MrSmith Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 With a currency that is printed into existence backed by promises based upon the future work of the youth and their children and their children's children? I think not pal. Who run up the debt? Personal debt, Lots of people but many of them would have been the people that that became home owners over the past 8 years. Government debt Everyone that benefited from the excessive spending of the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 A tax is paid and that would be the case regardless of any unemployment wouldn't it? But if we had less benefit applicants then surely the tax would be lower,whilst we are paying more out then collecting we will be in the mire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Did anyone see questiontime last night, with some of the fruitcakes (the young people) on the show? One wanted to do a songwriting course, which was then dropped by the college. The girl said "the college suggested I do beauty or sumfink" she then said "wat youse is dat?" and Jerermy suggested it would help get a job and she was baffled. Another youth felt that the jobs were not ecological and caring for the environment, and the jobs were not paid enough. Most said they could not get jobs within the chosen area of their degree, and these were the educated section of the unemployed youth. Thankfully, we did not see the uneducated ones (the school drop outs). I personally was one of the 3 million in the 1990s (when unemployment was at its peak), and back in those days, myself and my dingbat mates (who were all the illeducated of the day - not a single GCSE between us) would take any job. In the 1990s, if you wanted a job then you could get one, it would be a rubbish job on poor pay, but it would be a job. I get the feeling many of these young unemployed today would not take a job unless it was a dream job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 But if we had less benefit applicants then surely the tax would be lower,whilst we are paying more out then collecting we will be in the mire. I doubt it works like that at all given that the purpose of 'tax' in its original form was to obtain money for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Tax is paid to pay for services and is not for nothing,who do you think pays the wages of our forces,binmen and schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Tax is paid to pay for services and is not for nothing,who do you think pays the wages of our forces,binmen and schools. I'm not disputing where it goes now all i'm saying is that regardless of how many we have unemployed we will still pay tax. It's unlikely to be lowered; it may be capped, but as costs rise universally then an increase in tax will occur in order to be able to afford the services you mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I think it would be common sense that if we had no unemployment taxes would be either lower or services a damn sight better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I think it would be common sense that if we had no unemployment taxes would be either lower or services a damn sight better. Ahhh! common sense, the achilles heel of governments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I think it would be common sense that if we had no unemployment taxes would be either lower or services a damn sight better. Not necessarily. Imagine, if instead of 2 million unemployed costing around £3,000 p/a each, we had 2 million desk jockeys creating bureaucracy and costing £15,000 p/a each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Did anyone see questiontime last night, with some of the fruitcakes (the young people) on the show? One wanted to do a songwriting course, which was then dropped by the college. The girl said "the college suggested I do beauty or sumfink" she then said "wat youse is dat?" and Jerermy suggested it would help get a job and she was baffled. Another youth felt that the jobs were not ecological and caring for the environment, and the jobs were not paid enough. Most said they could not get jobs within the chosen area of their degree, and these were the educated section of the unemployed youth. Thankfully, we did not see the uneducated ones (the school drop outs). I personally was one of the 3 million in the 1990s (when unemployment was at its peak), and back in those days, myself and my dingbat mates (who were all the illeducated of the day - not a single GCSE between us) would take any job. In the 1990s, if you wanted a job then you could get one, it would be a rubbish job on poor pay, but it would be a job. I get the feeling many of these young unemployed today would not take a job unless it was a dream job Having educated themselves to Degree level I can't say I blame a proportion of them for seeking employment that suits their level of education but yes, work is available. Sadly people outnumber the availability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.