After 16 years i've left local gov

Status
Not open for further replies.
IronWarrior said:
Conscription in the Military or a Civil Service at the age of 18 or 21 for 4 or 8 years would be really good start for everyone.
Click to expand...

No, not until this country stops believing it's the worlds second slightly mentally dim police deputy. Other than that, i couldn't give a **** as nation states are coming to an end.
 
IronWarrior said:
Not everyone in the country needs to claim it. People who already successfully or working, don't need to claim for it, but if they fall on hard times, they don't need to worry themselves sick about losing their homes or not having enough food for themselves or their kids, it shouldn't really be too different from the current system we have now.

If we can give people a foundation for themselves to stand, start at. Then they can build themselves up, how we go about that... that's out my depth. lol
Click to expand...


Errr the point is its universal mate everyone gets it....

Otherwise it's just benifits.


Conscription in the Military or a Civil Service at the age of 18 or 21 for 4 or 8 years would be really good start for everyone.
Click to expand...


Well no that's insane.

Youve just removed every career opertunity from an entire generation.

No degrees no expernece no internships no higher education.

Being effectivly unemployed for 8 years till you're nearly 30 means you have limited career prospects at best.
 
Tefal said:
Well no that's insane.

Youve just removed every career opertunity from an entire generation.

No degrees no expernece no internships no higher education.

Being effectivly unemployed for 8 years till you're nearly 30 means you have limited career prospects at best.
Click to expand...


100's of countries had military conscription, we had it, never did any harm. South Korea has it, Singapore has it, both very high tech countries with military service and high education levels.

To be fair, they only serve a small number of years, but the number of years is irreverent, a correct number can be decided upon after debate.
 
I do find it strange that a generation of people who weren't ever obliged to join the army under conscription, think that it is fair to impose that on an entire younger generation of people.

Not everyone comes out of the military and does wonderful things. Often those that see combat have PTSD or sometimes those that don't can't cope without the regimented lifestyle.
 
Minusorange said:
And what about the disabled people who are unable to get in to the job centre to use those terminals or are physically unable to use a computer ?

Online service is great as long as you have the use of your arms and/or aren't blind and know how to use a computer from home

Just because we all use the internet doesn't mean there isn't millions of people who choose not to either out of fear of technology or simply have no interest
Click to expand...

They have friends and or family they can ask to help them or a carer, etc.

Seriously it's not hard applying. That isn't a barrier. Putting it online is only making it much easier for everyone.
 
pooley said:
yup, says the chap who probably has never done any! lolz
Click to expand...
Yep but had it been forced I hope that I would have told the authorities to stick their mil cons up their rear ends, some of the younger gen might enjoy running around in action man style combat gear and be trained to kill but I reckon many would exercise their conscientious objections?
 
Minusorange said:
Universal income, every person gets enough to be able to house, feed and keep themselves warm during winter, basically enough money to survive, want anything more and well.... you'll have to work for it

Sure you'll have folk who will do the bare minimum but you'll find a lot more will be productive and the vast majority will have much happier lives as a result

Or we continue down this path of ultimate self destruction that society is on course towards
Click to expand...

late to the party but...

...why work if the government will pay for you to live?

The people that DO work will have to pay so much more tax to cover this "plan".
 
Overlag said:
late to the party but...

...why work if the government will pay for you to live?

The people that DO work will have to pay so much more tax to cover this "plan".
Click to expand...
Universal income is pure fantasy land. No idea why it keeps being pushed as a solution. It simply can't work. No serious economist has ever proposed UBI as workable. They all think it's pie in the sky thinking.
 
FoxEye said:
Universal income is pure fantasy land. No idea why it keeps being pushed as a solution. It simply can't work. No serious economist has ever proposed UBI as workable. They all think it's pie in the sky thinking.
Click to expand...

i understand people are frustrated with the huge pay gap between the top tier people and the lower end of the work force, but UBI isnt the answer. We have two main issues i feel:

1: Shoot me for mentioning it, but high immigration pushes wages down because there is always someone willing to do it for less. This is why the big businesses love immigration and the EU system. This is why there is so much anti EU anti immigration stuff from the lower end of the workforce.

2: If you cant import (enough) cheap labour, outsource your factories/offices to India and China, for the same reason above, cheap labour. This is why Trump has said enough is enough and starting to put massive tariffs on imports. It will hurt in the short term but companies will pretty much be forced to bring the jobs BACK to the USA if they want to sell in the USA, and its what we need here.

Currently in both of these situations the CEO will get a big payrise or bonus for "cost savings" and all the shareholders will love him/her, while the wages for the average worker in that company nose dives.
 
Overlag said:
1: Shoot me for mentioning it, but high immigration pushes wages down because there is always someone willing to do it for less. This is why the big businesses love immigration and the EU system. This is why there is so much anti EU anti immigration stuff from the lower end of the workforce.
Click to expand...

We have a minimum wage, so I can only assume you are talking about immigrants willing to do skilled jobs for say 5k less than their UK counterparts?

Overlag said:
2: If you cant import (enough) cheap labour, outsource your factories/offices to India and China, for the same reason above, cheap labour. This is why Trump has said enough is enough and starting to put massive tariffs on imports. It will hurt in the short term but companies will pretty much be forced to bring the jobs BACK to the USA if they want to sell in the USA, and its what we need here.
Click to expand...

Trump is just a complete hypocrite playing to his base.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mar-a-lago-foreign-worker-visas_us_5a8797d1e4b004fc31923884

An examination of filings by the Trump Organization with the Labor Department from 2016 to 2017 reveals that a lone American worker, a cook, was hired in August 2016 among 144 open positions for servers, cooks, housekeepers and bartenders, Vox found. Most of the jobs were at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump’s favorite weekend getaway. The others were the National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, in New York, and Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida. The jobs generally pay $10 to $13 an hour.

Mar-a-Lago was granted 70 visas to bring in foreign workers just last year for the winter season beginning in October. That was a 9 percent increase over the previous year.

Since 2010 Mar-a-Lago alone has obtained a total of 500 H-2B visas for seasonal workers, many of them from Haiti and Romania, sources have told The New Yorker.
Click to expand...
 
Wow.... I had a few Sherry's and decided to post a quick comment haha. Forgot about it, came back to 6 pages of, in fairness some nice comments.

Sorry for the person attacks on Tory supporters haha.

I saw someone say "what do i suggest for breaking the benefit cycle"..... Inclution, education and investment. Yes those things cost, but so does brushing poor people under the carpet... Eventually the problems will spill out and cost you more in the long run.

Austerity has to stop/change. Local goverment aka councils are falling apart.... People from outside **** them off, but if i'm honest everyone wants to do a decent job, but theres too much red tape mixed in with cut after cut. Mix in then the serious issues that UC brings, the cost of which falls on local Authority....
 
FoxEye said:
Universal income is pure fantasy land. No idea why it keeps being pushed as a solution. It simply can't work. No serious economist has ever proposed UBI as workable. They all think it's pie in the sky thinking.
Click to expand...

There is a long list of well respected and award-winning economists who have endorsed some form of UBI or negative income tax, including Joseph Stiglitz, James Tobin, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, James Meade, Paul Krugman, F. A. Hayek, Herbert A. Simon, Robert Solow, Daniel McFadden, Sir Chris Pissarides and Peter Diamond… to name a few. ;)

There's obviously some debate about the best way to implement it (as discussed in the previous thread), but claiming that no serious economists believe it could work (in some form or another) is patently false.
 
Irish_Tom said:
There is a long list of well respected and award-winning economists who have endorsed some form of UBI or negative income tax, including Joseph Stiglitz, James Tobin, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, James Meade, Paul Krugman, F. A. Hayek, Herbert A. Simon, Robert Solow, Daniel McFadden, Sir Chris Pissarides and Peter Diamond… to name a few. ;)

There's obviously some debate about the best way to implement it (as discussed in the previous thread), but claiming that no serious economists believe it could work (in some form or another) is patently false.
Click to expand...

Ubi is the way forward, what some people fail to realise is that Ubi will not be as generous to non contributors (gross and net) as the current setup can be. It would, instead, require significant changes in personal responsibility among some sections of the population as it would remove both the benefits trap and the compensation for making poor decisions.

The current system is exceptionally unfair and damaging to the country as a whole, and needs to be urgently addressed as the transition period would need to be lengthy to protect those encouraged in poor decisions by the current setup when it changes.
 
I think at some point we all have to agree, that if technology keeps moving the way it's going something like UBI is inevitable....

Unless of course another idea is concocted. It's because people really loathe this whole something for nothing idea. Rarrr rarr in my day I had to bootstraps for my stuff!!!

Who knows though really.......
 
Dolph said:
Ubi is the way forward, what some people fail to realise is that Ubi will not be as generous to non contributors (gross and net) as the current setup can be. It would, instead, require significant changes in personal responsibility among some sections of the population as it would remove both the benefits trap and the compensation for making poor decisions.

The current system is exceptionally unfair and damaging to the country as a whole, and needs to be urgently addressed as the transition period would need to be lengthy to protect those encouraged in poor decisions by the current setup when it changes.
Click to expand...
I was waiting for you to pop up. :)

I think you're right. I mentioned in the previous thread (and earlier in this one) that it's interesting how the concept of UBI appeals to both sides of the political spectrum. @Caracus2k showed earlier how costly it would be to try and pay out a UBI at current minimum wage levels, but on the flip-side, the £3,813.84 available to a single Universal Credit claimant (aged over 25 with no other additional elements) isn't going to go very far.

Nixon's Family Assistance Plan (which wasn't UBI in it's purest form but a 'national floor under incomes for working or dependent families') didn't make it through Congress because the right thought it was too expensive and the left thought it wasn’t generous enough. I think that ultimately, finding a political happy medium is the real solution to the introduction of any form of UBI, but as you say, it's not going to be an easy process.

I really didn't want to derail this thread into another UBI discussion so apologies to the OP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom