chem1st Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 No, I mean to say that legal slavery doesn't exist. It isn't. It does, and it is carried out via the land, and you will no doubt spend more than 40 minutes arguing to the contrary when you could quite easily educate yourself in that time by watching a video I linked to on here. The basis of your claim seems to be that you think you shouldn't have to work for a living and would like someone to give you something (everything) for nothing. Quite frankly that is ********s. People are denied the ability to work for themselves. They are denied the ability to work idle land whilst some idle **** claims cap payments upon it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 It does, and it is carried out via the land, and you will no doubt spend more than 40 minutes arguing to the contrary when you could quite easily educate yourself in that time by watching a video I linked to on here. Quite frankly that is ********s. People are denied the ability to work for themselves. They are denied the ability to work idle land whilst some idle **** claims cap payments upon it. Do you think everyone should be given a piece of land? What do you want to do with the land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I already did on a different topic about prisons and making prisoners work, but it isn’t about picking on anyone, it’s about getting people to take some responsibility for themselves and creating enough work for everyone, even if it means some have to pick up litter. Are you suggesting we all start littering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 No, it’s one of many, you wouldn't employ all of them sweeping roads. Not all benefits claimants could do manual work, but many could do admin and use a computer. The state already insures everyone by supporting people that can't work. Not all claimants are thick, some have years of experience but find themselves but on the scrap heap when they get to 50ish. So whilst some are suitable for sweeping some are more suited to supervising, and other suited to admin. Most towns and village have unemployed so why would they need transporting; walking up to 5 miles wouldn’t do anyone any harm. The equipment is basic and cheap and would be maintained by others that has no work to do, and we already buy expensive equipment to cut grass and clean streets so it would be cheaper. What infrastructure projects will cost very little and employ everyone? 1. If they're not all sweeping the roads what are the other tasks? 2. What computer-based tasks do you have in mind? 3. By insurance I mean insurance at work. At the very least third party liability insurance. Who pays for it? 4. I never said claimants were thick. Do the ones who supervise get more benefits for doing a more responsible role? 5. Replacing automated tasks with manual tasks is an inefficient use of economic resources. 6. I don't think your plan will work. It looks more like a punishment than something designed to guide people back to the workforce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 1. If they're not all sweeping the roads what are the other tasks? Anything that needs doing. 2. What computer-based tasks do you have in mind? Admin 3. By insurance I mean insurance at work. At the very least third party liability insurance. Who pays for it?They affectively become public sector workers and would have the same insurance, which to my knowledge isn’t paid to an insurance company, its government back. 4. I never said claimants were thick. Do the ones who supervise get more benefits for doing a more responsible role?No, they would be assessed for their benefits just as they are now and given a task to do to claim them, fail to do the task no benefits. Divide the benefits they are entitled by the minimum wage to calculate the hours that need to be worked. 5. Replacing automated tasks with manual tasks is an inefficient use of economic resources.Not when thousands of people are paid to do nothing whilst we spend thousands on machines to do the work they could be doing for the money they are paid. We are paying twice, we pay for labourers to do nothing and pay for machines to do what the labourers could have done. 6. I don't think your plan will work. It looks more like a punishment than something designed to guide people back to the workforce. So working for money to pay for food and accommodation is a punishment, if that the case millions of people are punished every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Anything that needs doing. Admin They affectively become public sector workers and would have the same insurance, which to my knowledge isn’t paid to an insurance company, its government back. No, they would be assessed for their benefits just as they are now and given a task to do to claim them, fail to do the task no benefits. Divide the benefits they are entitled by the minimum wage to calculate the hours that need to be worked. Not when thousands of people are paid to do nothing whilst we spend thousands on machines to do the work they could be doing for the money they are paid. We are paying twice, we pay for labourers to do nothing and pay for machines to do what the labourers could have done. So working for money to pay for food and accommodation is a punishment, if that the case millions of people are punished every day. So they get the same hourly rate no matter what they do. They work for the state. They achieve a subsistence existence. Everything is done manually when rather than by machines. This isn't North Korea mate. We don't need any of your commie plans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 So they get the same hourly rate no matter what they do. They work for the state. They achieve a subsistence existence. Everything is done manually when rather than by machines. This isn't North Korea mate. We don't need any of your commie plans So you disapprove of working for money, should everyone get free money for doing nothing? What bright ideas do you have to give the unemployed the incentive to work and what work would have them do? Many people in this country do manual work for money and there is nothing wrong with it, obviously manual work is beneath you but someone as to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Do you think everyone should be given a piece of land? What do you want to do with the land? No. I would rent out the land to people. The rent would then be distributed to all people. Each would receive an equal share, for the land belongs to the people. At the minute landless people of the globe still starve to death. Whilst land sits idle. Perversely (in the UK, but this occurs elsewhere too) we subsidise land ownership, we actually pay people for owning land, and their land sits idle. Whilst people without land queue to rent small parcels of lands for fairly large sums. And they wait, and they wait. We have people starving to death, we have people queuing to rent land. And what to we do? We use income taxes to subsidise land owners. You can give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. But teach a man to fish and he can eat for life and feed others too. Deny that man the ability to fish and you have yourself some slaves. So force that man to fish for but a fraction of the catch, then give the fish to the others in the form of 'dole'. Then demand that they work for their dole, because there is no such thing as a free lunch. And rile up the fisherman by telling him, all the non-workers on dole get to eat his fish and breed fish eating non fisherman to create public support for the slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Nope, they'll be looking for those who are proud to work for minimum wage. I foresee another round of Eastern European EU immigrants turning up at Dover They'll have to get in the queue with the Greeks,Portugese,Africans and Asians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 So you disapprove of working for money, should everyone get free money for doing nothing? What bright ideas do you have to give the unemployed the incentive to work and what work would have them do? Many people in this country do manual work for money and there is nothing wrong with it, obviously manual work is beneath you but someone as to do it. If you read my post above I don't disagree with getting people back into the workforce through meaningful training and experience placements. My preference would be for the government to get going with infrastructure projects with an emphasis on training the next generation of specialists. We've got 1 million 16-24 year olds waiting for the opportunities but you'd rather have them cutting the grass and picking up litter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.