Is it worth working? (1 Viewer)

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 03:14
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,618
Quotes regarding "living on the dole:"
...
I could probably find more, but I think this covers a wide-enough range to show that from pre-Christian philosophers to modern politicians, welfare (specifically, living on the "dole") has been the topic of much debate.

Some additional quotes: Alexis de Tocqueville

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
 

scott-atkinson

I'm with the Witch.......
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
1,622
The only way to avoid Council Tax or Mrs T's Poll Tax was to exclude yourself from the Electoral Register, which in turn meant that you could not vote.

So Frothy is both correct and incorrect, if you purposely evaded paying, you lost your right to Vote, but if you purposely evaded paying then you should not be allowed to vote and determine the use of the money that you have evaded paying.

The Council Tax is a somewhat fairer system than the Poll Tax, but is still based on the individual deciding if they wish to vote or not.

The majority of Poorer families have their Council Tax paid so have their entitlement to vote.
 

Brianwarnock

Retired
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
12,701
Why is the council tax fairer, an old couple living on a small pension will pay the same as the family of six living next door with 4 children working, they won't pay anything but will be entitled to vote.

It was the idle left that rebelled against the poll tax not the poor such as my mum and her neighbours.

Brian
 

CJ_London

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
16,553
The only way to avoid Council Tax or Mrs T's Poll Tax was to exclude yourself from the Electoral Register
To avoid the tax yes - to avoid being liable for the tax no. If you can't afford it, the council will pay it, so you can be on the register (so you can vote) and someone else picks up the tab to pay the tax
 

scott-atkinson

I'm with the Witch.......
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
1,622
Why is the council tax fairer, an old couple living on a small pension will pay the same as the family of six living next door with 4 children working, they won't pay anything but will be entitled to vote.

It was the idle left that rebelled against the poll tax not the poor such as my mum and her neighbours.

Brian

The family of six would be paying the Council Tax bill in full if they are working, the old couple if both over pension age would be getting subsidized on their Council Tax bill.

What is most definitely not fair, and is just the Poll Tax but under a another name is the Bedroom Tax.

If the Old couple live in a 4 bedroom house, which they have probably raised their family in who have now all flown the coup, they would be paying for 3 bedrooms that they no longer use, if a council home of course, the family of 6 wouldn't be paying this as all their bedrooms are occupied.

The Bedroom tax in my eyes is a completely unfair system.
 

Minty

AWF VIP
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
10,355
Bedroom tax - doesn't exist.
It was the media's "invento_name" for reducing housing benefits to those people living on welfare payments whose housing benefits were for houses bigger than they needed based on the number of people living there.

It seems relatively sensible to me, if you were a family of four on benefits whose children have now left home why should you still receive benefits to pay for a 3 or 4 bedroomed property, when a 1 or 2 bedroom property should suffice?
Where it was wrong was not allowing for providing accommodation for people that needed full time carers etc. on site, although apparently you could get dispensation if your case merited it.
 

Brianwarnock

Retired
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
12,701
Council tax reduction is not a right just because you are a pensioner, it a means tested benefit , which as usual discourages aspiration and saving, the level of savings that disqualifies you is pretty low.

However you missed the point if the 4 working children left home the council tax for their parents would not change, the 4 children are not paying anything to council services.

As to the so called bedroom tax the change to the benefits was to bring council tenets in line with those renting in the private sector, why is that unfair? I accept that once again the Conservatives miss old and introduced a tax with bad to no planning and no advertising of all the options, as Minty pointed out there was money available for exceptions, however this was handled at council level and Labour councils also did not advertise it.

Brian
 

Rabbie

Super Moderator
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
5,906
In my opinion any one doing a full weeks work should be be paid enough to support themselves thus eliminating the need for so called in-work benefits. These are actually subsidies for employers not for the employees. People have the right to a fair days pay for a fair days work.

It really irritates me when you see the lower end wages being restricted to very small increases while the very rich get large percentage increases And generous tax breaks.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 03:14
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
Aaaaand Rabbie just stepped RIGHT into the minimum wage war currently being fought in the US. I'm sure Steve or Murderboy will be happy to jump in and explain how anyone not making enough to pay for necessities CHOSE to make that little and deserves to starve. Or that their 7am to 3:30pm shift at McDonald's was meant for high school kids to make a little spending cash.
 

AnthonyGerrard

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,069
Aaaaand Rabbie just stepped RIGHT into the minimum wage war currently being fought in the US. I'm sure Steve or Murderboy will be happy to jump in and explain how anyone not making enough to pay for necessities CHOSE to make that little and deserves to starve. Or that their 7am to 3:30pm shift at McDonald's was meant for high school kids to make a little spending cash.

Not sure if teh US has a minimum wage? We do - put simply its not enough to live on. Then theres the living wage which is higher and has been muted as being moved to.

Labour I think it was campaigned the last election that any company not paying the living wage would be fined - why not just make it the new mandatory minimum wage - i have no idea what they were thinking?

I'm not sure if either takes you over the current threshold of whats then topped up by the tax payer as in work benefits. As rabbie says a subsidy of the companies.

Saw a program on it, two full time workers at tesco living as a couple (with kids) - still needed in work benefits - madness - or just the rich and big buiness genuinely couldn't give two hoots.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 03:14
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,618
Aaaaand Rabbie just stepped RIGHT into the minimum wage war currently being fought in the US. I'm sure Steve or Murderboy will be happy to jump in and explain how anyone not making enough to pay for necessities CHOSE to make that little and deserves to starve. Or that their 7am to 3:30pm shift at McDonald's was meant for high school kids to make a little spending cash.
Another incoherent distortion of the minimum wage argument. The argument is whether you believe in government mandating a minimum wage or letting the free-market "set" a minimum wage. If you reject the fee-market out-of-hand, then no amount of evidence will ever change a "closed" mind. I will simply offer the anecdotal evidence that the government mandated minimum wage keeps rising but it is never enough. A positive feedback loop that can never be satiated. Much like drug addiction, always need more.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 03:14
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
Not sure if teh US has a minimum wage? We do - put simply its not enough to live on. Then theres the living wage which is higher and has been muted as being moved to.

We do. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, although a few states have higher ones, up to $9.47 an hour in Washington State; a few are in the process of raising their minimum wages, one or two all the way to $15 by 2020. A couple states have 'living wage' laws, as well, but at least one (GOP-controlled Wisconsin) just repealed that law.

The GOP, as usual, is doing everything in its power to fight even the slightest increase in minimum wage, based on the theory that if companies were required to pay their employees living wages, then either every company in the nation would be forced out of business or else inflation would spiral out of control to the extent that six months later, the dollar would have the same buying power as the yen.

Labour I think it was campaigned the last election that any company not paying the living wage would be fined - why not just make it the new mandatory minimum wage - i have no idea what they were thinking?

I'm not sure if either takes you over the current threshold of whats then topped up by the tax payer as in work benefits. As rabbie says a subsidy of the companies.

Saw a program on it, two full time workers at tesco living as a couple (with kids) - still needed in work benefits - madness - or just the rich and big buiness genuinely couldn't give two hoots.

WalMart hands out flyers to its employees telling them how to apply for food stamps and Medicaid rather than paying them enough to pay for food. It also does not allow regular hourly workers to work more than 30 hours per week in order to minimize the number of full-time employees, and thus, legally required benefits that have to be provided. (To be fair, they have announced that they will be raising minimum pay to $10 an hour at some point in the future, but haven't addressed the union-busting or refusal to hire full-timers.
 

AnthonyGerrard

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,069
We do. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, although a few states have higher ones, up to $9.47 an hour in Washington State; a few are in the process of raising their minimum wages, one or two all the way to $15 by 2020. A couple states have 'living wage' laws, as well, but at least one (GOP-controlled Wisconsin) just repealed that law.

The GOP, as usual, is doing everything in its power to fight even the slightest increase in minimum wage, based on the theory that if companies were required to pay their employees living wages, then either every company in the nation would be forced out of business or else inflation would spiral out of control to the extent that six months later, the dollar would have the same buying power as the yen.



WalMart hands out flyers to its employees telling them how to apply for food stamps and Medicaid rather than paying them enough to pay for food. It also does not allow regular hourly workers to work more than 30 hours per week in order to minimize the number of full-time employees, and thus, legally required benefits that have to be provided. (To be fair, they have announced that they will be raising minimum pay to $10 an hour at some point in the future, but haven't addressed the union-busting or refusal to hire full-timers.

Its not like we'd lose out if , walmart, asda (uk walmart), tesco - decided they didnt want to pay their employees enough , or their taxes and decided to move abroad. Someone else woudl still supply our groceries at a profit.

Col seems to have found a decent subject!
 

AnthonyGerrard

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,069
Another incoherent distortion of the minimum wage argument. The argument is whether you believe in government mandating a minimum wage or letting the free-market "set" a minimum wage. If you reject the fee-market out-of-hand, then no amount of evidence will ever change a "closed" mind. I will simply offer the anecdotal evidence that the government mandated minimum wage keeps rising but it is never enough. A positive feedback loop that can never be satiated. Much like drug addiction, always need more.

The whole world system relies on inflation and population growth. So of course minimum wage will always rise too. As an extra billion people compete to buy a house the price goes up - that applies to minimum wage people as well as anyone.

Germany didnt just take 500,000 refugees out of selflessness.
 

Rabbie

Super Moderator
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
5,906
Froth, sorry if I inadvertently entered the US minimum wage war. I did not know it was taking place.

State benefits will always distort the market, it is an unavoidable fact of economic life. In most countries in the world there is enough money to ensure a reasonable standard for everyone provide the money was more evenly distributed. The gap between the richest and the poorest in the UK narrowed between 1860 and 1978 but is now widening again. Living in poverty either inspires people to work their way out of it or destroys their will to better themselves. Unfortunately however hard you try it is nowadays very difficult to progress far up the economic ladder if you have to start at the bottom as the whole system is rigged in favour of the better off.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 03:14
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
Froth, sorry if I inadvertently entered the US minimum wage war. I did not know it was taking place.

State benefits will always distort the market, it is an unavoidable fact of economic life. In most countries in the world there is enough money to ensure a reasonable standard for everyone provide the money was more evenly distributed. The gap between the richest and the poorest in the UK narrowed between 1860 and 1978 but is now widening again. Living in poverty either inspires people to work their way out of it or destroys their will to better themselves. Unfortunately however hard you try it is nowadays very difficult to progress far up the economic ladder if you have to start at the bottom as the whole system is rigged in favour of the better off.

Oh, that's the same issue we have here, too, although I'm fairly certain it's even worse here. The top 1% owns more than the bottom 90% combined here in the States; hell, the richest 12 people own more than the bottom 50% of the population combined. At this point, we're fighting less to enable more folks to move up the ladder than we are to just let people working full-time make enough to eat and have a roof over their heads WITHOUT relying on government assistance. The problem is that our conservatives are absolutely against that entire idea.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 03:14
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
Also, one thing I love to point out:

Back when Washington state raised its minimum wage to the highest in the nation, the pundits all swore that that would completely destroy its economy.

Instead, in that time, Washington has led the nation in overall economic growth.

The same is happening since Sea-Tac decided to raise the minimum wage in the city to $15 - the conservatives swore it heralded the End of Everything, when reality is that economic growth skyrocketed. Much like Murderboy explaining why the Bible actually condemns helping others, the right-wingers twist everything into pretzels trying to prove that that isn't *REALLY* happening.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 03:14
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,618
The whole world system relies on inflation and population growth. So of course minimum wage will always rise too. As an extra billion people compete to buy a house the price goes up - that applies to minimum wage people as well as anyone.
A set of very complex interactions. From the theoretical point of view, should the government manage the economy (inflation and the minimum wage being economic components) or should the economy be based on (supply/demand) free-market principles to inflation and the minimum wage? I would advocate the free-market approach.

State benefits will always distort the market, it is an unavoidable fact of economic life.
A very true statement. Furthermore, state benefits, delve into the issue of the government defining what an acceptable standard of living would be. Do the people receiving government benefits really want the government to supervise what they can or cannot buy?
 

AnthonyGerrard

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 07:14
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,069
Do the people receiving government benefits really want the government to supervise what they can or cannot buy?

No - but its better than being starving and homeless as the alternative.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom