Axe personal allowance and pay everyone £48 a week, says thinktank

[Bear]

I note that you state that the poor are not contributing to the running of services.

Are you assuming that the poor do not work at all? Or are you bemoaning that people who earn the least pay the least tax?

What about the hard-working poor? Those households who are poor despite earning a wage (or two), because rents are so high that many vocations only pay enough for a distinctly hand-to-mouth existence?

What about the hard-working poor who depend on food banks still?

I'm not sure why you think the poor are doing nothing to contribute. Heck, they are probably the ones providing many of the services you talk about. Fixing your roads, providing care for the elderly, working in schools and hospitals, doing paperwork in your local council offices. And being paid a pittance.

They do nothing to finacially contribute because they barely pay anything towards their own up keep of services. They are a net recipients yet are often more than happy to harp on about how certain services are going down hill despite not funding them themselves whilst reaping the benefits

In reality I was playing devils advocate, I couldnt care less that some pay more than others and am glad that my taxes goes to help improve society as a whole as we all benefit. What I do object to are people having a chip on their shoulders about people earning more than them and pointing fingers without whilst what they say could equally apply to them but they dont see it because they like to think they are more socially aware because they are spending someone elses money

 

[Eurofighter]

There are certain jobs that must be done.

Bin men for example. Sure they could get some more education and get better jobs. They would pay more tax. But then who would empty the bins.

Perhaps someone else who would then be on an unlivable wage, or maybe we get immigrants in. Either way we need someone to empty the bins. you shouldn't just say get a better job, someone always has to empty the bins because it is a needed service. So just pay them a bloody living wage.

And this goes for many other low paid jobs.

Just sayin.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Ok so why the record high employment we have at the moment?

(a) Because of zero hours. (b) Because I'm talking about what is going to happen not has happened.

 

[dowie]

(a) Because of zero hours. (b) Because I'm talking about what is going to happen not has happened.

Zero hours are a minority of the jobs that are being created AFAIK.

Re: what is going to happen - I’m not seeing any reason to think things are going to be radically different.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Also there is an assumption been made that many people who are unemployed are doing it out of choice, there is no basis to that assumption, according to DWP's own data the majority of people on JSA are short term claimants.

I've bolded two words to highlight how the latter part of your statement which is cast as support for the first part does not in fact prove the case. 60% of recipients could be genuinely seeking work but that would still leave many who are unwilling to work. Figures just picked to illustrate the point. I mean, I've known plenty of people who deliberately avoided paid employment through either false medical claims or deliberately trying to make themselves unemployable in interview. Anecdotes are not useful to prove statistical outcomes but they are useful to disprove a negative. I.e. that there's no basis to think people do it out of choice. It is staggeringly unlikely that I am some massive outlier in terms of knowing such people. If I personally know several such people there are doubtless many such people out there.

You also, I have to say, seem to be arguing past me having again responded to something that doesn't really seem to have much to do with what I wrote.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Zero hours are a minority of the jobs that are being created AFAIK.

Re: what is going to happen - I’m not seeing any reason to think things are going to be radically different.

Unemployment rates even between the extreme swings from the late 70's to today vary by around 8% at most. By definition the difference in variation therefore is going to be a "minority" of the jobs. If you think zero hours contracts would have to be greater than 50% of the jobs market before you could claim it had a significant effect on our unemployment rates then you're no lover of statistics. You're just someone who thinks if they say the word "minority" it sounds good for your argument.

As regards you not seeing any reason to think things will be different, well yes - that's why we're having this conversation. You don't see it. But nontheless, it is there. And it's not my job (zero hours or otherwise) to convince you. I'm happy to just wait ten / fifteen years and let time prove you wrong.

 

[dowie]

Well that’s fine, the thing is people were making the same arguments 10 years ago and 10 years before that and so on...

I never said zero hours jobs would have to make up greater than 50% of the jobs market to have an effect.

IIRC they make up below 3%

 

[krooton]

A better economy may have avoided that pay cut.

Nope, it was due to stupid coporate rules that limit annual payrise amounts.

She was originally getting 26% extra pay as part of an 'Acting Up' role.
Now they want to change the 'Acting Up' to be part of her base salary, but the corporate rules only allow a 10% maximum payrise in any given year.
Nothing to do with the economy, everything to do with her company being ****s.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Well that’s fine, the thing is people were making the same arguments 10 years ago and 10 years before that and so on...

I never said zero hours jobs would have to make up greater than 50% of the jobs market to have an effect.

IIRC they make up below 3%

Between today and 1995 - over two decades - maximum variation in unemployment rates has been around 4%. So yes - 3% makes a pretty bloody big difference. And yes, when you start saying things like "actually zero hours are a minority of newly created jobs" you're exactly implying that the fact they are a minority is somehow a counter-argument to them being very significant. Basically you followed process that went "minority = not significant, majority = significant" without thinking through what you were actually talking about. If the "minority" is near-equivalent to the degree of variation, then it can account for a potentially very large part of that variation.

 

[Hagar]

Between today and 1995 - over two decades - maximum variation in unemployment rates has been around 4%. So yes - 3% makes a pretty bloody big difference. And yes, when you start saying things like "actually zero hours are a minority of newly created jobs" you're exactly implying that the fact they are a minority is somehow a counter-argument to them being very significant. Basically you followed process that went "minority = not significant, majority = significant" without thinking through what you were actually talking about. If the "minority" is near-equivalent to the degree of variation, then it can account for a potentially very large part of that variation.

I think you and @dowie are using different statistics. You are quoting unemployment rates whereas Dowie is quoting employment rates. 3% of jobs being zero hours cannot be compared to overall variation in unemployment statistics, yes which vary slowly.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I think you and @dowie are using different statistics. You are quoting unemployment rates whereas Dowie is quoting employment rates. 3% of jobs being zero hours cannot be compared to overall variation in unemployment statistics, yes which vary slowly.

In that case, if variation over the last decade is 4% and overall unemployment rate is between 4% and 8% in that time, then 3% of total jobs is a factor of around 15 compared to the unemployment rate. I.e. the 3% of total jobs can account for up to 45% of the variation. Or to put it casually, 3% of total jobs still counts for a lot in relative terms to the variation which is itself a small percentage of the total size of the employment pool. It's not parity as I worked out from their figures, but it's a little under half of the variation could be accounted for by zero hours. It wont be, but the argument of "3% of total jobs" does not translate how Dowie seems to think in to unemployment variation because you're not directly comparing like for like.

 

[dowie]

You made the comparison between the variation in unemploymemt rates not me.

On mobile now but can cite some data later if you’re interested.

 

[chaparral]

There are certain jobs that must be done.

Bin men for example. Sure they could get some more education and get better jobs. They would pay more tax. But then who would empty the bins.
.

Bin men get paid around £14 per hour (Give or take a £1)