Printable View
That's a solid defence of your policy, Dave. Well done.Quote:
Cameron also dismissed a warning from Corbyn that the proposed cuts to tax credits would hit a private in the army with two children and a partner would lose more than £2,000 a year. The prime minister replied that the Labour leader was in no position to talk about soldiers because they would be out of a job under his plans for the armed forces.
This crap about using individual cases is never going to work. Of course some people are going to lose out in every policy.
How many individual cases would be enough to make them not individual cases, Harold?
I think, on balance, they have the right idea. Some will lose out, some won't. You can't please everyone.
Who will they please?
How many individual cases would be enough to make them not individual cases, Harold?
2, technically. But I could make the case that those not affected or affected in a positive way because of the living wage is much, much higher. Does that mean I win?
I've been confused by this living wage stuff, by the by. Are they raising the Minimum Wage to the Living Wage or rasing the recommended Living Wage? We don't have minimum wage laws here so it's all a bit confusing.
No, it means that you can't dismiss arguments that refer to "individual cases", since those are simply representative of a much larger number of cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Nor is it okay to hurt the working poor because they're a minority.
Thy're raising the minimum wage but not to the actual 'living wage' as calculated by some low-pay charity organisations. But they're calling it the living wage anyway even though it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
The Living Wage Foundation now recommends the living wage as £8.25 per hour and £9.40 per hour in London. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34692382
The government's 'living wage' will be £7.20 when it comes in and only apply to over 25s.
Will London still have a different Living Wage from elsewhere? Will it be adjusted across the country?
I have no idea about tax credits really, but is it unfair to characterise them as the government topping up (inadequate? [private sector??]) wages. If that is the case, allowing companies to not pay their staff enough and making up the difference doesn't seem an overly leftist ideal, in any sense other than the vote buying one (the key ideal of all modern political parties).
Great, so if I show those individuals who will benefit, do I win?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
I don't think so. London's current living wage (the one calculated by the Living Wage Foundation) is £9.15. The Tories' one isn't planned to reach £9 until 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Read my last post rather than ignoring it.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Not an unfair characterisation. It's pretty much what they are. It's not a leftist ideal but it's better than people getting shit wages and being told to like it or lump it.Quote:
Originally Posted by niko_cee
With inflation, wouldn't minimum wage be 9 quid by 2020 anyway? I'm sure I remember calling Ed Miliband a cock for suggesting the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Probably, yeah. It's just an outright lie by the Tories, really. It's only a raise in the minimum wage and younger people don't even get it because fuck them, they don't vote Tory.
The minimum wage didn't go up for years. You should be applauding what the Tories have implemented there. It's much higher than the minimum Labour wanted to bring in.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
As mentioned above, I called the Labour idea crap. It's called 'independent thought' where I can agree with something on one level and disagree with it on another. Maybe you'll learn it some day.
I go against the grain on most issues. I scarcely think I can be accused of non-independent thought. Still, we can both agree then that the Tories are ahead of all the other parties on the minimum wage, can't we?
It will make little difference, anyway. If everyone gets paid more then the prices of goods and services will simply go up.
Is that what would happen (was happening?) though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
And if the answer is no, because there is always someone who will work for a pittance, then that probably throws up other questions.
Yes, it's about keeping the wages higher than the price of goods going up. It's the basic premise of inflation/deflation :cab:Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
You really do struggle when it comes to economics, don't you?
No, you struggle with reality. If the wages go too high then the big companies will find a way around it and the smaller companies will struggle. It will make no difference to people in the end as the price of goods and services will go up accordingly and people will be laid off. It's all very nice saying we should pay more than inflation but you can't make that the case when people will happily work for less. And we all know who those people are, largely.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Oh, and economists are also shit.
If there's always someone who'll work for a pittance, isn't the answer to your question 'yes'?Quote:
Originally Posted by niko_cee
Hang on, weren't you the one going on about how if jobs picking fruit or whatever that foreigners come over to do for a pittance paid proper wages then British people would work them and we wouldn't need immigrants and everything would be fine and dandy?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I don't believe I said everything would be fine and dandy? But yes, it would help. It doesn't change anything I said. Those fruit pickers I referred to are getting less than minimum wage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Even if they are (I'd imagine most aren't), there are laws to force the employers to pay minimum wage. You were, at the time of that discussion, advocating those jobs pay more so British people would do them but now you're saying higher wages would mean higher prices (which you were told at the time but I think your defence was "it's not all about economics"). Seems like you want higher wages when it's part of an anti-immigrant stance but don't agree with when it comes from a leftist perspective like of those who have been advocating it in here. Not very consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
At this point I'd like to point everyone to the existence of the "Ignore" feature on their profile pages. Alas I cannot use it being a moderator, but targeted correctly it may make the board a more enjoyable place. :)
Yes, they should pay minimum wage, at least. There is a medium you must get to, and simply paying every £10 an hour plus or whatever the class warriors demand these days will only serve to see more people out of jobs. It's a matter of striking the right balance which is what the Tories are trying to do. The left always love a good whinge at them but they never have any answers of their own, besides borrowing and borrowing. Let the next generation deal with the shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Well, yeah. Caveat with wrong word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg_NMTrgZrk
:evictory:
The honest answer is, I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by niko_cee
If you can get employers to pay more then I don't mind tax credits being taken away but to just cut them and then hope that employers are going to pay doesn't seem like the best way to go about it. It's like their expansionary fiscal contraction idea. It just seems to be "we'll cut this and then hope this other stuff fills in for it but if it doesn't we don't really care because all we want is to cut anyway".
The next generation is already dealing with it since they're not getting any wages rises if they can even find jobs to begin with and they're going to be stuck renting for years if not forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
The idea of public debt as being borrowing from the next generation is bullshit anyway. It's a claim of one part of society (pension funds etc.) on another (taxpayers).
The easier solution would be to cut taxes to match/exceed the money people are losing. Inevitably some people might still lose out, but it solves the welfare issue.
They will be getting rises, though..... quite significantly so in some cases. More jobs would be available if we didn't insist on shipping in immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
The Tories' 'National Living Wage' doesn't apply to under-25s.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
That's true but they are giving a rise to apprentices as well. It's broadly the right way to go. Not everyone can get what they want. Most people these days don't leave home until their mid/late twenties, so maybe that was taken into consideration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
I'm not sure if it's most people don't leave home until their mid-late twenties but even for those who are still at home, it's probably because they can't afford to move out rather than not wanting to. So it's not really taking that into consideration so much as exacerbating the problem.
The underlying issue to it all is the cost of housing. If it hadn't climbed so much, wages wouldn't even need to go up much. Bring it back down by building more houses and wages won't matter quite so much. But that won't happen because all the twats who have benefited from rising house pages would shit themselves and throw the government (whoever it happens to be) out.
We all know that house prices are ridiculous and most of us will probably not own our home. I'm not sure what could actually be done about it, though. I agree with your sentiments on this.
Build more, surely?
Under twenty-fives should pay less taxes if they get stiffed on benefits and the minimum wage.
I thought that's what they were planning to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
I'm not sure the levels they're planning are even enough to keep up with demand though, never mind actually increasing supply enough that prices will go down.
Well, if the population goes up by 500,000 every year it's not going to be easy to build your way out of that.
I've always wondered why they get stiffed on this. What is the rationale behind it? Either you're an adult or you're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
It's the experience argument, isn't it? At least it was for the lower levels of the minimum wage for under 21s. They need training etc whereas older people don't apparently. As if their employers were investing loads of money in training them in how to use a till in a supermarket.
On the minimum wage it's that it gives them a better chance of finding work if employers can pay them less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
I'm less sure what the rationale of the benefits argument is.
That's interesting. Given that we're a pretty conservative country, and taking it to mean what came to pass rather than wanky theory ('Ooh, the state just withers away...'), my guess is that people 1) think fascism automatically means Nazism; 2) possibly don't know much about communist states.
Lewis the fascist.