|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 13, 2022 9:48:59 GMT
Just one thing, if you don't have the spending power to keep the corporations growing and technology being fed cash, how long before you are surplus to requirements? A bit dystopian for me. Many times in the past society has tried to accept an underclass who are surplus to requirement. Thing is they don't sit quiet, they turn to crime which leads to calls for harsher sentencing, forced labour and all the other nasties that have been tried and failed. In the end the rich always work out that their own lives are more unpleasant with an underclass that if they put their hands in their pockets and help. Balance is once more achieved, but then we re-start the record, with the rich arguing they should be allowed to be rich and that the wealth gap doesn't matter, round and round we go, seemingly never able to learn. Well maybe, until it bites you on the nose. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 13, 2022 9:52:24 GMT
I also worked in the construction industry and this sentence is correct. gangs of Eastern Europeans were readily used to undercut the shortage of labour in any one area but this was not about paying less, this was about not being able to get workers. Everyone who's ever employed a carpenter, bricklayer or plumber will know the rates are incredible. Certainly on a level where the minimum wage would be laughable. In the nineties after the ERM debacle (When I was fighting to stop the repossession of my home) there was simply no work for anyone and that's why I went from making 2k a kitchen down to £350 a kitchen. It had nothing to do with Poles. Also in the 1990's I was working long hours in piss poor conditions just to survive. But between 2001 and 2007 (When I set up my present company) I made a great deal of money (Despite FoM still being around) So you cherry picking a time of economic crises does not prove the point at all. You are still not getting it, when there is a shortage of any labour then the rate rises until the positions are filled. Once you decide a 'going rate' then shortages are difficult to fill unless you spread the catchment to poorer areas which is exactly what happened with the EU. It is the reason British Brickies went to work in Germany and why Eastern Europeans have been coming here off and on for 100 years. Check out the Baltic states' people that arrived in the early 20th century into Scotland. They were actively sought out by mine owners to work in the Scottish pits to cover shortages that occurred because the wages were too low and other work paid better. There is no going rate for a job there is what you offer as a remuneration and if you cannot fill the post then you offer more or if what you get cannot do the job you raise the rate to get the best for the job. I get it just fine. The bit I disagree on is your reasoning for the price slump you evidence. You say it was due to over supply. I say it was due to lack of demand. I think the evidence points my way because your slump only happened when there was a cut in demand, but FoM covered both low and high demand periods, but apparently only effected one of the two. I wasn't aware of the cutting of road building projects in 1997. Thank you for that, I always find it fascinating hearing other peoples stories. I think almost everyone has one to tell. Lifes rarely a smooth ride.  |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 13, 2022 10:25:04 GMT
Lets stop calling it "Tax the rich" and call it "Tax the money". That would be fair wouldn't it? There is nothing fair about this notion. Money is the signal, given freely, that we are doing something people want done. Imho one of the most damaging misunderstanding is that taxes on earnings are done like that to be fair. It's done like that for the convenience of the tax collector - ie if you have money you owe me |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 13, 2022 10:32:42 GMT
Lets stop calling it "Tax the rich" and call it "Tax the money". That would be fair wouldn't it? There is nothing fair about this notion. Money is the signal, given freely, that we are doing something people want done. Imho one of the most damaging misunderstanding is that taxes on earnings are done like that to be fair. It's done like that for the convenience of the tax collector - ie if you have money you owe meBut history shows us what happens if we adopt that idea. Fact is some people will always do better than others, but for civilisation to work we have to look after even the weakest among us. If strength was more important than society lions would rule the world, but its apes who worked together that do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 13, 2022 10:59:56 GMT
But history shows us what happens if we adopt that idea. What idea do you mean? Fact is some people will always do better than others, but for civilisation to work we have to look after even the weakest among us. This is how tangled things have become - allowing the tax-collector free reign has been repainted as 'protecting the weak'. I didn't really say the weak should not be protected, but bear in mind that such protection is already built into society itself. 'The weak' get to share a security arrangement with the strong, the weak have laws against fraud and theft to protect them. The genius of this is that someone who is not good in a fight can paint, write or think and someone who can happily headbutt his way through nine assailants is never going to invent the inverted firkle. With these measures in place everyone who is useful has something to offer everyone else and their reward for their efforts is money. However, what is the effect if you go one step further and claim that not receiving this money makes you one of the weak? I'm not advocating here, what i'm pointing to is a distortion in language and, perhaps, a way of getting this notion in perspective. There needs to be a limiter here because the principle of 'protecting the weak' is unbounded and unworkable. If strength was more important than society lions would rule the world, but its apes who worked together that do so. If the antelopes can take the lion's food, then they are metaphorically the new lions. Throughout most of human history, the protections for those unable or unwilling to look after themselves were somewhat meager. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 13, 2022 11:53:11 GMT
I know that 'tax the rich' is the usual mantra but there are simply not enough rich people in the country to afford a UBI and Welfare handouts. Who said tax the rich? Taxes for everybody would have to go up to pay for the universal basic income. Nothing comes for free. But lower earners would gain more from a UBI than they lost in extra tax whilst it would be the other way around for higher earners. So everyone might get say 200 quid a week whilst paying a higher rate of tax on their earnings. The tax increases to pay for this need not be excessive, since the UBI would replace the state pension and most basic welfare benefits, excluding rents. It would be a tough sell I know but economic collapse at some point is the likely alternative.. But if UBI does not replace welfare handouts what is the point of it?. Those without a job or in low pay currently get welfare - what would UBI achieve except to give money to likes of me who doesnt need it only for me to have to pay more tax so that it can be taken away again. TBH your idea just sounds like a make-work scheme for bureaucrats and I would suggest that we have far too many of them as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 13, 2022 11:54:43 GMT
I also worked in the construction industry and this sentence is correct. gangs of Eastern Europeans were readily used to undercut the shortage of labour in any one area but this was not about paying less, this was about not being able to get workers. Everyone who's ever employed a carpenter, bricklayer or plumber will know the rates are incredible. Certainly on a level where the minimum wage would be laughable. In the nineties after the ERM debacle (When I was fighting to stop the repossession of my home) there was simply no work for anyone and that's why I went from making 2k a kitchen down to £350 a kitchen. It had nothing to do with Poles. Also in the 1990's I was working long hours in piss poor conditions just to survive. But between 2001 and 2007 (When I set up my present company) I made a great deal of money (Despite FoM still being around) So you cherry picking a time of economic crises does not prove the point at all. You are still not getting it, when there is a shortage of any labour then the rate rises until the positions are filled. Once you decide a 'going rate' then shortages are difficult to fill unless you spread the catchment to poorer areas which is exactly what happened with the EU. It is the reason British Brickies went to work in Germany and why Eastern Europeans have been coming here off and on for 100 years. Check out the Baltic states' people that arrived in the early 20th century into Scotland. They were actively sought out by mine owners to work in the Scottish pits to cover shortages that occurred because the wages were too low and other work paid better. There is no going rate for a job there is what you offer as a remuneration and if you cannot fill the post then you offer more or if what you get cannot do the job you raise the rate to get the best for the job. The funny thing is in 97 we could not get enough staff at the beginning of the year largely due to pay and conditions and took on some unsuitable staff in desperation. By the end of 97 most of us were made redundant as the moratorium on new road projects bit hard the greens had their way. I voted Labour and voted myself out of work and did not learn my lesson as I voted Labour again and voted myself into a business downturn. Nope they will never get it, they voted for Austerity and hard times and that is what you will be getting, enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 13, 2022 16:58:08 GMT
You are still not getting it, when there is a shortage of any labour then the rate rises until the positions are filled. Once you decide a 'going rate' then shortages are difficult to fill unless you spread the catchment to poorer areas which is exactly what happened with the EU. It is the reason British Brickies went to work in Germany and why Eastern Europeans have been coming here off and on for 100 years. Check out the Baltic states' people that arrived in the early 20th century into Scotland. They were actively sought out by mine owners to work in the Scottish pits to cover shortages that occurred because the wages were too low and other work paid better. There is no going rate for a job there is what you offer as a remuneration and if you cannot fill the post then you offer more or if what you get cannot do the job you raise the rate to get the best for the job. I get it just fine. The bit I disagree on is your reasoning for the price slump you evidence. You say it was due to over supply. I say it was due to lack of demand. I think the evidence points my way because your slump only happened when there was a cut in demand, but FoM covered both low and high demand periods, but apparently only effected one of the two. I wasn't aware of the cutting of road building projects in 1997. Thank you for that, I always find it fascinating hearing other peoples stories. I think almost everyone has one to tell. Lifes rarely a smooth ride. I still think you do not get it. The minimum wage becomes the going rate for low paid work because there will always be a large enough catchment group from which to select. The minimum wage became the norm for most people in many low paid pursuits and that should not happen. The glut of civil engineers in the early 90s resulted in many people retraining in the late 90s. The moratorium on new roads was started under the Major government in the mid nineties but Blair took heed of the Dongas, the Swampies and those tied in the tree canopies to extend that moratorium and revisit the need for some projects. The road lobby estimates this cost the economy 10 billion as some critical projects were delayed for several years. The eco-warriors have been around a long time all that changes is their focus. Then it was new roads now it is oil and climate change. The interesting thing then it was oft quoted that an area the size of Rutland was concreted over every year. That was a direct lie then as they counted all land take and affected land by any project and ignored cutting sides, embankment sides, dead land in between carriageways and at junctions, the return of old courses to nature and the land used as temporary buildings and workshops to oversee the contract. Overeggeing the pudding was rife then I do not think anything has changed now. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 13, 2022 18:08:12 GMT
But history shows us what happens if we adopt that idea. The idea that we should not tax according to wealth. Fact is some people will always do better than others, but for civilisation to work we have to look after even the weakest among us. That's a pretty accurate description. The tax collector (By which you mean the government, though I agree 'tax collector' sounds worse and strengthens your argument) Anyway, the government collect tax and use it to pay for things society needs and in doing so they supply rich and poor equally. So the brilliant inventor and the lowly tinker both get a doctor. That is only true if the laws are written to protect them. If someone invents a vaccine for a deadly disease there is no law that states they must give it to everyone. In countries without health schemes there is no law that says doctors must treat patients. In such countries the weak die. However if you wish to have a law that says a doctor must treat any patient then there has to be a way to remunerate said doctor. Tax! So a pure economic based society? What if the fighter can't earn enough by head butting people to pay for the brain scan he clearly needs? Not sure of your meaning here, money is just a series of promissory notes. How else would you have those who don't get these notes should acquire the things they need to survive? If strength was more important than society lions would rule the world, but its apes who worked together that do so. Yes and each time they get too meagre society falls apart. You don't even have to examine history, you can see what happens live. Just take a look at Mexico or Brazil. Intersetingly. Lions will happily eat the young of another female lion. Apes look after their weakest even to the point of sharing food with those totally incapable of gathering it for themselves. If apes attack a lion the rest of the lions flee and leave them to it. If Lions attack an ape the whole troupe will attack the lions en-masse. There must be unnecessary losses among the apes in doing this, maybe even losing strong skilled apes to save weak young ones, yet it is apes that drove the lions away and came to dominate the world. The arguments for sharing and being fair are complicated, they revolve around the idea that each person needs to see themselves as a stakeholder. As soon as the lowest stop feeling that, those directly above them begin to wonder if they're next. This spreads like a canker and soon its everyone for themselves. Only it isn't the rejected humans (Apes) gather together to form a new troupe and take on those with more than their fair share. In modern terms we call it revolution. It doesn't matter that the aristocracy in France could claim their wealth and land was earned by the blood of their forebears or that because of their wit and intelligence they deserve every penny of it. When the wealth gap grew too large the revolution came anyway. I don't know how many times we must see this happen in various countries and societies before we learn it truth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2022 18:30:00 GMT
Who said tax the rich? Taxes for everybody would have to go up to pay for the universal basic income. Nothing comes for free. But lower earners would gain more from a UBI than they lost in extra tax whilst it would be the other way around for higher earners. So everyone might get say 200 quid a week whilst paying a higher rate of tax on their earnings. The tax increases to pay for this need not be excessive, since the UBI would replace the state pension and most basic welfare benefits, excluding rents. It would be a tough sell I know but economic collapse at some point is the likely alternative.. But if UBI does not replace welfare handouts what is the point of it?. Those without a job or in low pay currently get welfare - what would UBI achieve except to give money to likes of me who doesnt need it only for me to have to pay more tax so that it can be taken away again. TBH your idea just sounds like a make-work scheme for bureaucrats and I would suggest that we have far too many of them as it is. The point of it is to subsidise the incomes of all so when fewer hours of work are required because of the advance of AI and roboticization, consumer spending and hence the economy can be sustained. Roboticization and AI is likely to have the effect of concentrating ever more wealth in ever fewer hands, and this will have to be effectively taxed too. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 13, 2022 18:48:38 GMT
But if UBI does not replace welfare handouts what is the point of it?. Those without a job or in low pay currently get welfare - what would UBI achieve except to give money to likes of me who doesnt need it only for me to have to pay more tax so that it can be taken away again. TBH your idea just sounds like a make-work scheme for bureaucrats and I would suggest that we have far too many of them as it is. The point of it is to subsidise the incomes of all so when fewer hours of work are required because of the advance of AI and roboticization, consumer spending and hence the economy can be sustained. Roboticization and AI is likely to have the effect of concentrating ever more wealth in ever fewer hands, and this will have to be effectively taxed too. If the only purpose is to susidise incomes for those that lose out why not just increase welfare handouts? For instance - I received £66 monthly rebate off my energy bill as part of the governments support for high energy prices. That is £66 that I didn't ask for or need but now my taxes are going up to pay for this largess. Why not just target help at those that need it. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Nov 13, 2022 18:51:50 GMT
Apes look after their weakest even to the point of sharing food with those totally incapable of gathering it for themselves. The arguments for sharing and being fair are complicated, they revolve around the idea that each person needs to see themselves as a stakeholder. As soon as the lowest stop feeling that, those directly above them begin to wonder if they're next. This spreads like a canker and soon its everyone for themselves. Only it isn't the rejected humans (Apes) gather together to form a new troupe and take on those with more than their fair share. In modern terms we call it revolution. It doesn't matter that the aristocracy in France could claim their wealth and land was earned by the blood of their forebears or that because of their wit and intelligence they deserve every penny of it. When the wealth gap grew too large the revolution came anyway. I don't know how many times we must see this happen in various countries and societies before we learn it truth. Interestingly, while this communal behaviour is true, there is also another fascinating dynamic, which I think impacts us. I can't remember the exact numbers but apparently apes do behave this way to a point, but once the group gets to a certain size (I want to say it was around 100) the sharing becomes more strained, and once the group gets to 150 it will fragment into seperate groups, the new group will claim adjacent territory if it is available, and where territory is tight may well go to war with the original group and/ or other nearby groups. I think it is the same for us. When we were running around in clans and small tribal groups, that communal responsibility to share was strong. The connections and ties were close enough for us to do it naturally as it is in our nature. We are being asked to care about people that are just too remote from us, its against our nature and it is therefore problematic. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 13, 2022 19:00:41 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2022 20:00:10 GMT
The point of it is to subsidise the incomes of all so when fewer hours of work are required because of the advance of AI and roboticization, consumer spending and hence the economy can be sustained. Roboticization and AI is likely to have the effect of concentrating ever more wealth in ever fewer hands, and this will have to be effectively taxed too. If the only purpose is to susidise incomes for those that lose out why not just increase welfare handouts? For instance - I received £66 monthly rebate off my energy bill as part of the governments support for high energy prices. That is £66 that I didn't ask for or need but now my taxes are going up to pay for this largess. Why not just target help at those that need it. The purpose is to make working less hours affordable for everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 13, 2022 20:22:05 GMT
privatevatepoint ofwhy it is to subsidise the incomes of all so when fewer hours of work are required because of the advance of AI and roboticization, consumer spending and hence the economy can be sustained. Roboticization and AI is likely to have the effect of concentrating ever more wealth in ever fewer hands, and this will have to be effectively taxed too. If the only purpose is to susidise incomes for those that lose out why not just increase welfare handouts? For instance - I received £66 monthly rebate off my energy bill as part of the governments support for high energy prices. That is £66 that I didn't ask for or need but now my taxes are going up to pay for this largess. Why not just target help at those that need it. I think thats a fair point paffico i think the same should apply to them that have private pensions Why should them recieve state pensions when they dont need it |
|
