That number is fairly consistent. So no there's no need for it to be that high. Of course jobs are lost and created. But there's shouldn't be hundreads of thousands of jobs constantly.
Are you concerned about youth unemployment figures?
- Thread starter Trento
- Start date
That number is fairly consistent. So no there's no need for it to be that high. Of course jobs are lost and created. But there's shouldn't be hundreads of thousands of jobs constantly.
You have a method of filling jobs instantly? Do tell.
That's the problem with an artificial base value for labour (in the form of the minimum wage), companies want the best value for money, so employ the most experienced person who will work for the wage they want to pay. At the bottom end of the job market, those with no experience are often competing with others with more, and cannot lower their wage requirements to make themselves more attractive to employers.
We need a complete reassessment of employment cost regulation, benefits and taxation before we can start to really address it.
Did I say that? No.
Can I have a job implementing this for you?
How would you lower wages without increasing the wealth-fare state? Minimum wage already isn't a living wage.
Then how is there not going to be thousands of job vacancies?
And take the tax credits.
House sharing is bad for your health, it *will* bump up the cost of the NHS.
Firstly, recognise that the welfare state, in its current form, is a significant contributor to the problem of cost inflation (see housing benefit increasing average rents, childcare tax credits increasing child costs and so on).
Then, recognising that the current welfare system creates a distinct trapping effect, and removing that, to ensure that anyone who does any work will always be better off than those who do not.
Implementation wise, I stand by my proposal to implement a universal benefit and taxation system to achieve this, whereby benefits act as a top up for the low paid, and as a tax free allowance for those earning more. This also has the effect of ensuring that everyone contributes, and removes the special incentive to either cut things that only impact others (eg benefits), or increase benefits by taxing other people.
Rubbish, most of us have shared for many years.
And the price of gas/leccy? Food? Transport? All rising well above wages.
You want to replace tax credits, a system that tops up low wages and has a tax free allowance ... with a new system hat tops up low wages and has a tax free allowance.
And health was crappy as a result.
It really is basic. I was taught in school, these little things, called "germs", spread disease, often person to person. The closer you are to others, the faster they spread.
thankfully their are people that work for free to gain experience but for a good outcome, its a different case for those jobs no-one wants to do but an immigrant..
And a cold does not cost NHS anything.
It really is as basic as, you are clearly clueless. Sharing does not significantly decrease health and certainly would not cost the NHS more in comparison to the reduction. Virtually no one lives alone for life.
Absolutely stupid argument.
It really is as basic as, you are clearly clueless. Sharing does not significantly decrease health and certainly would not cost the NHS more in comparison to the reduction. Virtually no one lives alone for life.
Absolutely stupid argument.
If you gave me enough money to live on and didn't expect me to work for it, I'd probably not work at all. At least not for money. Does your universal benefit assume people will still work or will it just not be enough to live on?
I am not talking living alone, if YOU are, then you seriously over estimate the number doing so.
Your coming across as if you need to cram 8/9 people (two families) into one house. In which case, influenza, TB, and the plague would like a word with you.
Your coming across as if you need to cram 8/9 people (two families) into one house. In which case, influenza, TB, and the plague would like a word with you.
And the price of gas/leccy? Food? Transport? All rising well above wages.
You want to replace tax credits, a system that tops up low wages and has a tax free allowance ... with a new system hat tops up low wages and has a tax free allowance.
Tax credits is a terrible system, massively inefficient due to the tax/rebate structure, and suffering a high withdrawal rate as you come towards the end of the qualifying amount.
In my alternative system, every individual receives the state credit, but all income is taxed at a flat rate. This results in the tax due offsetting against the credit given, but in a much more efficient way as there's no entitlements to calculate or cut off points as such.
Say, for example, a £10k government payment, and a 30% tax rate on all income gives an effective tax free allowance (where the tax paid and payment received balance) of £33k per year. Someone who earns £20k per year pays £6k in tax and therefore has a total income of £24k, someone who earns £10k per year pays £3k in tax and has a total income of £17k, while on the flip side, someone who earns £40k pays £12k tax and has an total income of £38k.
In this way you remove the benefit trap and also the unfairness in the system whereby some people have their income massively made up but others do not. Everyone is treated the same. If you want to add additional benefits (say £2k per annum per child) you can do so, and everyone benefits the same, either as an increased take home or an increased effective tax free amount.
Of course, some won't like it because it requires personal responsibility, but I'm with Beveridge on that, and agree with his specific objection to means testing. We should not reward poor behaviour/choices, nor should we try to equalise incomes regardless of behaviour/effort.
If you gave me enough money to live on and didn't expect me to work for it, I'd probably not work at all. At least not for money. Does your universal benefit assume people will still work or will it just not be enough to live on?
Define live on? It would be enough to survive on, but you'll always be better off working than if you weren't. It certainly wouldn't cover the sort of situations we have currently with housing benefit etc where you can have a better lifestyle when you're 'entitled'.
Your average 2.4 family cannot house share in your average 2-up, 2-down terrace. It just doesn't work.
I'm not exaggerating disease in this day and age, I am pointing out that going backwards in living conditions will mean going backwards in health. Since primarily it is the living conditions that have improved health.