Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-ne...91466-23677252/ Just like with MPs. Get caught, repay the money, then it all goes away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-ne...91466-23677252/Just like with MPs. Get caught, repay the money, then it all goes away. Total of £64k in a year. Insignificant. A bedsit costs more than that. £64k vs houses overpriced by £64bn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixle Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Total of £64k in a year. Insignificant.A bedsit costs more than that. £64k vs houses overpriced by £64bn It's not insignificant to those individuals that get their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-ne...91466-23677252/Just like with MPs. Get caught, repay the money, then it all goes away. Terrible, just terrible! We need more unelected quango's, taxes and regulations - that'll fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 If people want to work for less than the minimum wage, why should they be prevented? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 If people want to work for less than the minimum wage, why should they be prevented? Because our taxes will be making up the difference between what they are paid and what they need to live on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwick-Watcher Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Because our taxes will be making up the difference between what they are paid and what they need to live on. Funny how working 40 hours per week for 48 weeks @ £5.73 NMW exceeds the personal allowance for Income Tax by around £5,000. Why don't they just set the Personal Allowance at the level of the NMW x 40hrs x 48 weeks? Oh, that's right - they're socialists and hate people on higher salaries to keep the money they've earned. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) If the choice is between no minimum wage or no job then people will go for the former, the govt will turn a blind eye too if it removes somebody from the dole and unemployment data. Anyway we now have a shadow workforce, an illegal slave class that is below the radar, now times are tough and there's not enough jobs to go around these parallel worlds are colliding. The migrants don't care about the lack of protection under the minimum wage because they avoid tax, that makes up for it. The fact is you cannot have a minimum wage AND free trade and open borders, because companies will simply sidestep the law and move factories or call centers wholesale to low wage countries or directly employ undocumented labour. If you want a minimum wage and a social chapter then ultimately you need protectionism and a closed economy, anything other than this reality is simply fudging the issue. Another option is to loosen the land monopoly, make the cost of housing and living lower therefore making us more internationally competitive, however we are now ruled by parasites in the form of lawyers, bankers and politicians rather than industrialists. Edited May 26, 2009 by sillybear2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godless Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 We already have legalized slavery in place. Gangmasters Licensing Authority http://www.gla.gov.uk/ Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040011_en_1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) We already have legalized slavery in place.Gangmasters Licensing Authority http://www.gla.gov.uk/ How long before the govt becomes complicit in additional criminality in order to rake in extra tax revenue? Maybe a Drug Dealers Licensing Authority, The Hookers Agency or The Human Organ Futures Exchange? Maybe a return of the Super Casinos? No wonder Labour lost its core vote, they've done everything they possibly could to screw over the working man. They've officially endorsed a class of surfs. Edited May 26, 2009 by sillybear2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest มร หล Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 How long before the govt becomes complicit in additional criminality in order to rake in extra tax revenue? Maybe a Drug Dealers Licensing Authority, The Hookers Agency or The Human Organ Futures Exchange? Maybe a return of the Super Casinos?No wonder Labour lost its core vote, they've done everything they possibly could to screw over the working man. They've officially endorsed a class of surfs. A horrible reality. Will it change? If so, how fast? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 A horrible reality. Will it change? If so, how fast? Probably, but not in a nice way, the unintended consequences is to drive the disenchanted into the hands of extremist parties. Was this done purposefully? Could be, but I don't think NuLabour are that clever, maybe they only listened to their business lobbyists and disregarded all over concerns. Socialists motives work in the following order; themselves, the party, business cronies, the country, the people. So no conspiracy, the truth is plain to see, they just don't give a f**k about anyone but themselves, sadly confirmed in fine detail over the past couple of weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest มร หล Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Probably, but not in a nice way, the unintended consequences is to drive the disenchanted into the hands of extremist parties. Was this done purposefully? Could be, but I don't think NuLabour are that clever, maybe they only listened to their business lobbyists and disregarded all over concerns. Socialists motives work in the following order; themselves, the party, business cronies, the country, the people.So no conspiracy, the truth is plain to see, they just don't give a f**k about anyone but themselves, sadly confirmed in fine detail over the past couple of weeks. SB, West now soon will meet East in economic realities. The transitional period is going to be dire for the West. There's a lot of other descriptions for what the political elite are. Neither 'socialist' or 'capitalist' (Fudge are you listening). I would say Plutocrats with the intention of creating global oligopolies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocrat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly What tink dink? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzb Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I think the agriculture industry has a get-out clause from the national minimum wage. There's a quango committee that sets farm-worker wages. It may be the law in respect of prosecution is not the same as flouting the national minimum wage in industries to which it applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) I would say Plutocrats with the intention of creating global oligopolies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocrat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly What tink dink? Yes, I do the word a disservice by describing the current bunch of thieving kleptocrats as 'socialists', at least they had a coherent ideology and a belief in a higher purpose, no matter how misguided and unobtainable. The current elite are nothing other than soulless, impulsive, power crazed and vacuous, their only objectives are eternal slavery, a massive national debt and tax burden enforced by authoritarianism. With all resources, the land, labour and capital locked down, taxed and under their control. The sad part is they truly believe they are acting in our best interests, Brown stated in PMQ's he wont call an election because the little people know not what they vote for and need protecting from themselves. They cannot see what they have done to this country, the wars and economic ruin is somehow oblivious to them. Their only concerns are their personal successes in defrauding the tax payer for £8k plasma screens, this is the banality of evil, truly corrupt people cannot see themselves as corrupt, even a slight acknowledgment of the truth would blow their world apart. Edited May 26, 2009 by sillybear2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest มร หล Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Yes, I do the word a disservice by describing the current bunch of thieving kleptocrats as 'socialists', at least they had a coherent ideology and a belief in a higher purpose, no matter how misguided and unobtainable. The current elite are nothing other than soulless, impulsive, power crazed and vacuous, their only objectives are eternal slavery, a massive national debt and tax burden enforced by authoritarianism. With all resources, the land, labour and capital locked down, taxed and under their control.The sad part is they truly believe they are acting in our best interests, Brown stated in PMQ's he wont call an election because the little people know not what they vote for and need protecting from themselves. They cannot see what they have done to this country, the wars and economic ruin is somehow oblivious to them. Their only concerns are their personal successes in defrauding the tax payer for £8k plasma screens, this is the banality of evil. Yes, they are evil. Sounds extreme, but they put the UK through hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britney's Piers Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1242776534...0&width=980 business as usual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 We only needed a minimum wage because house prices were so high. If you removing housing costs from the equation, people could easily afford to live on less than minimum wage. If fact if you removed the cost of housing completely, EVERYTHING would be 80% cheaper. If you buy bread, your paying towards the wages of the baker, the miller and the farm workers... since 30%+ of their wages goes directly to cover putting a roof over their head, removing that cost would let them work for 30% less, making bread cheaper. But the cost reduction would cause a feedback loop, as the bakers/farmers/miller food costs would also be lower, so they could work for less again. I'de go as far as to say that 95% of the cost of everything is house prices. The millers rent goes up, so he put up flour prices, so everyone else has to be paid more in order to eat, including the man who repairs the mill for miller, who raises his prices, so the millar has to put up his prices some more to cover that cost. All that money being sucked out of the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Because our taxes will be making up the difference between what they are paid and what they need to live on. And if they are paid nothing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 And if they are paid nothing? They are either slaves or the business owner has no staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 They are either slaves or the business owner has no staff. Or no-one places any value on their skills or labour. More snappily known as unemployment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Or no-one places any value on their skills or labour. More snappily known as unemployment. That's not what was being discussed. The inference was that minimum wage=unemployment as the employer throws his toys from the pram and shuts up shop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 They are either slaves or the business owner has no staff. What makes you think people have a right to work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 What makes you think people have a right to work? What gives you the impression I think that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I get the distinct impression the govt has been rather disappointed with how few evil employers paying below minimum wage it's been able to find. The minimum wage is good from the point of view it makes sure employers focus on having the leanest team possible and if it puts businesses off taking on staff, long term, they're probably the better for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.