AWOL Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 No, I don't think conrod is an idiot. I don't agree with some of what conrod posts, no more than that. Nice get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Because you keep saying this it doesn't make it true. The biggest benefit spend is on tax credits and housing benefits, i.e. on topping up income for working people. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11466178 Not so much topping up income for working people more like topping up income to enable businesses to avoid paying decent wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Not so much topping up income for working people more like topping up income to enable businesses to avoid paying decent wages. The green shoots of an argument that Thatcher's 'free market democracy' relies on the welfare state to prop it up perhaps? I like it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erebus Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 What I tries to communncate for discussion was how long do you think this austerity will continue, 1 Year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? How long can they, those that rule in our name, whatever the brand on the tin, continue on this road. What do you see as the end result of having travelled on this austerity road, everyone working and claiming benefits? Most living it up like never before? The trickle down becomes a flood? How do you see the country, after this load on bank imposed boll**ks via blaming whatever government, ends this austerity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Not so much topping up income for working people more like topping up income to enable businesses to avoid paying decent wages. Yes, agree with that. If businesses had to pay wages that met the full cost of living they would get a shock - the minimum wage would be nearer £10/hour for one breadwinner to support a very basic lifestyle for their family. Like you say the taxpayer funds the difference. Great for businesses who it seems still can't get enough out of the state - remember the scandal over people working for free at Tesco and other places. The one single thing that could get living costs back to reasonable levels would be to reduce rents and house prices. After that fuel prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yes, agree with that. If businesses had to pay wages that met the full cost of living they would get a shock - the minimum wage would be nearer £10/hour for one breadwinner to support a very basic lifestyle for their family. Like you say the taxpayer funds the difference. Great for businesses who it seems still can't get enough out of the state - remember the scandal over people working for free at Tesco and other places. The one single thing that could get living costs back to reasonable levels would be to reduce rents and house prices. After that fuel prices. Agreed. I wonder if the only sensible road in the future will be some form of ethical capitalism that caps profits and reduces the economic divide between rich and poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWOL Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Agreed. I wonder if the only sensible road in the future will be some form of ethical capitalism that caps profits and reduces the economic divide between rich and poor. Ethical capitalism is a contradiction in terms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Agreed. I wonder if the only sensible road in the future will be some form of ethical capitalism that caps profits and reduces the economic divide between rich and poor. I think business needs to be more ethical, certainly in certain sectors. It also needs to be sustainable. In terms of whether that would blunt hard-nosed business where people win because they are the best at what they do then it would be a bad thing if that drive was blunted. It's about getting a balance between a sustainably growing economy and allowing people to use their talents to be successful. Not easy I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Ethical capitalism is a contradiction in terms! I don't agree. There will always be winners and losers. It's about winning fairly. There's room for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yes, agree with that. If businesses had to pay wages that met the full cost of living they would get a shock - the minimum wage would be nearer £10/hour for one breadwinner to support a very basic lifestyle for their family. Like you say the taxpayer funds the difference. Great for businesses who it seems still can't get enough out of the state - remember the scandal over people working for free at Tesco and other places. The one single thing that could get living costs back to reasonable levels would be to reduce rents and house prices. After that fuel prices. Think about that for a moment, it’s the rich tax payer, the people that pay a lot of tax that funds the difference, it’s not the poor or middle income that fund it, they are generally the beneficiaries of the funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.