xenia Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 What’s wrong with the idea of a homeless unemployed people being offered food and accommodation in return for work. People are already volunteering to work in exchange for free food and accommodation; in fact many of us work so we can pay for food and accommodation. The typical arrangement is for the helper to work an average of 4 hours per day and in return receive free accommodation and meals for their efforts. Mr Smith I salute your eloquence and common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 If you look at my previous posts you will see that I am saying that tax is being taken FROM people who can least afford it (young, old, disabled, unemployed) and far too much is being given TO those who not only don't need it but don't deserve it either. It has created a situation where there is no incentive to work. Labour have created a situation where ability to pay is irrelevant. You pay tax whether you can afford it or not. Can all pensioners afford Council Tax? No, but they all have to pay it. Does everyone on benefits need it? Of course not, but they want it and they can all get it. It's absurd to suggest we are taxed according to our ability to pay and we get what we need in return. That ideal of the welfare state went out in the 1960s. I agree that direct taxes on low incomes inevitably disincentivises work. But it's not just Labour, no party in this country has seriously tackled the issue of how we move people from welfare to work with as little disincentive as possible. If someone on benefits, who has done the numbers correctly, rightly says "it's not worth getting a job because I will only gain an extra few quid a week AND it means I spend less time with my family" or, even worse "it's not worth it because I will make a net LOSS" then the only solutions are as follows... 1) Eliminate income tax at a threshold deemed sufficient to negate the above dilemma. Start with minimum wage per annum salary and work upwards from there. It has to be an experiment at first. 2) Introduce a more robust negative income tax whereby a basic income is guaranteed, but for every extra pound someone earns, 50p of their benefits are cut... or a more suitable threshold. We have to experiment and there have to be guinea pigs unfortunately. This is/was supported by respected economists right across the left-right spectrum and has only been half-implemented in the form of working tax credits (a far more bureaucratic and inadequate version). 3) Implement proper codetermination laws (this is a simple amendment of corporate charters handed out by the state) so that workers have more stake in the fruits of their labour. Employees in med-large firms should be more intrinsically linked to the capital growth of the company they work with (not "for"). This means any employee negotiations must sympathise with the cost burden of their demands upon the company's capital growth rather than government arbitrarily deciding the minimum cost of labour (presuming this somehow has no potential negative effect on the ability for companies to employ as part of that cost). 4) Reduce, with a view to scrapping, minimum wage (only when the other points have been implemented and are deemed workable) to open up work to those who wish to gain skills in a job, rather than employers being unable to hire such forward thinking individuals merely because they are forced to pay them above their deemed worth (charity) or not hire them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Sorry did not fully answer your question. I would rather work and earn rather than stay at home festering and sponging on the state. I would rather look at myself in the mirror and see a net contributor to society than a net "taker". Work keeps me fit, physically and mentally. I am looking forward to our Xmas party and my next holiday. If all had to look forward to was my next appointment at the social security office I would soon get depressed. Work is worth it, no matter how much you earn or what you do. ill ask again would you take a pay cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I agree that direct taxes on low incomes inevitably disincentivises work. But it's not just Labour, no party in this country has seriously tackled the issue of how we move people from welfare to work with as little disincentive as possible. If someone on benefits, who has done the numbers correctly, rightly says "it's not worth getting a job because I will only gain an extra few quid a week AND it means I spend less time with my family" or, even worse "it's not worth it because I will make a net LOSS" then the only solutions are as follows... 1) Eliminate income tax at a threshold deemed sufficient to negate the above dilemma. Start with minimum wage per annum salary and work upwards from there. It has to be an experiment at first. 2) Introduce a more robust negative income tax whereby a basic income is guaranteed, but for every extra pound someone earns, 50p of their benefits are cut... or a more suitable threshold. We have to experiment and there have to be guinea pigs unfortunately. This is/was supported by respected economists right across the left-right spectrum and has only been half-implemented in the form of working tax credits (a far more bureaucratic and inadequate version). 3) Implement proper codetermination laws (this is a simple amendment of corporate charters handed out by the state) so that workers have more stake in the fruits of their labour. Employees in med-large firms should be more intrinsically linked to the capital growth of the company they work with (not "for"). This means any employee negotiations must sympathise with the cost burden of their demands upon the company's capital growth rather than government arbitrarily deciding the minimum cost of labour (presuming this somehow has no potential negative effect on the ability for companies to employ as part of that cost). 4) Reduce, with a view to scrapping, minimum wage (only when the other points have been implemented and are deemed workable) to open up work to those who wish to gain skills in a job, rather than employers being unable to hire such forward thinking individuals merely because they are forced to pay them above their deemed worth (charity) or not hire them at all. you missed out (5) tax the well off at a rate equivalient to that of a working man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 What’s wrong with the idea of a homeless unemployed people being offered food and accommodation in return for work. People are already volunteering to work in exchange for free food and accommodation; in fact many of us work so we can pay for food and accommodation. The typical arrangement is for the helper to work an average of 4 hours per day and in return receive free accommodation and meals for their efforts. That is a very old, tried and tested idea. It dates back well before the Old Testament. It is called in our modern tongue, Slavery. Every civilisation that used it as it as a main means of labour collappsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Why have a page of posts been removed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 That is a very old, tried and tested idea. It dates back well before the Old Testament. It is called in our modern tongue, Slavery. Every civilisation that used it as it as a main means of labour collappsed. Yes it is and it still works but it isn't slavery. Slaves were the legal property of others and were forced to obey them. Slaves didn't have a choice, the unemployed would have a choice and could refuse to work for food and board and find their own way in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Yes it is and it still works but it isn't slavery. Slaves were the legal property of others and were forced to obey them. Slaves didn't have a choice, the unemployed would have a choice and could refuse to work for food and board and find their own way in life. That is just sophistry. A poverty striken, unemployed person is just as much a slave as one who is owned. We are meant to be moving forward, not backward. I fear for the young people of today. They have nothing at all to look forward to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 A poverty striken, unemployed person is just as much a slave as one who is owned. We are meant to be moving forward, not backward. I fear for the young people of today. They have nothing at all to look forward to. I do too which is why it’s better to offer them food and board in return for doing some useful community work as opposed to letting them sit on their arses with nothing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I do too which is why it’s better to offer them food and board in return for doing some useful community work as opposed to letting them sit on their arses with nothing to do. Or....they could be paid a proper wage to do useful community work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.