Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

George Osbourne Planning Tax credit cuts: Fair?

Recommended Posts

Fine. So you don't think "unpaid wages" are a bad thing.

 

Do you include pension funds in "private shareholders' pockets" ?

 

You're talking rubbish now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were you around before the NMW?

 

All I see now is it causing problems. I knew it would. I dislike the idea of it.

 

A living wage solves a lot of problems. Better than a high welfare low wage society

 

How did I know you wouldn't answer the first question, and instead post nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did I know you wouldn't answer the first question, and instead post nonsense.

 

Was I around before the NMW?

What sort of nonsense is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was I around before the NMW?

What sort of nonsense is that?

 

Don't try and turn it around. You know what I mean - Were you ever in the workplace/looking for work before it?

 

I'm wasting my time, I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

 

I don't think I'd believe you if you said yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He only graduated 4 years ago, so definitely not.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 08:17 ----------

 

I actually said more of the profits of mne should go somewhere else than private shareholders pockets.

 

In what way are they "yours" if you don't own the business and didn't put up the capital at risk in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearing in mind that the Tories, who are constantly banging on about the importance of cutting the deficit, are also finding money to reduce inheritance tax and bribe (the better off) housing association tenants to buy their house, of course it isn`t fair (or consistent) policy.

 

It seems a rather better policy than running up an unsustainable deficit whilst increasing taxes on everyone for no apparent gain which is what Brown and his boys achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Countries do better economically when there is minimal government interference. The flaw with this approach is that it lacks social justice, but that's not a matter of economics.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 20:55 ----------

 

 

Lending with interest. Can't have that. That's profit. Obviously unfairly confiscated from some worker somewhere.

 

Economically for whom? Frankly, I'm not interested directly in how well the 'country' the doing. I'm interested in how well I'm doing and how well the poorest in our society are doing. I accept that these things are linked but saying GDP went up by 7% in a country without interference and only 4% in one with it is utterly meaningless to most people.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 10:14 ----------

 

The company can't just increase prices. In any market with competition, the price is determined by supply and demand.

 

Every solution on here seems to involve the government handing out money, or seizing money or ordering people about. This is not impossible, but every time you do something like that, you make the businesses you're messing with less competitive. That means at the very least that they'll not grow as fast as they might have and therefore generate fewer jobs.

 

Yes and every company will have the same minimum wage within the UK meaning all of their costs will go up by similar amounts. People in the UK will on average earn more so can afford the increase in prices as I've already pointed out would be lower than the increase in wages. This is all fairly basic economics I'd have thought.

 

Prices have been rising steadily above inflation for some time (RPI) yet somehow sales don't seem to be dropping, why is that?

 

Some things may end up overseas, *SOME*, but that will be mostly lower skilled work and that's already happened massively. My local newsagent can hardly relocate to India can it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote=sgtkate;11195827

Some things may end up overseas, *SOME*, but that will be mostly lower skilled work and that's already happened massively. My local newsagent can hardly relocate to India can it?

 

No,but the Indian can relocate to your local newsagent :) (sorry just a joke ..almost :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No,but the Indian can relocate to your local newsagent :) (sorry just a joke ..almost :) )

 

:hihi: Not in Swallownest mate. :help:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economically for whom? Frankly, I'm not interested directly in how well the 'country' the doing. I'm interested in how well I'm doing and how well the poorest in our society are doing. I accept that these things are linked but saying GDP went up by 7% in a country without interference and only 4% in one with it is utterly meaningless to most people.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 10:14 ----------

 

 

Yes and every company will have the same minimum wage within the UK meaning all of their costs will go up by similar amounts. People in the UK will on average earn more so can afford the increase in prices as I've already pointed out would be lower than the increase in wages. This is all fairly basic economics I'd have thought.

 

Prices have been rising steadily above inflation for some time (RPI) yet somehow sales don't seem to be dropping, why is that?

 

Some things may end up overseas, *SOME*, but that will be mostly lower skilled work and that's already happened massively. My local newsagent can hardly relocate to India can it?

 

The link between the state of the national economy and one's own standard of living can be complicated and seem distant but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

The GDP tells you ultimately how much money there is.

In the sort term, if the state takes measures to improve "fairness", then the poor get a temporary boost, but nobody has yet come up with a way of doing this that doesn't damage growth. Some years later, you may still have your "fairness", but the people you were trying to help are actually living on less than they would have been if you'd just left things alone.

 

I find it odd that you talk so casually about jobs being transferred overseas. How many people are you willing to put out of work entirely and condemn to a life on benefits in the name of "fairness"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He only graduated 4 years ago, so definitely not.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 08:17 ----------

 

 

In what way are they "yours" if you don't own the business and didn't put up the capital at risk in the first place?

 

Profits are generated by hard working staff. its right that they should receive compensation in the form of a fair wage.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 10:41 ----------

 

Don't try and turn it around. You know what I mean - Were you ever in the workplace/looking for work before it?

 

I'm wasting my time, I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

 

I don't think I'd believe you if you said yes.

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/national-minimum-wage

according to this the NMW was introduced in 1999.

Not that its in the slightest bit relevant.

Ive been working since i was 14, my first job was helping out on the milkround for £1.50 per hour. So the answer is yes.

Edited by TJC1
.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They agree to the wage before they ever start work, and profit is only generated because of the capital someone else is risking.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 10:46 ----------

 

The link between the state of the national economy and one's own standard of living can be complicated and seem distant but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

The GDP tells you ultimately how much money there is.

In the sort term, if the state takes measures to improve "fairness", then the poor get a temporary boost, but nobody has yet come up with a way of doing this that doesn't damage growth. Some years later, you may still have your "fairness", but the people you were trying to help are actually living on less than they would have been if you'd just left things alone.

 

I find it odd that you talk so casually about jobs being transferred overseas. How many people are you willing to put out of work entirely and condemn to a life on benefits in the name of "fairness"?

 

And yet in the countries with the lowest levels of income and wealth disparity, happiness is highest.

People care more about the difference between rich and poor, than they care about how rich or poor they actually are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.