Looking for this for ages, finally found it.
Well that seems to support the vid I posted, are you sure you watched it?
I watched the video and I'll give Hanauer one thing - he's a master at slinging the propaganda.
But - he's wrong. He touched on supply and demand, but he made a stupid comment that businesses don't hire until consumers create demand for their product. That's just ignorant. Business startup costs are huge and they often hire many, many workers BEFORE their products are selling. How can they sell a product or a service if they don't hire someone first to make it?
He's right about income disparity, but his charts are awful and he throws out unsubstantiated claims. Then he insinuates that the rich pay less on capital gains when everyone pays EXACTLY the same rate - unless they are poor and their capital gains (from the sale of a residence) is low. Then, they pay nothing.
The guy might be a savvy venture capitalist - but he's an economic idiot.
……but he made a stupid comment that businesses don't hire until consumers create demand for their product.
This is basic supply and demand. While there may be a need to hire more to supply the demand of a startup product or the success of an established one, a manufacturer will usually go with increased hours for its production shifts before it makes new hires. I know of a few manufacturers in my industry that do this as a matter of policy. They do not come out with a product or predict popularity of a product and automatically hire because the risk is too high. With the low skilled jobs that are being offered as a result of robotics and advanced mechanization it is easy to train and get up to speed quickly if new hires are warranted down the road.
"This is basic supply and demand. While there may be a need to hire more to supply the demand of a startup product or the success of an established one, a manufacturer will usually go with increased hours for its production shifts before it makes new hires."
This is ONE aspect of supply and demand - but it's not the whole story. Consider the housing industry -- housing starts are an economic indicator and yet most contractors build houses on speculation and hope they're going to attract buyers. Even if it's the contractor's first home - he will take a calculated risk and he will have to hire a framing crew, electricians, excavators, roofers, drywallers, plumbers and a foundation crew BEFORE he knows whether the house will sell. That means sinking some or all of his own money in the project. Speculation.
Speculation is the drive behind new business. I understand what you're saying - but it relates more to business expansion than anything else. Starting a business is a financial risk - albeit a calculated risk.
I happen to know and work with a lot of general contractors and you could not be more off than I can possibly explain. In a recent conversation with a good friend who used to build spec homes he said he has not built one in five years. Instead the market is towards commercial and apartment construction. As far as hiring electricians and plumbers goes most new construction based companies are turning towards service and repair work as the new construction is very sluggish. General contractors hire independent crews to avoid healthcare insurance and Workman's Compensation. I will concede that as far as minimum wage jobs go there is work and they hire before the demand is immediately realized. A new McDonalds is opening less than a half mile from another one in my town. Beginning wage is $8:00 per hour. But McDonalds does not build and hire unless an adequate survey has been done and brings favorable information.
Absolutely! But new homes are not where the market is. There is a massive inventory of used houses that are either foreclosures or short sales. These glut the market and create no new jobs and as a result no buyers. The banks are selling them to get them off their books but no new jobs of any significant wages are being created in the housing market. When they say housing starts are up they are merely better than the depressed state the industry is in.
Yes, and part of that calculation, a major part, is demand. Nobody is going to start a business and hope that the demand is there. Well nobody with an ounce of sense that is.
It is obvious that if the economy is stalled there will be little demand for anything at all and therefore jobs aren't created. Increase the amount of disposable cash that the middle classes have and remove the uncertainty of employment and you will create demand which will stimulate growth and new jobs which will increase tax revenues and reduce public spending.
I think the most salient issue in this case is the availability of disposable income. Demand is generated by sales and if money is tight as in the unemployed available funds, spending is curtailed sharply. There will always be spending in staples but that is not what drives job creation. Hanauer outlined that the rich cannot cure it as there is only so many cars and clothes they can buy. The gigantic consumer economy is driven by the masses spending. There is only so much job creation in the military and that is government deficit spending. The other aspect of that is you need to have wars to establish its need. We as a country need to get on board with this as right now the new norm is one of higher cost consumables and stagnant wages with little disposable income to spark a economic comeback.
Yes, it all seems so obvious that I expected my post to be greeted with hoots of derision and stating the bleeding obvious.
I should have known better. I should have remembered that the capitalists have their lackeys so well trained that they are totally blind to the obvious.
How many people demanded the IPhone before it was invented then? How many people demanded the steam engine, the canal, the aircraft etc etc? Sometimes the demand comes after the start of the business and the investment.
Where will you get the extra tax money if its not from the middle classes? Will it be from the top 1% who already pay the most in tax anyway? Wont they just move like they have in the great socialist French experiment? How many countries with lower tax rates would love to take these top 1% of earners of our hands? Don't forget the 1960's 70's 80's were a different place with different economics all together. Now the rich American doesn't need to use American workers to maintain his fortune, why would he need the American government to deplete it for him?
Its obvious less taxation. less red tape and less government intervention is the only spur to economic growth.
Making up government jobs to spread the wealth and centralise power will only serve to turn a country into Greece 2.
There would be no demand for the I-phone if nobody could afford it. As it is few actually buy it, they rent it.
There was obviously a demand for cheaper and more efficient transport, the first canal reduced the price of coal by 50% and increased output.
You forget as well that Victorian entrepreneurs took risks that 21st century shareholders would never dream of.
Where does the extra tax money come from? What extra tax money? But remember that a vibrant and healthy economy generates more, and uses less, tax than a moribund and stifled economy.
The rest of your post is so off topic that I shall ignore it.
Your topic is about taking more money of the rich to be wasted on government programs that simply don't work.
Demand doesn't create inventors and entrepreneurs it happens the other way around.
So you agree a vibrant economy can not be built on taxes.
Not specifically, it was that the middle earners create work, not the mega rich. All the rest you just read into it.
Who owns the companies that pay the middle earners then John? Or do they all work for the government.
Your point is that middle earners drive the economy, so who employs the middle earners, simple question really.
I still don't really see the point of your question. It has no bearing on the fact that the economy is driven more by middle class demand than the rich class.
You have repeatedly said that demand cannot drive the economy without money to satisfy that demand.
Who is supplying the money? Certainly not the middle class working stiff; he has hired no one. The correct answer is the one supplying that working class with their income - the conclusion is that the middle class is not driving anything; the rich are by supplying jobs for the middle class to have income to purchase the doodads they make themselves.
Which comes first, chicken or egg?
But without the demand there are no jobs.
Who supplies the income that enables the employer to pay wages? He certainly doesn't have a second job so that he can pay those wages does he?
Evolution = Egg
Creation = Chicken
Microsoft pay exceptional wages to their employees (I have heard), it enables them to have a high level of buying power. Although these workers are essential to Microsoft they do not pay their own wages. The owners of the company who make the decisions and keep the company so profitable that it can continue to maintain high salaries are the ones who keep the big wheel turning.
So the owners are the big wheel, the workers are an intricate part of the machinery so they are the spokes and the government are the brakes.
Good analogy, and all are necessary for a well functioning economy. Take away or grow excessively any part and it falls apart into recession. Government gets too big, too many restrictions or taxes, and the economy dies. Take away all investment monies and it dies. Allow unions the power to run the company and force labor costs of whatever they want and it dies. Remove all competition and it dies as the company becomes too strong.
The entire wheel must be well balanced, from the proper amount of braking in the hub, to the strength, tightness and number of spokes to a well formed rim holding tight to the other two yet with it's own strength.
...so who employs the middle earners
You should be asking yourself who pays the employers to understand the point.
Who buys the product? If there is no purchase the company goes out of business and the workers lose their jobs. When the workers (who also happen to be the consumers) lose their jobs they cannot buy anybody's product.
The one that wants it and has been paid money producing it, or producing something their neighbor wants. Without the job, no one has the money to buy; the rich (providing a payroll check) must be driving it all.
...The one that wants it and has been paid money producing it. Halleluiah! I think you are beginning to get it.
...Without the job, no one has the money to buy Very Good!
...the rich (providing a payroll check) must be driving it all. You zigged when you should have zagged
How did the rich guy get the money to provide the payroll check? Selling product to the people he employs and as so many others do. Unfortunately the paychecks are fewer and far between for a lot of Americans out of work so they don't buy the product that pays the rich guy so that he can pay his employee.
Indeed who buys the product? And who pays the welfare of those out of work?
When you become unemployed is it other unemployed or low paid workers that pay the welfare? Or is the taxpayers? Taxpayers who are made up of middle and upper income workers who are paid by the rich who also pay tax.
As I said the big wheel has to keep turning.
But the wheel has stopped turning, hadn't you noticed?
The rich are getting richer and the ordinary worker is seeing his wages fall, those that manage to keep their jobs that is.
How the hell are the rich getting richer if no one is buying the product?
The reduction in wages is because of the glut in the workforce, when there is more of a resource the price goes down.
Why do people keep blaming the rich for the inadequacy of the government?
Because the only way in which the government is inadequate is in the way they pamper the rich.
You know, by giving the rich tax cuts and putting the burden on everybody else.
With or without those terrible tax cuts (designed primarily to elicit a specific action from the one using it) the rich still pay more. Fair? Not very, I think.
How can the government be pampering to the rich when over 80% of the income tax collected comes from the rich?
...Indeed who buys the product? The consumer who has a job to pay for it or the welfare recipient paid by the taxpayer.
Yes both pay for the product.
...And who pays the welfare of those out of work?
We have a disconnect here as the point is that the rich guy makes his money from the consumer who buys his product. The rich guy does not give away the product.
...When you become unemployed is it other unemployed or low paid workers that pay the welfare?
Absolutely as you even pay taxes for unemployment and welfare.
...Or is the taxpayers?
Yes all of us.
...Taxpayers who are made up of middle and upper income workers who are paid by the rich who also pay tax.
Who get their money from the consumer for buying their product.
...As I said the big wheel has to keep turning.
Precisely! The consumer foots the bill in all cases. Lately the consumer has been the breakdown in the cycle of things because of the many unemployed and unable to spend freely.
That's why I said his rant was nonsensical - job creators are business people - whether or not they're rich is not an issue. It's the poor person who gets a break on residential capital gains - not the wealthy person whose house sells for millions.
Middle earners can want and want and want something - but until a businessperson creates a way to produce it (and in the process creates jobs) they will not have it.
Supply and demand, as I said are only one aspect of job creation.
By the way - new housing starts in the US are way up.
No job creators are the people who spend their money. Without them there is no incentive for anybody to create jobs.
Those are spenders - nothing more. Now, if they go out and start their own business - they will have created a job for themselves. But, otherwise - no.
Without a job, John - there is no money to spend. It's like "what comes first - the chicken or the egg?"
...By the way - new housing starts in the US are way up.
http://www.wallstreetsectorselector.com … rket-data/
Maybe you are confusing the rich as job creators with risk investors. The two are mutually exclusive. If a product is found to be lucrative through a rich persons investment. By introducing it he has produced a product. But the lucrative part is the key and if it is not then he won't pursue it any further. If the product is found to be lucrative then he will hire because he will realize a profit from the venture. Maybe his investment can be considered a form of creating a job but without a consumer the job will vanish.
Without a consumer the job will vanish (unless exported). Without an investor the job will vanish. Without a (good) business leader the job will vanish. Which is more important? Which is considered "most" necessary to produce a job?
Chicken or egg?
All those things are important but without demand they are all pointless.
And without any one of them demand is just as pointless.
Chicken or egg?
But there are other investors, other leaders, they can all be changed but without demand there is nothing.
And if this (100,1000,10,000) buyer(s) have no job, there are plenty more that do. They can be changed far easier than investors can, and without investors there are no jobs.
As silver said, it's a wheel and when all parts are in place it works. When any part is missing it doesn't and demand is the only immutable.
unchanging over time or unable to be changed.
Are you claiming that only one group of consumers can be found, such as those in London? Or can they actually be changed to another group, even an extra-national one?
Actually, you are absolutely correct; miss any one of the vital parts and the wheel breaks; the product won't be produced, sold or used. No investor, no product. No consumer, no product. And ANY of them can be changed to another group/individual or even government. Including consumers; if this dozen won't buy, the next will.
But if the demand doesn't exist there is no other group of consumers. If there is another group of consumers then demand obviously still exists.
Tough to think of a salable item that has no buyers. Not in this year of the internet and world wide sales.
If you find that hard to believe, spend an hour surfing through eBay. There are buyers for anything, from a piece of toast that looks like the Virgin Mary to SAM missiles. From coffee beans found in bat s**t to used newsprint. You have it, someone wants it.
Hardly providing jobs for all is it? More like desperate people trying to fill the gap left by unemployment.
Finding a buyer is not helping to provide jobs? Is desperate people trying to fill the gap left by unemployment?
Not sure where you live (I thought GB), but over here sales is a major function of any business. Fail in your sales efforts and your business will fail, too. Plus, of course, salespeople are filling a valid job function...
At the very least it is a symbiotic relationship where one cannot exist without the other. Your assertion is that the rich are the ones who facilitate the creation of the job through their investment and management. Remember the word facilitate for later.I would ask who it is that comes up with the ideas and products in the first place. Are there not inventive types such as inventors, independent and employed by others, that come up with the ideas and products that are placed in the marketplace? How is it that these people who spend the time and resources necessary to establish a working prototype and or product not the ones who are the job creators? Is it just the rich persons money that matters when considering who is the job creator? What type of tax breaks do the inventors get? None! I have a lot of experience in this area and let me tell you when you go to an investor for money the first thing they want is all of your idea at the lowest cost. There is no sense of creating a job in their mind and more of how can I get the most for myself mindset. Job creation is the last thing they want. Watch the video and Hanauer explains this very well. Without the demand there is no product and job creation. If the rich person guess's or hits that demand then there is money to be made and no need to facilitate a job creation. They investigate thoroughly to assure that there are few misses.
Not as cut and dried as it seems
How so? Are you arguing that tax cuts for the rich do create jobs?
I will argue for fare taxes for everyone.
I don't see how taxing exorbitant amounts creates anything and I don't see how taxing the middle earners more to give to the poor creates jobs either.
As you know, here in the UK the top 1% pay the majority of the tax so how will it help by taxing them any more?
I think a top rate of tax at 45% is fine, what the government should concentrate on is reducing the cost of government itself and then enable a tax cutting culture instead of a tax raising culture.
I believe I have said before that it is a circle of consumer and supplier that creates an economy, governments create nothing except tax spending schemes.
I also believe that entrepreneurs can create both jobs and wealth, However the more successful they become the more governments think they should be taxed and that's when job losses and wealth movement happens. Eg James Dyson
I watched it John and I also watched another 10 all contradicting each other. Its the opinion of one man, are you saying you would totally trust the opinion of one man on a matter so serious as the world economy?
Its obvious you either didn't read my post or didn't understand it.
Because his point was that the top 1% or 5% or what ever top percent do not create jobs, the middle classes do by spending money.
The trickle down theory has been proved time and time again not to work but main stream parties still continue to use it.
So, why punish the rich? I know, I know... because they do not pay their fair share. But if you tax someone based on how much they make, and they make a lot: they get taxed a lot… Shouldn't they be encouraged to do what they do because what they do helps the economy, provides goods to the middle class to buy and sell and provides jobs.
The industrious should have incentives to do what they do. Why don't you want them to do what they do?
But that's the whole point! Giving the really rich more doesn't help the economy. If the middle class can't afford to buy the goods they produce it doesn't help anybody does it?
Q. 1. What creates a percolating economy?
Q. 2. Why are the rich labeled as evil?
Bigger Q. What do the rich do with their money if not buying things? It's not hidden in their mattress or jars in the back yard...
As the man said, he can only wear one pair of trousers at a time, he'll never need 3000 pairs.
That does not answer the question as to what is done with the wealth if it is not being spent. Just another (poor) example of what might not be purchased. Poor because the rich will certainly own more pairs of trousers than the poor, and of better quality requiring more work and effort to produce. Total money spent on the wardrobe (or trousers) of the rich will be far greater than the poor - perhaps the rich is a better bet for improving the economy by buying pants?
You miss the point entirely, yet again.
Making cheaper trousers as required by the masses will provide far more work (and taxes) tham making trousers for a very limited market.
So making high quality trousers probably won't help the economy as there isn't a large enough market for them.
OK, but you still haven't said what the rich do with all that money you want to confiscate.
Who said anything about confiscating anything?
All I was doing was pointing out that the middle classes create jobs, not the super rich.
You will increase the tax rate on the rich, claiming it is "fair" to do so.
Where is the money the rich have but are keeping out of the economy?
Let me do something that I do not like doing, that is answering a question with a question.
Where is all the money normally circulating when we aren't in a recession?
They say the money is overseas and not being taxed. That will change on July 1st. with House of Representatives Bill 2847, serving to further discourage the rich, I would imagine. Also, this bill could encourage other countries to want to trade in currency other than the dollar. This may be a conspiracy theory. I do not know.
That should not be a surprise - demand too much and the rich will leave. Common sense to anyone but a socialist, who views everyone else's wealth as belonging to them.
Unlike the 1% who views everybody else's wealth as belonging to them!
I really don't know where you get your ideas from. The person I quote in the OP is no socialist.
The speaker in the video may not be socialist, but you are, and most definitely view all wealth as belonging to the people. You, in other words, to do with as you see fit because you speak for "the people".
Recently, a leftie, who lived in Germany for a while, explained to me that life is so wonderful there, with universal health care and an easy life style of not having to work so hard. Supposedly, the German people are are totally willing to pay their higher taxes! I would have to go there and see it for myself.
But, the gist of what most want is an easier life where every thing is provided for them. They don't see that what they loose is their own independence and their own control of their own lives. This too will be denied.
How do they lose their independence by not being tied into a system that requires constant work and a fear of serious illness?
Because they must then depend on someone else (govt.) for their very lives, let alone such luxuries as housing or health care. The ultimate goal of socialism, but a very ugly one. Man is a social animal, but that does NOT mean he should give up his independence in favor of a slugs life of doing nothing.
How is depending on a government for housing or healthcare any more restrictive than relying on a private landlord or insurance company?
I would say that finding a new landlord is a trifle easier than immigrating to a new country. Wouldn't you?
What has that got to do with anything? Kathryn said that relying on government for housing or healthcare took away your independence.
You tried to equate the difficulty of changing landlords to the difficulty of changing governments, that's all.
Firstly the government provide nothing the taxpayer does.
Secondly there is a difference between reliance and requirement.
"Where is all the money normally circulating when we aren't in a recession?" I will do something which I often do: answer a question with another question----> Where is the money during a recession? Please explain your definition of "vested."
Q1, money percolating through the economy, not vested in a small portion of society.
Q2, I don't know. Why are the rich labelled as evil?
What is the definition of vested? (If I post the Wikipedia definition I will tick off GA.)
Ha! I fooled you! I am very very hard to "tick off."
(Merriam-Webster: 1. reprimand, rebuke - <his father ticked him off for his impudence> 2. : to make angry or indignant - <her dictionary definitions really ticked me off>)
But surely you weren't really needing the "vested" definition were you?
Watch the video. The speaker outlines the fact that the economy relies on a cycling exchange of money from those that buy to those that work to supply it. It is very much like what Henry Ford did at the turn of the 20th century when he paid his workers more so that they would also be a consumer of the product they were making. The modern cycle has been broken with the loss of jobs that takes the purchasing element out of the process. As far as labeling the rich as evil I don't know who has done that? Is it the same people who label the poor as lazy?
I always hear this "fair share" tag applied in such a way as to be taken either on a face value or sarcastic tone. The video that started this thread had Nick Hanauer pointing out that he (a rich entrepreneur) pays an equivalent tax rate after deductions and loopholes of about 15%. The average working class American pays an average rate of about 35%. If the rich person who hides behind tax loopholes were made to pay an equal rate that could be higher for them and lower but equal to an average worker because of the increased tax base people would have more money to spend. That alone will not change it back to the way it was but it is a beginning. The farce that has been going on for years is a propaganda tool used to keep the rich from paying an equal percentage of their income while others who are less fortunate are penalized for their lack of income and mobility to utilize it.
It is "fair" then that some pay far more than others? For the exact same services?
Because one rate with no deductions or loopholes (which I support, incidentally) will most definitely have some paying far more than others...
Have you watched the video or are you just hashing up some old conservative argument? Who said they are to pay anymore than anyone else? It is merely an equalization that is being asked. Yes the rich shall pay more but only to bring their taxable income up to what the middle class has to pay. Watch the video.
Your John Stossel video as a response is quite interesting and essentially counters the Nick Hanauer video by saying that business confidence in the economy drives job creation while Nick Hanauer counters that consumer confidence is what creates jobs. They parallel each other in some ways but seem to need a catalyst to make either go first. Nick Hanauer counters with the idea of raising taxes on the rich. How much? He makes a comparison between what the working class tax rates are at some estimates of 35% while the rich of which he is, reduce their tax rate through carried interest, dividend, and lower capital gains tax rates that make the rich pay an adjusted rate of 15%. How much of an increase Hanauer does not specify but bringing it back up to what the working rate is can be assumed from his comments. Now if the argument is less government is key component as was outlined by former Governor Gary Johnson and we know that the rich are sitting on possible investment funding waiting for the regulations and government growth to subside why can’t that happen? As a compromise can the tax rates that essentially have the rich paying 20% less be brought up to what the working tax rates are? Two compromises that could jump start the economy. Both sides get their way and a fair taxation of both sides will dispel any thought that someone is taking advantage of the other.
Another good source for information in this area is Robert Reich's "Inequality for All". He systematically outlines how the job creators are actually the middle class consumer. Even as we speak candidates here in Maryland are talking about lowering tax rates for corporations from 8% to 6 1/2%. The talking points remain the same and so do the results.
Wasn't he co author of a book with Nick Hanauer?
There are a lot of turkeys voting for Christmas, or I suppose in the US it would be turkeys voting for thanksgiving.
The rich do not create jobs. No, they just spin straw into gold. Probably a couple of princesses do the spinning, held against their will, hidden away in some tower.
Those darn rich.
The OP's premise is off. Nick's premise is Off.
Taxing the rich serves to *punish* (cause negative consequences to) the industrious and stops their industriousness.
What creates a percolating economy?
Not the Rich, (which potentially, contributes greatly...) and not the Government, (which potentially contributes little.)
It is caused by a business-friendly environment: Less rules, regulations, and *punishments,* ( negative consequences.)
In two words: M o r e F r e e d o m
Taxation = L E S S F R E E D O M
But, of course, we must see to it that the laws already in place against loopholes, government bailouts, and monopolies are enforced, for "...what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint." Edmund Burke
Freedom within boundaries is the proper premise.
Choo-choo! All aboard the Post-Apocalyptic Cyberpunk Dystopia Express!
(For those who live under a rock and have no idea what I'm referring to...)
Applause to all who either totally miss the point or who suck up to the rich no matter what!
And hey, while I'm here...
"Classic cyberpunk characters were marginalized, alienated loners who lived on the edge of society in generally dystopic futures where daily life was impacted by rapid technological change, an ubiquitous datasphere of computerized information, and invasive modification of the human body." – Lawrence Person
The conditions which create/contribute to a "one percent " must be understood in the light of reality.
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
"...a closer look [at cyberpunk authors] reveals that they nearly always portray future societies in which governments have become wimpy and pathetic ...Popular science fiction tales by Gibson, Williams, Cadigan and others do depict Orwellian accumulations of power in the next century, but nearly always clutched in the secretive hands of a wealthy or corporate elite."
Do rich folk wake up in the morning and think "today I'll create a few jobs"
And how many wake up and think "I can probably make a few bob doing that, how can I do that employing as few people as possible"?
Do poor people wake up in the morning and think "today I'll create a few jobs"
And how many wake up and think "I can save a few bob buying imported; I'll give MY money to China instead of Joe the neighbor. But even if I can't find imported, I'll still shop around for the cheapest price - if my neighbors and friends really want me to buy what they make they'll have to take a pay cut to lower the prices".
Wake up and think "I've got so little money that I will have to go out and buy the cheapest I can find regardless of where it was made and what quality it was made to"
Well, when wants override ability to earn, that's what happens. Greed, in other words - there is virtually no one starving in either of our countries and anyone willing to work can find a place to lay their head. Greed for ever more luxuries produces that comment, not necessity.
Rich people wake up and think "How can I get richer and who can help me?"
Poor people wake up and say,
"How can I survive another day with no money and no one to help me make money."
Some, many, do not have what it takes to make money, on a psychological level.
Why shut down anyone with undreamed of possibilities?
Let us have dreams and the freedom to act on them!
The rich are lucky. The rich are just plain lucky. We should not try to cash in on their (usually, hard earned) luck. ( Nor should we fall victim to their schemes when they become overly ambitious through greed. Laws limit and check ever fallible human nature.)
I doubt they think "who can I pay to help me?"
The intelligent ones value good help and are willing to pay them. The good-for-nothing sons of intelligent and wise fathers, who inherit their father's businesses, are the ones who end up mistreating and/or taking advantage of the employees and/or replace them too easily.
Yes, life is just as Dickens described it. Get over it.
In some respects it is worse these days. Then nobody had any great expectations, now they have unexpected hard times.
No, life has always been hard. Always. In many ways things are way easier today! In very many ways!!!
That's really getting off the topic though isn't it?
Remember "Rich people do not create jobs".
I don't follow that - examples of life being worse today than it was 150 years ago, please? About all I can come up with is more stress, and I'm not sure even that is valid - now we have to worry about going on welfare, 150 years ago they worried about their children (and themselves) starving to death and being buried.
I was going to give you a long list but -cost of living should cover most of them.
Hmm. My own cost of living hasn't gone up but by a few percentage points per year for a decade now. Doesn't seem like such a terrible thing to me, even though the recession resulted in a wage cut even as prices went up a percent per year.
Good times come, good times go. It all equals out over time - only a fool thinks the world will be rosy and wonderful all the time. The wiser person saves up for the bad years they know will come one day.
Define progress. Stealing ever more from one to give to another? Providing more luxuries for the countries citizenry as they watch starvation (actual starvation with dead bodies - not "I'm a little hungry") in other countries?
Having asked that, I DO see progress, and find that conditions are vastly improved over a century ago. You indicated that in some ways it is worse, but I don't find it so - virtually every facet of our life is improved over 100-150 years ago.
Well there is one section of society stealing ever more from one to give to them selves. You do remember saying that though the cost of living has gone up, wages have gone down. Not for the high earners who have seen massive increases while the rest of us have austerity inflicted on us.
Who is actually inflicting starvation on others? it isn't the less well off of our countries, it is the rich wanting to be richer.
150 years ago there was virtually no income tax, no value added tax, no massive insurance premiums, no hugely expensive "public" utilities, none of that.
You do understand that "stealing" precludes any agreement, yes? That when one agrees to accept X dollars for a job or product that it is not theft? And that if you steal it is illegal and thieves go to jail, yes?
No one is "inflicting starvation" - that would mean that either they have agreed to feed someone and is not doing it or that they have held them against their will (without food) until they died. Neither is happening.
No massive taxes - a good thing. No insurance premiums - that also means no insurance, which may or may not be good depending on your luck. No hugely expensive public utilities - public sanitation and clean water is necessary and we now receive power (although not public in the US) as well. All good things, not bad, but they must be paid for. I accept that burden - do you or would you rather you and 500,000 others defecate in the streets and drink the runoff water, living in a house without power, gas or water??
So why are not all these people who you think are stealing not in prison?
So why are people starving then?
Certainly in this country nobody was forced to defecate in the street and very few lived in houses without water and gas a hundred and fifty years ago..
Because they are powerful enough to change the laws to enable them to take from others against their will. It's called excessive taxation, and it's purpose is to increase the power base of the politicians taking it by enslaving the poor. Legal theft, using the power of the vote, but still theft when unfair amounts are demanded from one but not another.
No one is starving in either the US or UK. If you think differently, please provide links to something showing starvation as cause of death.
Perhaps - I wouldn't know. But they did in THIS country, and far less than 150 years ago. When I took my first major job as a young man I moved into a poor county in Virginia, less than 100 miles from our countries capital and where a quarter of the homes had no running water - needless to say, it was an eye opener to a new college graduate of the sciences. My grandmothers parents homesteaded just 50 miles from where I now live, and dug, by pick and shovel, irrigation "canals" for irrigation and drinking water. No bath, a dirt floor and a wood fire for heat when the snows came. Picking berries and shooting salmon, deer and other wildlife provided the necessary addition to gardening.
We've come a long, long way even if the UK hasn't.
Plenty starving in the UK and probably the US too. The fact that more don't starve to death is probably down to governments not admitting that people starve to death and to food banks providing free food for those in need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_ … ed_Kingdom
Fifty years ago the number of houses without running water would be a very small percentage of rural dwellings
Perhaps you've had further to come than the UK!
This explains a lot about your perspective and I thank you for it. You are a self made man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and forged an existence from the dirt. I am serious when I commend you for your effort. Your self reliance is what drives your answers and arguments. Your perspective circumspect. While I commend and understand where you are coming from I think the enormity of the situation deserves a bit more examination. To gain any ground in creating more jobs we have to look beyond what has worked in the past, what is or is not working and what can be done. Returning to old patterns seems to not be an option as with the dearth of supporting jobs that are being offered has greatly affected every aspect of American life. You say that the rich "create" jobs. What historical information and behavior supports this?
So, the rich have something do do with income tax, value added tax, massive insurance premiums, hugely expensive "public" utilities, all of that? So you are saying that the rich are politicians? Over here the rich are not politicians. That is not the purpose of political public service: to become rich. Money is only an incentive. That is the way politicians see it over here.
Ulp. Well they should.
"A politician, political leader, or political figure (from Classical Greek πόλις, "polis") is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions, whether by means of election, inheritance, coup d'état, appointment, conquest, or other means."
( I do not mean activists who are also politicians:
Activism consists of efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental change, or stasis. The term connotes a peaceful form of conflict. Various forms of activism range from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, political campaigning, economic activism such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing businesses, rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, and hunger strikes. Research is beginning to explore how activist groups in the United States and Canada are using social media to facilitate civic engagement and collective action.) Wikipedia.
Sorry GA. This had to be clarified. (Where did he go?)
It is peculiar that the answer to this dilemma of who creates jobs has devolved into a class warfare discussion. Is that the real reason we cannot come to a solution? One has what the other wants and will not concede a solution? It seems that one side has an idea and the other side hates that idea so they will do nothing to change it. This is why this country will die a slow agonizing death because compromise is a game.
I find it quite amusing that some people seem to think that those providing jobs do so with their own money.
Not nearly amusing as those that think factories (that provide jobs) spring forth from the ground all by themselves, without workers building them, without investors providing funds for them, without architects designing them.
John, this is a spiraling out of control conversation. The answer is more of the same for some. No meeting of the minds and literally no change. No compromise is in sight.
I think we need Kathryn's input here
Providing isn't the same as creating.
Edit: What more is there to argue, define or translate? The middle class does not provide jobs. It creates them through the complicated process of supply and demand. Without the middle class, the rich are sunk.
Are you the Hubpages censor? It ends when nobody can be bothered to post to it any more, not when you say so.
See edit above. I just meant, what more is there to argue? (people usually just show up to refute, as you might have noticed.) I did not mean to euthanize your post.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000 spot on, Kathryn!
That isn't the post I responded to!
That is more or less what I was saying.
More or less = kinda-sorta… can you continue on from "And..." ? So we know your definite stand, John?
I guess that is a lot to ask
Unfortunately you edited whilst I was posting!
Well, what I would have said more or less would be "What more is there to argue, define or translate? The middle class does not provide jobs. It creates them through the complicated process of supply and demand. Without the middle class, the rich are sunk. " But using different words.
In America the link in the cyclical economic process was broken when the massive amount of jobs were lost due to their exportation. The rich continue to get rich and the poor get poorer.
If an example of this is needed you just have to look towards China where a predominance of the jobs went. With jobs the Chinese economy has grown exponentially and is poised to surpass the US if it has not already done so. Is it the rich who created those jobs in China?
Who provide the jobs and wages for the middle class then? Did they create their own jobs!
It's RICH or WEALTHY people who PROVIDES jobs. They have the means and capital to establish businesses and enterprises which employ people. It was always the wealthy who created jobs. They are the ONLY ONES who have the economic means to do so.
I know GM but it seems John doesn't understand this. Research and development is not financed by the middle class, Its not funded by governments unless it suits their purpose (like when they are trying to sell a policy to the electorate).
The truth is that it is a big wheel which requires all the components to work in unison. The best wheels are always balanced.
Research and development is driven by demand, nobody develops a new drug that it believes nobody will want or a new phone or a new anything.
Much research is funded by government. Who do you really think the big drivers behind early computers was?
If you actually bothered to read what others wrote you would have seen that I agreed with your final sentence.
People "demanded" WD40? Microwave ovens? Personal computers, or computers at all? Silly Putty? All before it was found? Who are you trying to kid?
While most R&D is intended to improve an existing product, it isn't because people are walking around demanding that it be improved. It's to increase market share, not meet demand that already exists. In only a few cases is research done to find a way to meet existing demand and that is almost always a tiny demand at that. Companies hope that the product will increase that demand, but there is never a guarantee. An example might be a hybrid or electric car; a handful of "greenies" wanted one, but never enough to make it practical - Toyota and others did the R&D in the hopes of greatly increase that minute demand level.
And who do they expect to increase that demand? it wouldn't be the consumer would it?
No, no - you claimed R&D was only done in response to existing demand. I maintain, with concrete examples, that that is not true. Can you refute?
Read what I said again.
I didn't say it was driven by existing demand, sometimes that demand has to be stimulated hence heavily advertised products are in more demand (usually) than poorly advertised. It is still ultimately the consumer who demands that product, and the accompanying jobs, not the maker of the product.
Do you really think that the developers of WD40, personal computers and silly putty didn't believe there would be a demand for their product? That market research hadn't indicated that there would be a demand?
Ah. I see - R&D creates a product, which is then advertised and demand stirred up. So the rich, the only ones with money for R&D, have created demand, which creates jobs. Gotcha.
WD40 was an accidental discovery, looking for something else. No, no one thought there would be a market for it becuase they didn't know it existed.
No, PC's were first designed and made by hobbyists playing with electronics. They did not intend to sell and did not think their product would have a demand.
There was no market research for either product before it was created. Or silly putty, microwave ovens or any of a thousand other products. You don't do market research for something that not only doesn't exist, no one has any idea it COULD exist.
Many of the great inventions of the 20th century were developed by people who could not be desribed as rich by just about any measure.
IBM predicted a world wide demand for PC in single figures! bad market research but market research none the less. It took people (hobbyists, consumers) to drive the product along and create a demand.
Many of the great inventions were invented by people in their garage with zero resources and zero business/marketing skills.
They were then developed by people with money and business acumen who turned a nearly raw idea into a salable product. The PC is such an example; people (including yours truly) were building them at home - toys being built for the learning experience. Someone else (IBM, primarily) turned it into a salable product. While there are some successful products out there developed and marketed by the poor, they are few and far between.
No, it was not bad market research - that was the demand at the time. People didn't know what a PC was, didn't know what it would do, and didn't realize it would pair up with the internet one day. Without the net, the PC would still have nearly zero sales to the consumer. The vast majority use it as a net surfer or glorified typewriter, which isn't even scratching the surface of what a PC is capable of or what the consumer is buying.
Regardless of who had the money to develop the idea, without demand created by the first builders nothing would have happened.
Jobs may be provided by the rich (where did their money come from in the first place?) but they are created by the consumer.
Ah, John - you are such a fine straight man, tied to an idea however false, forever.
Let's look at the lowly PC. Built by amateur electronics tinkerers in their garage (I built one, too), the product was invented. And it stayed in those garages with zero demand until IBM stepped in, took the idea and ran with it. IBM developed the idea into a salable product and with that product in hand created a demand for it. No one else, just IBM's engineers and sales group.
The rich people, in other words. Not the middle class (unless they owned a couple shares of IBM) - the giant rich company. IT developed it and THEN created a demand for the new product. Not the consumer, not the poor, not even the well-to-do; one of the biggest companies of the world did it all but the first glimmerings of an idea.
Now you can and will come back and reply that the consumer bought it, so they must have created the demand. They didn't - IBM convinced the consumer it wanted their product, not the middle class consumer. IBM. The consumer was nothing but a tool used to create profit, not a creator of demand.
Funny how memories diverge!
Some of the guys building computers in their garages set up small electronics companies making PCs. These proved very successful to the extent (as often happens) that major companies seeing the demand jumped on the bandwagon and started producing.
Otherwise, how did IBM create the demand?
You forgot to answer the question of where rich people got their money from in the first place.
Names, please, if you mean that some of the very first builders became successful selling PC's? Don't forget that apple came years and years after the first PC was built.
It's called advertising, John, that builds demand. Without it few companies would ever survive. Companies generally build their own demand instead of depending on natural social forces to do it for them.
Some inherited, some worked for it. Some even found it in the ground or hit the lottery. Why?
Names? Acorn and Sinclair for two.
The first builders tended to be pushed out of the market by the capitalists who knew a good thing when they saw it.
Yes, advertising creates demand, advertising aimed at the consumer, not the provider.
Why where did the rich get their money from? In every case they got it from somebody who consumed what they provided and from the workers who gave them the goods to provide.
Sinclair, yes, but both late in the game and early. Too late to be an inventor of the PC and too early to be able to build a true PC. And never managed a successful business, anyway, because they could not create a demand. That awaited IBM.
"Yes, advertising creates demand, advertising aimed at the consumer, not the provider" Good - we're getting closer. Now, who is the advertiser - the middle class consumer or the rich man with the money and product?
Don't be silly; not every rich man got that way by selling products they made or even hired to be made. You have a circular argument here, back to the chicken and egg concept - neither came first, both came first. Neither is responsible, both are responsible.
Which, in a way, is what I've said from the start; the rich create demand, just as the consumer does. Both are necessary; remove either and there is no wealth, no demand, no product, no job.
Wow! Finally some headway!
...Which, in a way, is what I've said from the start; the rich create demand, just as the consumer does. Both are necessary; remove either and there is no wealth, no demand, no product, no job.ally some headway! ...
It is a symbiotic relationship so how is it that the rich create jobs as you have emphatically emphasized formerly in this subject? The whole thing is a cyclical event necessary in every economy. When the rich are given tax breaks that lower their adjusted tax rate how is that justified when the middle class absorb the difference? Especially since both are depending on each other for their livelihoods? Even if the rich are taxed more than the middle class, it is historically shown that the economy thrives as the jobs are not dependent on the rich keeping more of their money to "create" jobs?
How is it justified to charge the rich more for the exact same return from the govt. (via higher tax rates)? When the middle class gets a small reduction the rates for the rich must rise dramatically to cover it - how do you justify that?
Historically, when the rich are taxed too much...they leave. Or at least their money leaves, giving the same result; fewer jobs. So, tell me again; why do we charge the rich 10X what the middle class pays for the same return? (Hint: it's not to provide jobs...).
"When the middle class gets a small reduction the rates for the rich must rise dramatically to cover it - how do you justify that?"
And the converse applies. When the rich gets a reduction in taxes the rates for the middle class must rise dramatically to cover it-how do you justify that?
Historically when the rich have paid some of their earnings in high taxes capitalist economies have seen huge growth as in the golden age of capitalism. Since the introduction of lover taxes for the rich we've seen a massive growth in pay inequality and a fall in real pay for those who aren't amongst the rich.
In truth taxation of the rich is the only way that trickle down policies can even hope to work. Anything else is trickle up, though not so much of a trickle, more a flood.
For one who opposes redistribution of wealth you argue very strongly in favour of it.
Don't be silly - simply arithmetic shows the opposite. A large reduction in rates for the rich translates into a small increase for the middle class. It's a matter of the numbers in the respective categories.
So anything done in the past is justified today? Slavery?
No, we haven't seen very much in the way of a fall for taxes the rich pay. Only in the rates they never paid anyway. Some decrease, yes, but they still pay far more than the middle class pays. Heck, they pay more than the middle class has!
In truth higher taxation of the rich is only theft. They get nothing for it, it is forced by those with the power to do so, and that makes it theft.
It isn't hard when there is a spinner activated, changing what I say into something else. But yes, I do find that higher taxation of the rich is necessary to maintain the country. It's not moral, it's not ethical, but it is necessary for survival. Because of that, keep it to a minimum instead of continually demanding more and more because we want what we can't produce ourselves. Stop being greedy, in other words.
Stop being greedy!
Why, in your book, is it OK for those with plenty to be greedy but not for those with little?
How about if we all stop being greedy. Live within our means, with what we earn ourselves and stop forcing anyone else to contribute to our wealth. Let the greed die - take only what is freely offered on both sides. Let the rich stop holding a gun to our head to force labor cost agreements and the rest of us can stop using our politicians, bought with our votes, to legally steal from the rich.
Start off by stopping the rich stealing from everybody else, it seems fair to stop the worst offenders first.
Now, now. We've been over this before. An agreement, freely made without coercion, is not stealing. Few of the rich steal, and they belong (and often are) in jail.
So it is the middle class and poor stealing from the rich when they force them, under threat of jail, to pay taxes far beyond what anyone else pays.
We'll never agree on what actually is coercion.
Take it or leave it is not a freely made agreement.
Coercion: use of force or threats of force/harm by the one coercing. Perceived threats by nature is not coercion. That a person thinks they will starve without that specific job is not coercion.
And yes, take or leave it is freely made until force or threat is made.
Isn't that your constant claim? That the poor take jobs for low wages because they think they will starve otherwise?
Or are you claiming the potential employers are threatening potential employees with starvation if they don't agree to work for them?
Perhaps I'm too insulated. I've never had any employer threaten me with anything, let alone something welfare will cure, if I don't accept their wage offer. Never heard of one threatening anyone, either, but then John lives a long ways away.
You should really watch the video. These points are discussed and waste everybody's time going back to them. But I will push on and reiterate what was discussed and posted in this topic. The rich already pay an adjusted tax rate of around 15% while the working class pay up to 35%. If the rich were brought up to the same level there would be an increase of tax revenue and an equal share of the burden. Watch the video.
Historically since the II World War and more recently the 1950's when the tax rate was over 90% the economy boomed as new families bought everything they needed to start their homes. Typically modern business has turned up their margins to astounding heights where CEO's and top executives earn up to 300% more than their employees. I wonder where those reductions in the modern tax codes went. In their pockets is where and stored offshore in Ireland and the Bahamas. So greed continues to rule the roost here and even though the business may shy away from an increase in spending, it affects their take in the end, There is no fact that establishes the economy cannot increase because of a tax rate adjustment. Just the fact that greed determines the outcome.
Odd how quickly and easily you switch from speaking of what rate the rich pay at to comparing historical marginal rates without mentioning that no one every actually paid those figures at all.
You don't like the rich paying lower actual rates, quite trying to social engineer via the tax code. One deduction, for kids - that's all and that 15% will change rather quickly. Make the change as well to eliminate capital gains rates and the job is finished.
I mentioned a couple of posts ago that if you raise the rates too high, the money goes away - thank you for confirming that. The only thing odd is that you find it strange that the rich will protect their assets instead of giving them all to Uncle Sam.
In that respect, greed as indeed produced the income; far, far too many of the country lives off the charity of the govt, paid for by the rich. It isn't just those in need anymore, it's to purchase luxuries that only a few years ago were unheard of. Greed, in other words, and it is killing the golden goose.
Odd how quickly and easily you switch from speaking of what rate the rich pay at to comparing historical marginal rates without mentioning that no one ever(y?) actually paid those figures at all.
...You don't like the rich paying lower actual rates, quite (Quit?) trying to social engineer via the tax code.
Not engineering a thing. Equal rates is all that is asked.
....One deduction, for kids - that's all and that 15% will change rather quickly. Make the change as well to eliminate capital gains rates and the job is finished.
Not historically. In fact the earlier tax rates that were higher where some of the largest economies the US has ever had.
...I mentioned a couple of posts ago that if you raise the rates too high, the money goes away - thank you for confirming that.
No confirmation but merely a short hiccup as the tantrum they will incur will be short lived as their competition will jump in where they have left a void.
...The only thing odd is that you find it strange that the rich will protect their assets instead of giving them all to Uncle Sam.
I don't find it odd at all as they are hiding money that has not had a fair and equal taxation as the middle class has had to be burdened in their effort to not pay as everyone else.
...In that respect, greed as indeed produced the income; far, far too many of the country lives off the charity of the govt,
I agree with this but not
...paid for by the rich.
It should read by all of us. Remember even those on unemployment pay taxes on their benefits.
...It isn't just those in need anymore, it's to purchase luxuries that only a few years ago were unheard of
I can agree with this in part as there are always those that game the system.
...Greed, in other words, and it is killing the golden goose.
I agree with this except it is on all fronts not just the poor.
Watch the video!
In all of that, the biggest thing I can deduce is that the rich should be paying equally with the middle class. Of course, that means an equal percentage of their huge income to you, not an equal dollar value.
How do you reconcile that with "fair"? That the rich pays 10X, 100X or (in many cases) infiniteX as much as middle/poor classes? For the exact same thing?
You don't seem to like the idea, though, of even an equal percentage - just what do you want from the rich? To take their wealth as well as income down the the level of the 47%?
...Of course, that means an equal percentage of their huge income to you, not an equal dollar value.
Where do you get to me out of that? The tax structure is "supposed" to be relative to your income not to each other. If I were to understand you if I paid let's say $2,000.00 dollars on an adjusted income rate of maybe $5,700.00 at a rate of 35%, the rich would be calculated to pay $850.00 on $5,700.00 based on their adjusted income at 15%. Are we all equal now? Where is the 10x or 100x for that matter.
...You don't seem to like the idea, though, of even an equal percentage - just what do you want from the rich?
This is very convoluted from what I stated. I love the idea of the rich paying the same percentage. As a matter of fact I think it is the only fair thing we can do. But if you are suggesting that the difference of $1,150 dollars that the rich person saved from their lower tax rate is going to "create" jobs as you say, you are sadly mistaken as historically the rich have been pocketing the difference.
Watch the video!
The only "supposed to" in a graduated tax rate is an obvious grab at more money "because they can afford it". Not because of ethical considerations and not because it is fair. If you find it fair, please address what the rich are getting extra for their extra money. More roads? More national security? What do they get by paying more federal income tax than anyone else?
Even if the rich pay the same rate, without deductions or loopholes, they are still paying 100 times what the middle class does - what do they get for that? ($20,000,000X15%=$3,000,000 while $50,000X15%=$7500. The rich person is paying 400 times what the middle class person is and gets absolutely nothing for the extra).
It is perhaps convoluted because it cannot be otherwise and still have a country (IMHO). We either ding the rich extra and accept the poor ethics of the action or die as a nation.
Because if somebody is paying 35% and only covering their cost of living, that 35% is much more of their disposable income than somebody earning $1 million and paying 35%. That is why we have a graduated tax.
Doing my best to decipher that convoluted piece of "reasoning", it sounds like we require more of the rich because they have more we can take. And we do it without regard to what we give them in return, under threat of incarceration if not paid.
A most ethical stance, as long as you play the three monkeys (see, hear and speak no evil) and ignore what you have just done, but then stealing always is a little iffy ethically, even when made legal.
But it isn't theft, it's a contractual agreement entered in freely, well just as freely as most employment contracts.
My ignorance of the UK is even greater than I thought. I've signed no contract with the US government concerning my tax rates (and it changes nearly yearly anyway as the politicians change the rules) and I assumed the UK was the same. Nothing, in other words, was "freely entered into", unlike the case of an employer/employee sitting down across the table and offers/counteroffers/acceptance being put on the table.
You were born and choose to live in the US. There is nothing to stop you moving somewhere that does not expect you to contribute to the society that you choose to live in.
My ignorance of the US is just as great, I can't imagine sitting down with a prospective employer offers/counteroffers, being put on the table and the employee arguing for and accepting the minimum wage.
So if I do nothing it means acceptance of a contract with the govt. No other contract would be enforceable in this country when it was based on inaction instead of an action consisting of agreement. Kind of means there IS no contract, doesn't it?
Why would an employee argue to cut his wages? Is the typical UK laborer that stupid? Perhaps they deserve only minimum wage!
As far as accepting minimum wage, it happens every day. If they do nothing - no contract and no pay. If they accept AND do the work - a contract and pay. A contract that was accepted as show by the work being done, as opposed to simply living and doing nothing.
Ever actually looked at any terms and conditions on web sites? The ones that say that by using the site or software of whatever, you are accepting the terms and conditions?
You (of course) totally miss the point about employer/employee contracts.
Sure! You visit the site, read the disclaimer and proceed to use the software. That's hardly "nothing"
Of course I missed the point; the point in that argument always seems to be that an employee agreeing to minimum wage isn't agreeing to minimum wage because...because...well, because John Holden thinks minimum wage is too little for ANY job. A point that is obviously false and will never be agreed to by anyone of a non-socialistic bent.
No, they accept the minimum wage because it's better than nothing, that's all. They don't think it fair just like you don't think taxes are fair. They just have no option.
If I don't pay taxes, I'm taken to jail. If they don't accept minimum wage they are...wait for it...given welfare/unemployment/disability instead. No coercion, no force, no threats involved.
Can you see the difference? (And I notice you haven't tried to make taxes of 100X middle class contributions sound "fair" yet).
I know you'll find this hard to believe but to many people having to be supported by the state is a prison sentence. Indeed in the UK we tend to treat prisoners slightly better than we treat the unemployed.
It is indeed a sentence, of slavery, and all too often a life sentence to boot.
"Give me liberty or give me death!" - why anyone voluntarily enters into such an arrangement is beyond me, except that some think it will be for "only a month or so". Instead, laziness and greed all too often extend, and extend, and extend the sentence until it is permanent.
But prisoners/unemployed - not here. Unemployed can go to work (become their own boss if necessary, and sell paper roses on the street corner) anything they wish - prisoners cannot. Of the two I would have to choose unemployed as I will ALWAYS be able to fine or make work.
And if the only work you could find paid the minimum wage?
If minimum wage would support me in the style I wish to live (unlikely) I would take it. If not I will find other work - although this may require a change in location (which I've done to find work), beginning a new career (which I've done to find work), additional training (which I've done to find work) or something else I will do it.
What I will NOT do is lie down and declare there is no work in the country which I can do and therefore society must feed, clothe and house me forever. For although you have conceded defeat and declared there is no work in the country in which you live, events (masses of immigrants finding work) prove you wrong and there is always the possibility of creating work - every job out there started that way by someone looking for an income.
"therefore society must feed, clothe and house me forever."
There are probably no more than a few hundred who fall into that category in the UK despite what some will tell you.
Changing location is fine, if you can afford to, and find a place where work is available.
Retraining is of course an option if you have the means to support yourself while you retrain. It isn't possible if you are on unemployment benefit-they decide that you've made yourself unavailable for work.
Many people are not like you and I and do not know how or don't have the ability to make work for themselves.
As I said, for many the only option is work at the minimum wage.
I know you find it hard to believe but not everybody is as talented and creative as you.
I could say more but at nearly two in the morning I can't be bothered.
And if they are not talented or useful, they still deserve the luxuries, the "finer things" in life somehow? But only after you take them from the rich, right?
Believe me, nobody gets the luxuries of life on unemployment benefit in this country. They don't even get enough for the basics. Minimum pay is no better.
I've asked before and you always sidestepped the question.
If they don't get the basics, how many (on minimum wage) starve and are buried each year as a result of starvation? How many walk the streets naked? Or DO they get the basics, from one source or another?
See sanctions and Mark Wood
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk … ssion.html
If they have to rely on food banks for food and charity shops for clothes they are hardly enjoying the luxuries of life are they?
...obvious grab at more money "because they can afford it".
I don't understand how an equal tax rate is a "grab at more money" as all of us who are not in that bracket pay more of a percentage of our money than another. That is the convoluted part I mentioned. You don't have a basis by which to describe the fairness of it all. Because the rich would pay a higher amount does not mean they are paying more based on the percentages the rest of us are forced to pay.
...please address what the rich are getting extra for their extra money.
I don't understand what "extra" money you are talking about as they would be paying at the same rate as everyone else. Simple math does not slight either the rich or the poor by establishing an equal rate or percentage. The rich should not expect anything extra if their tax rate is the same as others. As it stands right now the middle class has been footing the bill for the rich by paying a higher percentage of their income to supply the rich better roads, newer government buildings, money to defend the country and so on.
...Even if the rich pay the same rate, without deductions or loopholes, they are still paying 100 times what the middle class does - what do they get for that? ($20,000,000X15%=$3,000,000 while $50,000X15%=$7500. The rich person is paying 400 times what the middle class person is and gets absolutely nothing for the extra).
Based on a dollar amount you are absolutely correct. But also the rich are making 300 to 1000 times what the average taxpayer does. But that is not how taxes are applied. If that were the case and you went into a store to buy something and you were rich you should have to pay less because you have a greater income? What could they base the tax on then? Your income? Your good looks? Perhaps who you are related to? No, it is based on a percentage and as sales tax is percentage based and shouldered by everyone equally so should the income tax. How is someone punished more and put upon to pay what everyone else is required to pay? Just because the dollar amount is more does not mean they are paying more than anyone else. It is the only fair way to apply the tax code to everyone equally.
...It is perhaps convoluted because it cannot be otherwise and still have a country (IMHO). We either ding the rich extra and accept the poor ethics of the action or die as a nation.
Nobody is dinging anybody when they are required to do no more than what is expected of everybody else. No convolution here. Now as far as poor ethics in this country I can't agree more that we have a topsy turvy mess as far as how inept congress and the presidency operates but that is an entirely different topic.
You are grasping at straws my friend and your plea for better ethics is the evidence as ethics demand that all pay an equal share to live in this country. Besides the tax breaks the rich are given is a failing effort by the government to encourage the rich to re-invest and provide for more economic growth. Something you have adamantly been opposed to is government intervention to micromanage the countries economy. I would most certainly say, a convoluted approach on your part.
It is obvious you have not watched the video. Watch the video.
On the contrary Sinclair built the first true PC and did it very successfully being also the first mass market PC in the UK in 1972. IBM didn't enter the PC market until 1981 and at about ten times the price of a Sinclair computer. In 1986 Sinclair sold his computer interests to Amstrad with a substantial interest in home computing in the UK in the 80s, to free up time to develop other interests.
Hardly the work of a man who never ran a successful business.
The Sinclair was sold here, too, but had a tiny, tiny market. Enough, probably, to keep going but not enough to get rich from. The IBM machine sold for much more because it was much more capable - the Sinclair was still a toy for the electronics geeks and without real function.
So you are telling me that some people just woke up in the morning and found that the money fairy had left a huge lump of money in their bank accounts?
Some did. Lottery (mentioned before), inheritance (mentioned before), unexpected discoveries (mentioned before and includes gold or oil, inventions, etc.). Not everyone takes years to accumulate riches.
But they all involve somebody else's money.
Nobody woke up to find themselves rich for no transfer of money.
"Transfer of money". As in purchasing something of value? Like gold, or oil? And lottery funds belong to the company selling tickets until the game is over - transfer is merely giving the owner what is theirs.
How did those people get something of value to trade in the first place?
Chicken and egg, John, chicken and egg. You keep claiming that somehow no one can accumulate wealth without taking it from someone else, then turn around now and say they all had the same job the middle class does, just somehow leveraged it into massive wealth. Make up your mind.
What proof do you have to support this statement? Merely repeating the talking point is just stating an opinion. Give us a basis. Have you seen Robert Reich's "Inequality For All"? It is a breakdown of the way the economy has worked for the last hundred years and totally refutes your claim. I dare you to watch it.
Wow! The rich both create and provide jobs! Some trick. They must be very busy.
...Who provide the jobs and wages for the middle class then?
The consumer provides this by providing money for the rich and the employees that sell the product. If there is no job there is no money to spend. If the rich created the jobs then there would be money to hire employees. If the lack of tax breaks and deregulation hold back the rich from creating jobs why is anybody working now?
...Did they create their own jobs!
In essence they did by supplying the money necessary to keep the cycle moving between working and buying consumables.
Wilderness, I'm just listening to a program on the radio about self employment, specifically people who've been made redundant and chosen self employment over seeking JSA.
" I get some work but not enough"
"I work fourteen hour days but barely make a living"
"The government gives us no help,instead they obstruct us at every turn"
"Everybody is a gardener".
"The government makes more out of my work than I do"
"I walk dogs, plenty of work but I just make ends meet"
I think I'd agree with anything said there. It's tough to start up a business, and the hours are indeed long and often grueling. The govt. (in the US) does throw a great many roadblocks in the way - blame the great unwashed, not the rich, for that. Everybody is a gardener, and somehow that's the job too many choose to work at. The govt. DOES take far too much - that's what we're talking about.
And anyone that thinks walking a few dogs is going to provide a great living is going to find out very differently. As a full time business, with multiple employees, it can be done; as a single person walking a few dogs it's a losing proposition.
But NONE of that has anything to do with overtaxing the rich or with minimum wage except to graphically point out and prove that minimum wage (unlivable, according to you) CAN be turned down and the person survive.
Well in an indirect way it is to do with over taxing. The common complaint was about how much the government took off the small self employed worker. As a percentage, much much more than the rich are required to pay.
I doubt that. Only when one plays games with the numbers (what, exactly, is being taxed) does the small business pay a larger percentage.
But can you explain (outside of "Because they have more we can get our hands on") why the rich should pay more in taxes than the middle class? Not expressed as a percentage in order to make it look smaller, but in total dollars paid?
One bloke was a self employed courier who pays about £700 per month for his fuel before he earns a penny for himself. That equates to around £600 a month in tax to the government.
Show me one of your favoured rich that pays anything like that rate of tax?
Wow! I knew fuel taxes were high in the UK, but 85% of the price paid? And in the US, if the fuel is used in a business, to earn money, there is no tax.
I pay approximately $500 per month in income taxes, which is 95% of the first $525 I take in. MUCH higher than your business man, but then perhaps I'm rich.
The point is that when you play games with the numbers, they get skewed far out of reality and turn into lies. You want to talk about the tax rate of this bloke, talk about how much he pays vs how much he earns. Not the payment vs a small portion of what he takes in.
But in any case, those kinds of taxes are necessary to support a socialist government, that has chosen to provide cradle to grave support for all it's citizens. It is perhaps the primary reason I don't like the socialist model - earnings belong to the country, not the person earning them.
For pities sake! We last had a socialist government over 35 years ago. This lot are even more right wing than your government.
I take it you didn't bother to look at the link I posted.
Don't you think "socialistic" is a relative term? Compare it to the US, specifically the welfare/giveaway programs and tax rates.
No, I seem to have missed you link somewhere. Unless it was a long video - those aren't generally worth my time.
"See sanctions and Mark Wood
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk … ssion.html"
Well from what you've said that the unemployed get in the US it's far more than our unemployed get. Therefore I repeat my claim that the US is more socialist than the UK.
Mind you there is nothing socialist about paying people not to work, that is straight down the line capitalism.
As for taxation you all commonly bleat that the US corporation tax is the highest in the developed world.
When I drew unemployment (pretty common in the building trades as jobs never last) it was slightly more than minimum wage. It lasts only 6 months, though, and is not coupled with any other assistance; indeed such things as housing allowance, food stamps, etc. are not generally available when on unemployment. Taxes are also owed on any amounts drawn.
Capitalists do not pay people to sit home and do nothing; they pay for a task done.
Taxation of US corporations is not particularly high when compared to other countries; I don't know where you're getting that idea at all. One can make the case it isn't reasonable as corporations pay tax on earnings, and then the owners AGAIN pay a tax on the same earnings when they get it. And then again to the state, and then again when it is spent - every dollar earned by a corporation is thus taxed at least 3 times and often more.
The unemployed in this country get about 25% of the minimum wage plus a few bits on top. Also taxed.
True, capitalists do not pay people to sit at home. They fix things so that you and I have to pay them.
I got the idea that US corporation tax is high from these very forums!
Interesting; I always though of it as much higher. Mine was, I think, $350 per week, while minimum wage would only produce around $280 for a 40 hour work week. That was, however, the top tier available; those that had earned less over the prior months did not get that much. A quarter of minimum wage would be $70 per week, and is most definitely not livable for even a single person. It will barely buy enough food to survive on, and that would be all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_ … ted_States
"Federal tax rates on corporate taxable income vary from 15% to 35%."
Of course, state tax is then piled on, too, with a bunch of other taxes to boot. But the total is, I think, less than most European countries by quite a chunk.
Shame, John, for promoting the conspiracy theory that capitalists are out to force people out of work, or to somehow force society to support them. It doesn't happen that way.
Minimum wage in the socialist UK £252.14 assuming a 40 hour week. Unemployment for a single person in socialist UK, £72.40.
"Shame, John, for promoting the conspiracy theory that capitalists are out to force people out of work, or to somehow force society to support them. It doesn't happen that way."
No they aren't out to force people out of work but neither do they do anything to employ them.
When has any capitalist argued against unemployment payments? Socialists in the UK fought against them but capitalists are too aware that hordes of hungry people robbing for food are a threat to them and so we pay them not to riot. It happens that way.
So how do people on unemployment live? In the US you can't live on anything like that and I assume you can't in the UK either - where does the extra money/food/housing/etc. come from?
Of course employers employ people - that's definition. They do not employ more people than they need, though - that would be socialism as people are paid for nothing then.
Can't speak for the UK, but arguing against ANY form of welfare/charity or even unemployment insurance results in the huge cry of "You just want the little children to D I I I E E!". An end to debate, in other words, by resorting to emotionalism instead of reason. Plus, of course, the inevitable cry of "Well you should hire them to stand around and do nothing, then!".
How do people in the UK live on unemployment? Precariously, oh and if you live in social housing and have a spare bedroom they take 25% off your benefits without caring that it has led to suicide in some cases.
"They do not employ more people than they need, though "
What, you mean when demand drops they cease to employ people. I think that's where we came in isn't it? Only you were arguing that the people who create jobs were the same as the people who provided them!
Nobody in the UK argues that people should be employed to stand around and do nothing. Just that they should be properly employed to work that needs doing.
"How do people in the UK live on unemployment? Precariously, oh and if you live in social housing and have a spare bedroom they take 25% off your benefits without caring that it has led to suicide in some cases."
Then those on unemployment are getting additional "help" somehow, somewhere. Social housing, maybe, but whatever it is it allows that "precarious" living. Seems to work, though, as you aren't providing statistics on starvation cases dying.
You want them to work, but won't provide jobs. Won't provide the demand for products they will produce, won't provide the funds to pay them. Always someone else to do that, somehow.
Strangely enough the government doesn't provide statistics on the numbers their policies kill.
I provided you with evidence of people killed by government policies but you chose to ignore thm as mudslinging.
Ah yes, as usual the victims are to blame for their plight!
No, you didn't provide any evidence of people killed by government or government policies. Nowhere in that mass of mud and crap was there any numbers representing people dying of starvation or anything else.
When they won't work, they won't work. We both know there are lots of jobs in the UK, just as there are in the US, (both are employing thousands and thousands of immigrants and, in the US, millions of illegal aliens) so there are jobs. But the people won't work them, will they?
Even a wiki link showing rates of starvation in the UK over the years would be helpful. Better would be stats from the equivalent of our Center for Disease Control, but even Wiki might get the death rate at least close.
Public health in this country is a government department. As the government are currently trying to shut down a charity for laying the blame for the rise in food banks on the government how likely do you think it is that any government department would tell the truth?
I'll get on with producing a Wiki page but it might take me a week or two, but then you wouldn't believe that either.
Here's the suicide rate for recent years in the UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in … ed_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_ … ed_Kingdom
http://nsnbc.me/2013/12/05/poverty-uk-c … nutrition/
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/disposse … 21114.html
None of the links shows death rates due to starvation - the obvious conclusion is that no one in the UK has starved for many years. Why do you then claim that government policies are causing the people to starve? Or are you (intentionally) confusing "starve" with "hungry" in an effort to exaggerate the truth into something it is not?
I'm not sure what suicide rates have to do with anything - I'd have to say that if people were busy supporting themselves instead of sitting home brooding about how no one will feed them (as they eat the free food and enjoy the subsidized housing) the suicide rate would go down.
Missed a link out
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 … nefits-cut
As I said before, the government will not release death rates due to starvation.
Just one case would prove it for most people but blind supporters of right wing governments probably require more proof.
Uhh...You do know and understand that showing a case of death by starvation does NOT prove (or even hint) that it was caused by government policies?
Causation is a whole different kettle than existence - it takes lots more to show causes than it does to show existence. So find these massive number of starvation cases, then - if there are even 1/10 as many as you insinuate are happening there WILL be records somewhere.
Who will have access to the raw data and who will record it?
I don't get it. You've claimed that there are people starving in the UK due to govt. policies and now you claim you haven't a clue if it is true or not?
You're losing it, John - deteriorating to reasoning religiously! Next thing will be that Parliament is run by Satan!
No, I did not claim that I haven't a clue-you did that.
I have sufficient evidence to know that there are people starving in the UK due to government policies. It is you who chose not to believe.
"I have sufficient evidence to know that there are people starving in the UK due to government policies."
You have the evidence, but refuse to provide or show it. Again, this sounds like religious "reasoning" - you will excuse me, please, if I indicate disbelief?
I've shown you the evidence it is you who refuses to view it.
?? I saw a wiki article that said people were hungry. Two others said the same thing. None said anyone starved.
I saw a mudslinging effort that said the opposition party was terrible and hurt people. It did not say anyone died of starvation and it didn't provide proof of anything at all. It DID claim it's own party platform was superior, but then all parties say the same thing.
So I've viewed it, but nowhere have you shown proof (or even mild evidence) that people are dying of starvation. Yet you know what evidence and proof might consist of - that raises the question of why you're making the claims at all when you can't/won't back them up? Because they're not true is the first thing that comes to mind, and in a first world country that seems the most likely by far. You're trying to grossly exaggerate a small problem into a major catastrophe, but it doesn't work. Not without proof, it doesn't.
So you actually want people to die before anybody takes action!
You didn't read the links about Mark Wood then?
Er, what party does the "mud slinging" effort support? It actually says that the opposition party is just the same as the party in power! What is it's own party then?
There are none so blind that will not see!
No, but I DO want to see bodies when you claim people are starving to death. I don't, which makes the claim false, and throws the whole "Government is bad" thing questionable.
Sorry, I saw the mudslingers as a political party. I still do, whether they consistently put candidates on the platform or not.
The fact that you see no bodies is because you don't want to see them!
Are you telling me that Mark Wood did not starve to death then?
Are telling me that thousands of children go hungry everyday and that some are grossly underdeveloped?
Even if the "mudslingers" were a political party why would that prohibit them from criticising the three main parties in the UK?
Frankly Wilderness, I've seen you as many things, some good, some not so good but I've never seen you as a government apologist before.
Google tells me that of all the Mark Woods, they are either alive or dead long ago. More information, please?
Thousands of children go hungry, nearly all because their parents refuse to provide food although they could. A very, very small number may be underdeveloped as a result, but I have no real information on that.
Nor will you find me now as a govt. apologist, either. Just someone holding your feet to the fire to verify your (IMHO) wild claims that people are starving all over the US and the UK. I don't believe it and you either can't or won't provide any evidence supporting the claim. It isn't happening, then.
ark was obviously mentally impaired John, he would have been and should have been entitled to benefits, these sort of things will always happen when checks and balances are more important to governments than the people they represent.
There are obvious questions about the level of care this individual received both from the NHS and welfare services and his own family, although non were to blame for his unfortunate demise they all knew about his mental state.
The fact of the matter is that the government was voted in to change what some of the electorate had seen as becoming benefits Britain. Maybe if the last government was more selective with the use of the benefits system there would be more money to spend on those who really need it.
As far as I can see there is only the instance of Mark Woods and although it is an unfortunate one why should we stop assessments on that basis? Many have simply not shown up for the assessments what does that indicate?
The entitlement society will always say they are starving when they cant get what they want.
Mark had problems that were obvious to all apart from ATOS and the Job Centre. Do you not think cutting off his support played a major part in his death?
The fact of the matter is that the government weren't voted in to hound the unemployed and as we've discussed elsewhere unemployment benefits are such a small part of the whole welfare system that eliminating them entirely would make not a blind bit of difference to the debt,.
If you think that only Mark Wood was affected by ATOS then have a look at a few more of the links that I posted for Wilderness. They're nice and fresh as he doesn't appear to have used them
And I said those problems would have been even more apparent to his family. And I also said that it was a failure by those who work for and with the government. But should it all change because just one failure?
They are not hounding the unemployed John they are trying to make the system fit for purpose. This has nothing to do with unemployment benefit though does it? Its about the benefit system as a whole, its also not about the debt its about putting the welfare system onto a more sustainable footing.
I know many have been effected by the decisions of government departments, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to improve the system.
Maybe even we should start trying to improve the system.
It isn't just one case is it? Maybe only one death so far, there may be more, but how many disabled have been slapped down by this "caring" government?
Yes John we should start improving the system.
Just as it isn't the case of just one person living their whole life on benefits, there still has to be a system of checks and balances.
There are different levels of disability John, not all are incapable of working and over the years there has seemed to be a blanket wrapped system where by a decision to give the benefits were never backed up by checks, now if you apply for any benefit you will get a review and a decision will be made, people have the right to appeal against the decisions.
You haven't forgotten that a previous government tried to massage the unemployment figures downward by moving unemployed off unemployment benefits and on to disabled benefits?
No, not all disabled are incapable of working and many did until the cost cutting government did away with Remploy, remember Remploy? They provided work for many who were incapable of holding down a mainstream job..
Yes, people have the right to appeal against decisions and many win but hey still do without whilst awaiting that decision.
?? You want me to read a political mud slinging page? Why?
Because you are quite happy to sling political mud?
Or, when was an open view mud slinging?
Or are you another who does not believe in freedom of speech especially when it disagrees with you.
Or, you asked for proof that anybody in the UK had died of starvation. I gave it to you. Everything on that site is verifiable if you dig deep enough.
Silverspeeder, just to remind you of what Cameron actually promised before the 2010 election-
"We will always look after the needy, the disadvantaged, the elderly, the frail and the poorest of our country. That is the sort of person I am."
Not really very much in that about crucifying them is there?
There are 5 million people on welfare benefits of one kind or another in this country, mistakes will be made (and publicised to death by the liberal left) but in general there are more people who benefit from the system than lose out.
I will always be sympathetic to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own, I know that there are some who are in difficulty, I will also always defend the need to look after the disabled and sick the old and infirm but you will never get me to have sympathy for the people who decide to live their whole lives on the system, whether it be one or a hundred thousand and one, the system will always need checks and balances.
There are about 5 million unemployed and less than 1000 are long term unemployed, you'll punish the 5 million for the sins of the 1000!
And i agree with you, the system does need checks and balances, desperately. All checks and balances have been removed by government. Do you know that something like one third of decisions by ATOS are appealed against and won?
Is that a good use of our money?
No John I said about 5 million receiving benefits, I will still dispute that there are only 1000 people out of work today that were out of work this time last year. However there are people who don't claim unemployment benefit but live their lives on other benefits.
Here is an example, it is personal but its what I know to be true. My own niece has 4 children with no full time partner, she has received benefits for 9 years, she receives multiple benefits including tax credits and housing benefit, here youngest child is now 6 months old, again she has not had to name the father (although we know who he is), here reasoning is that she will not have to try and find work until the child is 4 (we expect he 5 child about this time. She is by no means unique, in her child's play group there are another 30 mothers (some I know personally) with about half being in the same situation as my niece.
Do you think this is the best use of the welfare system or should we be doing something about it?
Is this really good use of our money?
Damn that woman! Force her to go out and find a man to marry and keep her.
Its too late for that John because she is part of the entitlement culture which have grown up under the previous government.
However its not to late for the next generation!
Not too late for what for the next generation?
To provide meaningful and remunerative work?
To provide adequate housing so that single women have another option to obtain housing over pregnancy?
Stop blaming the victims of this usurious government. Over the last 35 years I've watched this country go to wrack and ruin, become a really divided society as bad as any third world country riddled with a handful of haves and a mass of have nots.
To educate them John.
To provide meaningful and lasting employment.
And yes to provide adequate housing for all, not just single women, that would be discriminatory wouldn't it?
Firstly John I don't blame the government I blame the electorate for letting it happen. If we would have all voted socialist there would be no benefit system would their? Work or starve being the message I believe ( I wonder how many or the entitlement breed would really starve to death then).
I also have watched this country go to rack and ruin but we have different ideas to why and different ideas on how to fix it.
On another note John (something that just come to mind) as you are the resident expert on socialism here is a question.
If under a socialist system a country obtained full employment a fair and just division of wealth and land would there be any immigration to that country?
Yes, a proper education, not a cannon fodder education would go a long way to help. And of course adequate housing for all, but I was answering a specific question from you.
Of course there would be a benefit system, the disabled would need care taking of them and the sick would need provision.
Indeed the ultimate blame is with the electorate (that part that can be bothered to vote and that bigger part that can't be bothered) but we've given them so much power that what we want is now pretty meaningless.
You don't agree that a major solution to our problems would be to get the country employed again then! What would be your solution?
Socialism is international, not national so of course there would be migration between countries.
We agree then, a proper education (I doubt if we mean the same thing though). I wasn't a question John it was an observation and I don't think housing is the be all and end all to the problem.
Well that would be a welfare system that looks after those who need care, not for the benefit of those who chose not to work.
I agree that one of the solutions to our problems is getting the country to work again, however I would tie that in with educating the people in working, both in practical and moral application. And I would not give employers and endless supply of unskilled/ semi skilled/ or professionals whilst we have a mass of unemployed people waiting to be trained and future generations who could be employed with the right training and guidance,
So you do agree that for socialism to work it must be world wide. Which severely limits it happening unless you are prepared to force it upon people.
Really we've been through all this before, the number who chose not to work is insignificant and not worth directing all our energy against.
Housing may not be the be all and end all but if you consider that the only way for some to get a home is to have babies, we are doing something wrong.
It take it then that you are against workfare? That is a much bigger handout to those who don't need it than any welfare claim, but we don't seem too concerned about that do we?
I don't agree that for socialism to work it must be world wide, how did you reach that conclusion?
And the number who have starved to death because of benefit changes has been one and that's disputable. so why are we concentrating on the changes, they affect only a small amount of people.
We continue to import people who will take up the housing stock whilst not building enough to cover the next generation. And if these people are thinking in that way is that right and acceptable?
I am very concerned about workfare, but again if employers had not got a bottomless pit of workers to chose from then they would be fighting to fill their jobs, real jobs with real wages.
"Socialism is international, not national so of course there would be migration between countries"
However there are no socialist countries and there would be very little if any trade so how would you maintain full employment? Do you think the country will grow and grow just becase you will continue to import people to make it grow?
No, I quoted only one reported case of dearth by ATOS. There are more.
Do you realise that the amount of unoccupied housing stock in the UK far exceeds the number of homeless?
Migration isn't about importing people, neither is it about banning people. Do you really want the millions of Brits in the EU to have to come home?
I have seen non of the others you don't seem to have mentioned by name.
Empty homes in the UK have reduced over the last 5 years, however I will concede that there are some councils that still have huge amounts of unoccupied properties.
If all the Brits were forced to come home and all the immigrants were told to leave there would still be a net reduction in the population of the UK.
The free movement of people in the EU may not have been about supplying endless cheap labour but it has certainly worked out that way. I would have thought you would be against that John, using cheap labour to supply even more profits to the rich.
I don't hold names at my finger tips.
It isn't just councils that have huge amounts of unoccupied property, private landlords are sitting on masses too. That's a direct affect of our inflationary housing policies.
They may well be a nett reduction in population but a large increase in unproductive people and a much higher drain on services.
As you say free movement was not about the supplying of cheap labour but then you have complained about th British worker pricing himself out of the job market. Which is it?
No evidence then!
Private landlords don't usually sit on empty residential property, its in high demand and they would be losing lots of lovely cash. A friend of mine who owns a few houses almost cry's when a property is empty, even if its for a week or two.
So all those Brits who left the country are non productive then John? On what evidence do you make this assumption?
Its six of one and half a dozen of the other there John, the big employers saw that there was an untapped supply of cheap labour and started to employ them. The rise of the employment agency has been meteoric over the last 15 yrs and has been almost exclusively staffed by cheap disposable EU labour. I don't blame the migrants John as even our pittance of minimum wage is very good to most of those that come here, we also have good benefits and a very good healthcare system which they can access all for free.
"A Department for Work and Pensions FOI request yielded a response showing that people having their claim for Employment Support Allowance (ESA) stopped, between October 2010 and November 2011, with a recorded date of death within six weeks of that claim ceasing, who were until recently claiming Incapacity Benefit, totalled 310. Between January and November 2011, those having their ESA claim ended, with a recorded date of death within six weeks of that claim ending totalled 10,600. "
So you are telling me that the government have killed 10,600 people and its not all over the media and there is no absolute social outcry?
You still have no evidence as to your statement, the only thing you have posted is that the ONS figures show that people who died had one form of benefit stopped before they died. I know that when ESA stops other benefits are available to replace them, even with the case of Mark Woods this was the case.
Do you not think that a compassionate and caring society would inform claimants who had one benefit removed which alternate benefits were available and not just leave them to die as a cost cutting exercise?
There is a difference between caring society and a foolish one who are taken for a ride by those who paly the system. Part of the problem is that the system was made unfit for purpose by the previous government and in the process of sorting it out some have suffered far more than others, which of course is never acceptable.
I still think if they sorted out the few (as you continue to maintain) scroungers and they way the system has become more about entitlement than safety net then the people in most need may get that.
So the 10000 that died were taking the system for a ride!
On what evidence do you claim that?
Please give evidence of your claim of 10000 starving to death. And on what evidence do you base your claim that they have starved to death because of benefits claim changes.
Just quoting the DWP. And I never claimed that they starved to death, just died within six weeks of their benefit being stopped.
Now you claimed that they were all gaming the system, prove it.
Didn't say they were gaming the system, maybe you should read it again.
The gist was if we stopped those who game the system (those you don't seem to think are) then there would be more money and more impetus to help those in need.
It seems that is what you have come to believe. There have been 50 migrants from Romania alone since Xmas have they all found jobs and not claimed benefits then John? Do you think they are all doctors and nurses then?
We have 1.5 million unemployed, the majority of those will be low skilled so why would we need to import low skilled workers?
Things are changing though aren't they, as the benefit system is being overhauled more and more people are coming off benefits and finding jobs. The unemployed (particularly the long term unemployed) are finding jobs. So again why do we need to import unskilled workers?
Well John the some empty homes are coming back into the system (75000) last year alone so are you saying this government has got it right as most of the increases came under the Labour years.
I applauded George Clarke and friends for their efforts and would like to know where I could get one of the £1 empty homes from.
But you seem to think that it is so important to stop those few gaming the system that all those who aren't must be punished! Actually, if you stopped all unemployment claimants, gaming or honest, it would not make a blind bit of difference.
It seems that you have come to believe that all immigrants have come for our magnificent and easily claimed benefits!
Actually, no, it is not changes to the benefit system that are getting people off benefits and into work, that is down to a slight upturn in the economy. Do you know that work placements whilst still having to sign on and still receiving unemployment benefit are not actually counted as unemployed?
So you do concede that you were wrong and that most unoccupied housing is privately owned?
Firstly how do you know how many are gaming the system? Would you say my niece is gaming the system? And how much do you think it costs to keep 2 million people on unemployment benefits?
No John not all of them but because we have had an open door system for so long who would know? It is now accepted that the huge growth in population (mostly due to immigration) so quickly has put stress on the system in housing, benefits, education and the NHS.
I really don't understand why people like you cant see that. It really is a question of mathematics, you cant get more than a pint in a pint mug no matter how hard you try.
Many people have even bothered to turn up for assessments, both for employment benefits or ESA. There does seem to be a general consensus that it is now better to work than to live life on benefits.
No John because privately owned could mean anything and it doesn't actually give figures although I will accept that because the vast majority of property is privately owned it does seem logical that most empty properties would be, I am more concerned however about the reasons why social housing should be kept empty. Any ideas?
Do you know how many are gaming the system?
As a percentage of UK costs the cost of keeping 2 million on the dole is little in financial terms, great in morale terms. But, it keeps wages low and that is more important to the rich.
I would not call an increase of 0.8% huge population growth, 57% of that growth being naturally, the increase of births over deaths, and 43% down to immigration
What were you saying about mathematics?
You do realise that people who don't bother to turn up for assessments are automatically taken off benefits? Can you quote me figure for "many people"?
What social housing is kept empty? You must have some real examples!.
That's a question I asked you, the reason being is if you do not how can you comment that it is insignificant.
Why would it be good in moral terms to keep people on the dole? Surly if the figures were reduced there would be less need to raise taxes to support them. Immigration keeps wages low, simple supply and demand.
"In particular, annual net migration has substantially increased since the beginning of the 1990s, exceeding natural change as a driver of UK demographic trends in all years from mid-1998 to mid-2011. However, natural change has remained positive throughout the last two decades and has also continually increased from 2001 onwards, in particular due a rise in the number of births. As a result of a significant drop of net migration (by almost 100,000), 2011-12 was the first year in more than a decade when natural change contributed more to the growth of the UK population than net migration. Overall, between mid-1991 and mid-2012 net migration (resulting in an addition of 3.4 million people to the UK population) accounted for just over half (54%) of UK population growth."
I suppose if you take your figures from one year you will get a screwed view, or did it suit your particular point John?
Yes I did realise that very thing and was wondering how the hell do those people survive if they are not receiving any benefits, maybe they didn't need them in the first place. Not to sure about the figures John but I seem to remember it was quite high in the first instances of the assessments.
Are you telling me there are no council properties in Gunchester that are empty?
Unless I specifically go out and count them I couldn't give you a figure but I know of at least 3 in my immediate area that have been empty for 3months or more. Councils don't like to give figures for empty properties it makes them look stupid whilst they shout about empty private properties in their areas.
I have an empty private property next door to me John, the old lady suffered a fall about 16 months ago, after a short stay in hospital social services said she would be better in a home, her family agreed but the old lady resisted as she had lived in the house for 68 years, however she now loves the home she is in and her son is seeking power of attorney over here estate so he can sell the house to pay the ever increasing care costs. There are many reasons why private property is empty but only one as to why council property is empty........incompetence!
Here is a good site if you want to see about immigration.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u … ion-growth
I suppose it will be full of right wing liars from you point of view though John.
It's easy to see that the whole amout paid to the unemployed is insignificant. When the unemployed account for 3% of the welfare budget how would you consider it anything other than insignificant?
I said the cost in the morale of the unemployed was great, not that it was good.
You quote 54% of population growth down to immigration against my 43% again, that sort of difference is insignificant, remembering that population growth is 0.8%- that means that by my figures just under 0.4% of population growth is down to immigration and by your figures, just over 0.4%!
So you have no answer to the number of people who don't turn up for assessments!
If the only reason for any social housing being unoccupied is incompetence, whose incompetence is that?.
Most of the unoccupied social housing in Manchester is so because it was vacated to be regenerated, the government then capped the spending stopping the redevelopment.. Whose incompetence is that?
JSA payments 2012 £4.91billion. Yes of course an insignificant amount.
How many of those claimants get other benefits as well.
If you take the separate elements of the benefit system some may be considered as insignificant
Council tax benefit £4.83billion
Statutory sick and maternity pay £2.55billion.
I am still amazed that you thin £4.91billion is a small amount!
The largest is state pension £74.22billion.
Sorry John misunderstood that part of the statement. I see you didn't question the supply and demand part for labour though.
There you go again 11% is insignificant? I wonder if you would say that about an 11% pay rise!
I said I didn't have the numbers.
Its management incompetence, leaving properties empty and not having plans to deal with changes in funding or demography has to be down to the management. If they were under private management would you put it squarely at governments door.
As a proportion of the debt that this country faces, yes insignificant.
11% of what is insignificant?
So a local authority is not allowed to raise funds for housing redevelopment but it is still their fault that they didn't plan for that!
As for private house building schemes that have stalled through government policies, yes I would put that down to bad government. Which gets us neatly back onto the topic of this thread. Demand for housing stops and employment in construction follows.
But we are not talking about debt, we are talking about balancing the books with the taxpayer and making sure they get value for money.
11% was the difference between your figures and the actual figures.
Yes John clearing out and knocking down existing housing before you have the commitment of finance to replace the housing is incompetent.
Ah back to the OP.....Not all private housing is funded by government, companies usually invest capital in the market if there is a need for the housing. Nobody pays for a house on the premise that it will be built and banks don't give mortgages on that same premise.
So it either takes someone with money to invest or someone with foresight and able to take the risk for any housing to get built before the consumer can buy them.
Well the best value for money would be everybody working in gainful employment, all contributing to tax.
Ah! Get you, so you think that 11% of 0.8% is a huge number!.
But they had the commitment for funding, the government withdrew it. By the way, houses that have been demolished are not even empty houses.
No, private housing isn't funded by the government but the government decides whether or not people are confident to invest in property.
A friend owns a few houses and he's typical of all landlords including large institutions who really do find it more profitable to keep property empty and just profit off the increase in value!
There you go again, I didn't say that all were none productive, I said there would be a large increase in none productive people. That isn't the same.
Our benefits are the worst in the industrialised EU countries.
No John he loses money when properties are empty, there are costs involved. Large companies love to leave office building empty?
How would there be a large increase in non productive people then John?
But most of the Eu migrants haven't come from the industrialised countries have they!
Have you no idea of how house prices are escalating?
Retired people tend to be none productive.
So what if most EU immigrants haven't come from industrialised countries. It makes no difference to any benefit they receive and they still live here.
But they still escalate even when they are tenanted. Of course even more money is made then.
But they still get a pension whether they are in the UK or not? So it would make no difference in the overall numbers.
Of course it makes a defence John they come here because its easier to obtain the benefits.
Although property depreciates in value more when occupied by bad tenants plus of course management costs.
Pension so what? They are replacing able bodied and tax paying workers.
You really have no idea of how hard it is to obtain benefits in the UK.
Property depreciates because they are tenanted, really John? I would hate to see the area you live in. In Birmingham most empty properties are vandalised a lot more than occupied ones.
If properties are managed properly they are a fantastic asset to have.
You really have fallen hook line and sinker for the government line of all immigrants who come here don't claim benefits and all of them find jobs within a day of landing here.
When a migrant comes here he just becomes another statistic, there is no financial or economic gain as they use the services provided and will be entitled to pensions in later life, even if the move back to their country of origin.
You really have no idea about the benefit system at all do you John!
"Why are these homes empty?
Most empty homes are privately owned"
http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/ … ce-201112/
I've fallen hook line and sinker for nothing! Show me were I've said that I believe that all immigrants "come here don't claim benefits and all of them find jobs within a day of landing here"
Unfortunately it is you who have no idea about the benefit system.
by Mike Russo3 years ago
During Obama's state of the union speech, he stated that he wants the minimum wage raised and is going to raise it for federal employees. He implied this will create jobs. The republican party countered...
by shazz011097 years ago
After all of the bailouts, TARP, etc., it seems that Obama and Congress are just spending $ that we don't have like drunken sailors. Shouldn't there be more focus on creating jobs, and improving the economy?
by MikeNV7 years ago
The Associated Press released a story today... an anti-republican, pro Obama piece about jobs created with stimulous money in South Carolina in a mostly Republican area."The new hires came from a broad area...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi … -Karma.htm
by Jesusjohn7821 months ago
Everyone hates the "rich" and I do not understand why. I was always under the impression the American dream was to become successful and stay successful? SO why are we always trying to punish the...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 weeks ago
Disclaimer: Not discussing rich people who inherited their wealth & made nothing of their lives. Not addressing poor people who are elderly, physically/emotionally/intellectually/ psychologically...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.