bringing up and educating society's future providers should not fall to parents alone.
How you decide who pays what is a complex issue. Maybe company's shouldn't pay for maternal leave etc, so maybe they should pay more tax instead. Or maybe individuals should pay more, leaving them with far less to spend, so making trading conditions far more difficult for businesses. Who knows which is the best way? When perfection is achieved and people have nothing to complain about, let me know.
All i know is that anyone running a worthwhile business properly in the UK does very nice out of it indeed and thus has nothing to complain about. And if they don't like conditions in the UK they're free to set up wherever they like, but there's 60 million people here, all with money to spend. Take it or leave it.
heebeegeetee said:
cymtriks said:
heebeegeetee said:
What's with all this two million years nonsense at people are spouting?
For 2 million years we managed without cars. For 2 million years we managed without anaesthetic. For 2 million years you could die of the most trivial reasons. For 2 million years there was little you could do about toothache. For the best part of two million years we had slavery and/or grinding poverty for millions of people. For 2 million years people were governed by a minority claiming to be divine.
For 2 million years like was immeasurably harder than it is now. Is anybody trying to say there was anything good about any of this? Who wants to go back to all that?
Jeez.
Because we keep hearing the argument that, somehow, these rules are essential to society and even essential to have children.For 2 million years we managed without cars. For 2 million years we managed without anaesthetic. For 2 million years you could die of the most trivial reasons. For 2 million years there was little you could do about toothache. For the best part of two million years we had slavery and/or grinding poverty for millions of people. For 2 million years people were governed by a minority claiming to be divine.
For 2 million years like was immeasurably harder than it is now. Is anybody trying to say there was anything good about any of this? Who wants to go back to all that?
Jeez.
This is utter rubbish. Society got on fine and children arrived without these rules. Hence the 2 million years statements.
People have simply voted themselves a payrise for doing no work whatsoever and are now trying to justify this with arguments by assertion (i.e. asserting, without any evidence at all, that this system is essential to the continuation of society).
But so what? We're not going to go back to that time so what's the point in talking about it?
I just think, and i'm speaking as a non-parent, that the cost of bringing up and educating society's future providers should not fall to parents alone.
How you decide who pays what is a complex issue. Maybe company's shouldn't pay for maternal leave etc, so maybe they should pay more tax instead. Or maybe individuals should pay more, leaving them with far less to spend, so making trading conditions far more difficult for businesses. Who knows which is the best way? When perfection is achieved and people have nothing to complain about, let me know.
All i know is that anyone running a worthwhile business properly in the UK does very nice out of it indeed and thus has nothing to complain about. And if they don't like conditions in the UK they're free to set up wherever they like, but there's 60 million people here, all with money to spend. Take it or leave it.
It is utterly irrelevent to the subject.
Stating that we are not going back to that time is arguing by assertion, there is no reason whatsoever why a benefit could not be changed, in who pays, who gets, who administers it, switch to an alternative or scrap it. In other words we could go anywhere in terms of benefits.
Bringing up the issue of education is also a straw man argument, or possibly arguing by assertion that this is the same issue. In either case education is utterly irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
Why should parents be paid for having children? This is an issue that you have not adressed at all though you have made some straw man arguments that is tantamount to medical care or eduction. Why should employers administer this benefit? This is an issue that you have put forward a very weak argument for that was easily countered.
Arguing that children are future providers is also very weak, those most assisted by child related benefits are by definition the smallest contributors in terms of wealth so we actually digging ourselves into a hole.
Deciding who pays is not complex at all. The state is clearly abdicating its responsibilities by forcing private enterprise to pay for social issues on a very random basis. Companies would do better without this burden and women would be more employable so overall the state may have more money. Why not let parents pay for their own families as most people become parents and, as you say, people should pay, one way or another?
Perfection would be a bit closer and companies would be freed up to concentrate on generating wealth just a bit more without this system.
cymtriks said:
Perfection would be a bit closer and companies would be freed up to concentrate on generating wealth just a bit more without this system.
Are you serious? Did you miss the lengthy boom that our society went through?Are you seriously saying that their isn't enough money out there? In which case, enough money for what?
Without a welfare system businesses would be having to generate wealth in a society without as much money.
I am currently er, 'involved' with some people on benefits, and from what i'm seeing those benefits are handed over to the private sector as fast as humanly possible, at top bat retail prices. These people do not shop around.
Without those benefits being handed over directly i seriously wonder where UK business would be.
And incidentally, we did *not* manage fine without a welfare system. Children were sent up chimneys, and sold for sex just as they are today in societies without a welfare system. The Victorian period really wasn;'t that long ago, especially in terms of 2 million years. I suggest you have a read about what it could be like to be a child in those days. Find out why Barnardo's was created, etc.
Business *needs* a supply of civilised, educated people. Without them all of uys a re doomed. I say that the cost of supplying the most vital asset to a society should not fall to one sector of the community, it should fall to all of us. Without this system you and i wouldn't be communicating with each other now.
Businesses need people who can function at their jobs. Let business pay their share for that.
A lot is said about the cost to businesses of maternity leave but in my experience it really isn't as bad as it is painted.
I had two members of a four person team declare themselves to be pregnant on the same day. But the first point about it is that this happens months before they need to leave, so you have probably at least four months to sort out what you are going to do.
Secondly whilst on maternity leave, although they are getting maternity pay, that is not being paid by the company. OK there was a slight increase in costs because we needed the people covering to work with the people going on leave for a short while to pick up the role, but it wasn't a massive increase in costs.
So as long as you can find people willing and able to cover it's not a major problem, in our case one of them decided not to come back and the temp has become permanent, the other is due back in a few weeks.
So whilst it is a problem, it's not the end of the world and doesn't put me off employing women.
I had two members of a four person team declare themselves to be pregnant on the same day. But the first point about it is that this happens months before they need to leave, so you have probably at least four months to sort out what you are going to do.
Secondly whilst on maternity leave, although they are getting maternity pay, that is not being paid by the company. OK there was a slight increase in costs because we needed the people covering to work with the people going on leave for a short while to pick up the role, but it wasn't a massive increase in costs.
So as long as you can find people willing and able to cover it's not a major problem, in our case one of them decided not to come back and the temp has become permanent, the other is due back in a few weeks.
So whilst it is a problem, it's not the end of the world and doesn't put me off employing women.
heebeegeetee said:
Without a welfare system businesses would be having to generate wealth in a society without as much money.
That's classic "broken windows" thinking. Redistribution is not generation.heebeegeetee said:
And incidentally, we did *not* manage fine without a welfare system. Children were sent up chimneys, and sold for sex just as they are today in societies without a welfare system. The Victorian period really wasn;'t that long ago, especially in terms of 2 million years. I suggest you have a read about what it could be like to be a child in those days. Find out why Barnardo's was created, etc.
I don't think comparisons with the Victorian era are useful or necessary. There are plenty of contemporary examples of countries with little or no welfare systems which would support your point better.I do wonder with the amount of b
hing and moaning on PH about "progressive" (i.e. redistributive) taxation and welfare systems why the moaners don't just pish off to a country with an economic system that better suits their world view. British society is not going to suddenly revert to the 1950s.heebeegeetee said:
cymtriks said:
Perfection would be a bit closer and companies would be freed up to concentrate on generating wealth just a bit more without this system.
Are you serious? Did you miss the lengthy boom that our society went through?Are you seriously saying that their isn't enough money out there? In which case, enough money for what?
heebeegeetee said:
Without a welfare system businesses would be having to generate wealth in a society without as much money.
Another straw man. I have never argued for no benefits, simple that this one is managed in a very unfair way that actively encourages discrimination the very people it was designed to help.heebeegeetee said:
I am currently er, 'involved' with some people on benefits, and from what i'm seeing those benefits are handed over to the private sector as fast as humanly possible, at top bat retail prices. These people do not shop around.
Without those benefits being handed over directly i seriously wonder where UK business would be.
Conversely without benefits those that actually earn the money would have more to spend thus keeping the economy in exactly the same place. Benefits don't appear from a magic money tree you know.Without those benefits being handed over directly i seriously wonder where UK business would be.
Once again you are offering a straw man argument.
heebeegeetee said:
And incidentally, we did *not* manage fine without a welfare system. Children were sent up chimneys, and sold for sex just as they are today in societies without a welfare system. The Victorian period really wasn;'t that long ago, especially in terms of 2 million years. I suggest you have a read about what it could be like to be a child in those days. Find out why Barnardo's was created, etc.
Either you didn't read my last post at all or this is yet another straw man.I have never argued against benefits. I have clearly described several objections to this particular one including the rationale behind it, the way it administered, where the burden falls and that it encourages discrimination.
You still have not countered any of this.
heebeegeetee said:
Business *needs* a supply of civilised, educated people. Without them all of uys a re doomed. I say that the cost of supplying the most vital asset to a society should not fall to one sector of the community, it should fall to all of us. Without this system you and i wouldn't be communicating with each other now.
Businesses need people who can function at their jobs. Let business pay their share for that.
How do child benefits relate to any of this?Businesses need people who can function at their jobs. Let business pay their share for that.
Why should businesses pay, in a very ad hoc way, as opposed to parents? Why is this better given that you have already stated that everyone pays in the end? Why not scrap it or just increase a state administered benefit?
How are any of my arguments countered by what you have posted?
HundredthIdiot said:
heebeegeetee said:
Without a welfare system businesses would be having to generate wealth in a society without as much money.
1. That's classic "broken windows" thinking. Redistribution is not generation.2. I do wonder with the amount of b
hing and moaning on PH about "progressive" (i.e. redistributive) taxation and welfare systems why the moaners don't just pish off to a country with an economic system that better suits their world view. British society is not going to suddenly revert to the 1950s.2. I couldn't agree more. This country is not called treasure island for nothiong. People here spend more and pay more than anywhere else, i reckon, and business has enjoyed some great times here. Yet they never, ever stop moaning, and its always somebiody elses fault when they think they're not doing well. The previous govt bent over backwards for business, particularly the finance sector, and what happend and where did it get us?
As i said previously, there are 60 million people in this country, every single on of whom is spending/paying money one way or another. Any business who doesn't want to be part of it can f
k off. They can go to any country in europe for a start, none of which is allowed to trade for the amount of hours that they can in the UK. In France the shoops are shut as often as they're open. Even the 8 til 8 closes for lunch. Conditions in the UK must be as favourable for business as anywhere.
And as for redistribution? Well we don't makje much anymore and our financial sector has cost us big time, so what else do we do apart from redistribute? With all the factories, mines and steel mills gone, i guess we've got to pitch our hopes with the financial sector again and hope they don't let us down.
Shuffling money is about all the UK can do. How it compares to Germany eh, said to be the world's biggest exporter, and a country proud of the quality goods that it makes and can sell at a profit.
Back to my favourite subject, "bosses favourites". Because I forgotten this little story from one workplace where I worked (and I have to be very careful what I type here.)
Married 4th in command at company (nice guy but a bit of a geezer.) makes a big mistake and has a fling with the "bosses favourite".
She asks him to leave his wife and he says no.
"Bosses favourite" runs into see boss in tears and then has the next week off work.
During this time the guy is told his presence is no longer required and is made 'redundant'. Rumours of the "bosses favourite" saying that she witnessed drug use and was encouraged to take part fly about.
Nothing happens to her at all.
..... but she rings up the guys wife and gets him chucked out of his house too for good measure.
Married 4th in command at company (nice guy but a bit of a geezer.) makes a big mistake and has a fling with the "bosses favourite".
She asks him to leave his wife and he says no.
"Bosses favourite" runs into see boss in tears and then has the next week off work.
During this time the guy is told his presence is no longer required and is made 'redundant'. Rumours of the "bosses favourite" saying that she witnessed drug use and was encouraged to take part fly about.
Nothing happens to her at all.
..... but she rings up the guys wife and gets him chucked out of his house too for good measure.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff