Sunday, Apr 25, 2010
Another unapologetic boomer happily riding the young
Times: Ex-minister wants young jobless starved into work
The irritating thing is that the chances this man has had to be in his fortunate position will never be available to those that come after him. I suggest euthanasia - it's the only way we're going to get sustainable redistribution of wealth and economic policy that looks beyond its own self-interests.
Posted by paul @ 03:52 PM (1174 views) Add Comment
18 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. mark wadsworth said...
Agreed.
The only sensible kind of welfare system is flat rate, non-contributory, non-means tested, non-taxable universal benefits (make up your own mind how long foreigners would have to have lived here before they qualify), a bit like Child Benefit but for all age groups, also known as "Citizen's Income" (which is the answer to the question "What would you do with Land Value Tax revenues, having reduced income tax to zero?"). The precise weekly amount of that Citizen's Income is also a different debate, it is the principle that is important.
These authoritarians just love means testing, as a result of which many people are better off not working (which I agree is A Bad Thing), which they then use as an excuse to introduce yet more rules and yet more distortions.
2. paul said...
Maybe young people should just shortcut the starvation process altogether.
3. tenant super said...
What I found interesting about this article is that the two work refusers are described as from middle class families. Now middle class is increasingly becoming a broad and meaningless term but I am guessing the point is that these two chaps could find employment and are not from the stereotypical 'shameless' background.
Their point though is that they don't need to work. A more pertinent point is that with house prices in the stratosphere, only the most desperate qualifying for the limited social housing and wages subdued, local housing allowance is the only way many young people can afford decent accomodation. Therefore ordinary people, who may be described as 'middle class' will increasingly realise that not only do they not need to work but working is more limiting of life options like having a family. Another trick is to work the16 required hours for tax credits ... that way you don't have the job centre on your back.
This situation will eventually become financially unviable, if it isn't already. The State can't pull the rug on housing allowance without putting hundreds of thousands of families on the streets... so providing proper affordable housing will eventually become a necessity (whether through price deflation, social hosuing or both).
4. Grizzley Bear said...
LVT or a "Citizen's Income" would be effectively a form of Communism, thus based on flawed economics. I very much doubt it would provide as much funding as you think it will, given most currency gain is from real Inflation, which is a hidden fraudulent tax caused by the states and banks devaluing currency, by issuing more fiat currency and fractional reserve debt. I suggest that land price inflation would be reduced by this trickery, thus further sabotage useful amounts of LVT revenue.
I suggest that all unconditional payments are a cause of disincentive to work; this perceived laziness and unfairness would cause significant resentment from workers, thus eventually cause tax payer revolt, and possibly violent conflict.
I suggest that unconditionally giving any of this nations wealth to foreigners, by the state, is a gross abuse, given charity should always by a individual matter of compassion, despite propaganda from the church, the state, and the many corporate charities. Any immigrants should provide a sizeable contribution before they can gain any assistance from our land, 1st generation children included.
I am already annoyed that the Welfare State funds so many parasites, off my earnings, so don't think of pushing me any further by taxing the land of my mortgated home (not investment) further, I am already rebelling at political theft.
Revenue must come from genuine productivity (e.g. goods and services individuals are willing to pay for), not from fiat debt illusions.
Poverty is not adequately solved by charity, it is solved by allowing/providing people opportunities to do productive work for things individuals want and need, something most of our politicians don't seem to respect enough; just look at how motivated people are in more Capitalist economies.
Damn it, read "The Wealth of Nations", by Adam Smith, already; yes it is a long read, but so fundamental to the understanding of value, why Capitalism replaced feudalism, and why proper Capitalism is more workable that current legal socialist corporate fictions, with pockets and veneers of Capitalism.
I suggest you also read "Daemon" and "Freedom" by Daniel Suarez, to see how a form of Cooperative Capitalist Anarchy could work much better than our current legal Socialist Corporate mess.
5. alan_540 said...
If they're not working then that's yet fewer first time buyers in the market, so as far as HPC goes it's simply more grist for the mill.
6. Grizzley Bear said...
LVT is a contradiction and will always cause its own demise, which is so typical of Socialist ideas, much as Socialism is slowly destroying the economies of Developed countries.
If you have more consumption, and inflation, than compensating needed/wanted production, you get increasing debt; it doesn't matter how many taxes and fake incomes you impose, if not fixed, the end result is always bankruptcy and default, or slavery!
Only productive economies with a net excess can support charity, get used to it!
7. drewster said...
tenant super,
Can you explain the 15-hour work-week limit as it applies to benefits? I'm struggling to find resources on the internet. Am I right in thinking you still get housing benefit / council tax benefit / etc. as long as you work less than 16 hours a week?
8. gone-to-colombia said...
What if we all decided to give up working?
There has to be some kind of harsh incentive to work.
9. tenant super said...
Housing benefit, council tax benefit is calculated on income (whether from handouts or earned) and it doesn't matter how many hours you work.
I'm referring to the common trick of working the minimum hours so you get Tax Credit which is is a top-up benefit payable if you work at least 16 hours a week ... if you you get working tax credits instead of JSA, you get quite a lot more money and there are no back to work interviews and all the associated pressure.
You can earn up to £6,400 and still get full tax credits and will probably qualify for near-full housing benefit as well. With one child, you would get about £9k in tax credits plus you keep all your earned £6k plus housing and council tax benefit. That's £15K take home pay with the majority of your housing costs already paid for ... not bad for a two day working week. Mr TS often sees this with his kitchen porters and other low paid staff who refuse extra hours.
10. drewster said...
Wow, thanks for the clarification tenant super.
11. tenant super said...
.... sorry my figures are a bit out. It's actually £7.3 K in tax credits (9k is if either you or the child qualify for the disabled element which is an extra £2.5K). But you would get child benefit (£1058) so that's £13k and most of your council tax and rent paid for, so still a good deal.
12. clockslinger said...
Hmmmm, wonder if Sir Digby Lardarse has any problems with the taxpayer assisting his profit margins by subsidising the low wages paid by him & his mates through working families tax credits? Another "every little helps" from us to our rulers in big business. I'm afraid Sir Fatso Jones name goes into the Livre Noir for later on.
13. clockslinger said...
Oh, and let's not try to sqeeze this plain spoken northern blubber pile into the "boomer" (non) category 'cause a lot of people of not dissimilar age I know were having their nuts cracked by the Met in the miners strike a few years back...Futile, you may have been taught, but still a lot more committed and politically active than the average thirty year old around here.
14. tenant super said...
There's an interesting comment at the bottom, likening the action of the work refuseniks to 'the strike' in Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'.
The strike of the productive workers was against the moochers and looters. The moochers are those who cry for sympathy and take money on behalf of those who can't or won't earn for themselves. All the Mail/Express readers slate the moochers (the welfare dependent) but forget about the looters; the government officials who are into big tax and big governance or the parasites in bankrupt business bailed out with the money the government loot from us.
15. Simon said...
I lost respect for Digby Jones a few years earlier when he was enthusiastic about immigrant workers who came here to do jobs at wages which would not support a UK lifestyle . Now and again he earns some of it back .
However , it is not fair for the low paid to pay tax to provide benefits for people who choose not to work and adapt their life to surviving on benefits instead .
16. orcusmaximus said...
I wrote to my prospective MPs proposing Citizen's Income a week back.
The Tory replied back saying 'Thanks but no thanks' in an email littered with spelling mistakes.
The Lib Dem didn't bother replying.
The Labour I didn't bother writing to. I know from experience that she is diametrically opposed to common sense.
Ho hum, who to vote for?
17. Acid said...
"The only sensible kind of welfare system is flat rate, non-contributory, non-means tested, non-taxable universal benefits"
Mark are you talking about a flat rate of benefit for all citizens including the employed or do you mean for the unemployed only?
If it's a flat rate for ALL citizens won't that just cause all prices to inflate correspondingly?
If everyone's given a fixed amount unconditionally why won't it have a similar effect to devaluing the currency?
The only difference I can see from wage inflation is the flat rate will be a bigger percentage of earnings for low earners than for the rich so will increase the spending power of the poor by a bigger factor.
18. Adam Smith Fan said...
Grizzley Bear needs to read the Wealth of Nations again. He obviously missed the bit where Adam Smith compared the different kinds of tax and decided that LVT was a Really Good Idea. Just to ensure that he doesn't miss it again I'll point out that he needs to read Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses and pay attention to the bit on Ground Rents (remembering that Land Value Tax is the modern term for a tax on Ground Rents).
And I will accept his apology for implying that Adam Smith is a communist as long as he promises never to do it again.