|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 7, 2023 17:45:46 GMT
Many employees aren't union members and in my opinion your favourite PM and his henchmen knew that the minimum wage would become the maximum wage.....and it has. And many were previously union members. Tradesmen reduced to shelf fillers by Mrs. T. Perhaps joining USDAW. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) is a trade union in the United Kingdom, consisting of around 450,000 members nationwide. USDAW members work in a variety of occupations and industries including: shopworkers, factory and warehouse workers, drivers, call centres, clerical workers, milkround and dairy process, butchers and meat packers, catering, laundries, chemical processing, home shopping and pharmaceutical. Founded: 1 January 1947.The reality is that NL knew what was necessary at the time, they had no way of knowing it would be anything more than a minimum wage. A Crystal Ball was unavailable in 1998  They could have borrowed the one I've had since birth or the one given to my wife by the gypsy that ran off with her mother. The one I have has allowed me to forecast a list of politcal mismanagement. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 7, 2023 18:38:36 GMT
That was the allegation prior to the introduction of the miminum wage, but it didn't happen. All my point is is that the minimum wage for full time workers should provide enough for basic living needs, without need for the government to have to top up. Did you ever think the minimum wage was brought in knowing that it would morph into the maximum wage? Agreed. It has become the guide for wages. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 7, 2023 19:06:02 GMT
Borrowing to finance day to day expenditure however is unsustainable, likewise borrowing to finance giveaways of any kind. Things like tax cuts, Tax cuts don't need to be 'funded'. Spending needs to be funded. Tax cuts are (more or less) free I can't help thinking that some of the confusion around this topic springs from this bizarre, and often repeated, semantic hiccup Depends if you think you get nothing for your tax. If you do then 'tax cuts' need funding by cutting services. In the same way your house insurance needs funding and could be cut by not covering your valuables. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 7, 2023 19:14:57 GMT
Tax cuts don't need to be 'funded'. Spending needs to be funded. Tax cuts are (more or less) free I can't help thinking that some of the confusion around this topic springs from this bizarre, and often repeated, semantic hiccup Depends if you think you get nothing for your tax. If you do then 'tax cuts' need funding by cutting services. In the same way your house insurance needs funding and could be cut by not covering your valuables. Zany, the services are not a source of funding, they are an expenditure. Similarly, if you decide not to visit you local pub, the landlord is not funding you to the tune of the money you save |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 7, 2023 19:21:34 GMT
Depends if you think you get nothing for your tax. If you do then 'tax cuts' need funding by cutting services. In the same way your house insurance needs funding and could be cut by not covering your valuables. Zany, the services are not a source of funding, they are an expenditure. Similarly, if you decide not to visit you local pub, the landlord is not funding you to the tune of the money you save Oh look 25 angels dancing on a pin head. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 19:22:06 GMT
And many were previously union members. Tradesmen reduced to shelf fillers by Mrs. T. Perhaps joining USDAW. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) is a trade union in the United Kingdom, consisting of around 450,000 members nationwide. USDAW members work in a variety of occupations and industries including: shopworkers, factory and warehouse workers, drivers, call centres, clerical workers, milkround and dairy process, butchers and meat packers, catering, laundries, chemical processing, home shopping and pharmaceutical. Founded: 1 January 1947.The reality is that NL knew what was necessary at the time, they had no way of knowing it would be anything more than a minimum wage. A Crystal Ball was unavailable in 1998 They could have borrowed the one I've had since birth or the one given to my wife by the gypsy that ran off with her mother. The one I have has allowed me to forecast a list of politcal mismanagement. Well you got the one wrong on what NL knew when they brought in the Minimum Wage. You just ended up with a piece of Tory propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 19:34:47 GMT
Presumably leading to cuts somewhere or a rise in some other tax. Those who suffered would be the people who funded the Tax cuts. another misleading variant of the same linguistic twist. They are not funding the tax cut. The former group isn't funding anything and the latter would be funding spending. There is something twisted here and its not my thinking. Just because the cost of cutting taxation would be indirectly funded, does not mean it is not being funded. If taxation could be cut will-nilly and not need the cost to the government to be addressed as a financial reduction in government income, then why are we not doing lots of it ? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 7, 2023 19:49:39 GMT
Zany, the services are not a source of funding, they are an expenditure. Similarly, if you decide not to visit you local pub, the landlord is not funding you to the tune of the money you save Oh look 25 angels dancing on a pin head. For an arcane matter of no practical value, this seem to be receiving a lot of attempted 'correction'.  What i see is a piece of linguistic trickery subtly attempting to reframe public servants as the source of funding for taxpayers |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 7, 2023 19:58:18 GMT
If taxation could be cut will-nilly and not need the cost to the government to be addressed as a financial reduction in government income, then why are we not doing lots of it ? Governments might not do this IF they also want to spend. It is the spending that needs to be funded by the taxation, not the other way around. As an extension of your upside down way of looking at reality, do you also feel a government is funding its taxpayers to the tune of the portion of the their incomes it does not collect? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 21:07:52 GMT
If taxation could be cut will-nilly and not need the cost to the government to be addressed as a financial reduction in government income, then why are we not doing lots of it ? Governments might not do this IF they also want to spend. It is the spending that needs to be funded by the taxation, not the other way around. As an extension of your upside down way of looking at reality, do you also feel a government is funding its taxpayers to the tune of the portion of the their incomes it does not collect? OF COURSE SPENDING NEEDS TO BE FUNDED BY TAXATION. SO REDUCING TAXATION MEANS REDUCING SPENDING. It is not possible to cut taxation without cutting spending, or by raising the missing funding by an increase in other taxes. It is more obvious than the nose on your face that someone or something either has to cover, or is a loser, because of that loss of income. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 21:22:47 GMT
Borrowing to finance day to day expenditure however is unsustainable, likewise borrowing to finance giveaways of any kind. Things like tax cuts, Tax cuts don't need to be 'funded'. Spending needs to be funded. Tax cuts are (more or less) free I can't help thinking that some of the confusion around this topic springs from this bizarre, and often repeated, semantic hiccup Reducing the tax take without reducing spending involves increased borrowing so is de facto unfunded. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 21:26:14 GMT
Tax cuts don't need to be 'funded'. Spending needs to be funded. Tax cuts are (more or less) free I can't help thinking that some of the confusion around this topic springs from this bizarre, and often repeated, semantic hiccup It's a deliberate confusion to claim that tax cuts need to be funded Truss and Kwarteng demonstrated what happens when they are not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 21:32:38 GMT
Governments might not do this IF they also want to spend. It is the spending that needs to be funded by the taxation, not the other way around. As an extension of your upside down way of looking at reality, do you also feel a government is funding its taxpayers to the tune of the portion of the their incomes it does not collect? OF COURSE SPENDING NEEDS TO BE FUNDED BY TAXATION. SO REDUCING TAXATION MEANS REDUCING SPENDING. It is not possible to cut taxation without cutting spending, or by raising the missing funding by an increase in other taxes. It is more obvious than the nose on your face that someone or something either has to cover, or is a loser, because of that loss of income. Indeed, and that loss of income resulting from tax cuts can only be covered by spending cuts or increased borrowing, by which the funding taxation provided needs to be funded by borrowing instead. In effect, this means more is being borrowed to fund tax cuts, however much some choose to waste our time on semantic rubbish. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 21:38:08 GMT
Governments might not do this IF they also want to spend. It is the spending that needs to be funded by the taxation, not the other way around. As an extension of your upside down way of looking at reality, do you also feel a government is funding its taxpayers to the tune of the portion of the their incomes it does not collect? OF COURSE SPENDING NEEDS TO BE FUNDED BY TAXATION. SO REDUCING TAXATION MEANS REDUCING SPENDING. Or borrowing more, which is the very problem and the sense in which Kwarteng's shitshow was unfunded, however much a certain person wants to waste our time with sematic bollocks. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 21:41:33 GMT
OF COURSE SPENDING NEEDS TO BE FUNDED BY TAXATION. SO REDUCING TAXATION MEANS REDUCING SPENDING. Or borrowing more, which is the very problem and the sense in which Kwarteng's shitshow was unfunded, however much a certain person wants to waste our time with sematic bollocks. Yes, I had listed the three options in an earlier post. |
|
