Why Should Anyone Work For Minimum Wage?

[BoomBoom]

Do people own things without law?

Why yes, yes they do.

Does ownership precede the state?

Yes, yes it does. Even small children understand ownership instinctively.

Unless you are going to claim that 4 year olds operate under the licence of the state you are SOL on this one, bunky.

It's theft, get over it.

Try claiming rights to a piece of land without using the law.

[Injin]

Try claiming rights to a piece of land without using the law.

Can't be done, but that's ok, land can't be owned.

[BoomBoom]

Can't be done, but that's ok, land can't be owned.

Of course it can.

[Injin]

Of course it can.

No, it can't. It can only be stolen.

[mightytharg]

The average tax burden on the poorest 10% is ~45%

For the remainder it is ~35%, excepting the richest 0.1% for whom it is 31%

Your tax burden may vary from that but thats the average. The above includes stealth taxes

And why should corporation tax or VAT be included?? They are a business expense and not a personal expense, and again other countries have to pay a comparable level of these. Thus they make you no more or less competitive than other business or countries.

I'm also wondering how the heck you can call teachers and nurses indolent. Have you ever taught a class of 30 screaming kids that don't want to behave, that threaten teachers? Spent your evening's which supposedly is when your off, going through stacks and stacks of papers correcting your students work? Or been a nurse that works the night shift for 2 days, then a day shift for two days, then rotates again and again and again. Any idea how hard that is? bet you don't.

And in fact i'm not poor, and i'm not even a socialist as you would describe the term. But I see many inequalities in the uk which continue to grow. The poor are becoming poorer and the rich are becoming richer. It is no coincidence that the two occur at the same time. So should the person earning minimum wage, who will likely being doing so for many years. Who can't get a raise, and will quite likely have his job in-sourced to a eastern european if they try to push for one. Should that person who's living on the bread line, and can only survive with government handouts say thank you to a boss who would pay them less if it was legally possible? The one who lives in a 500,000K house, has 2 or more nice cars, when owning any car at all is beyond their means? I don't think so.

Try doing one of the jobs of one of those 'poor people' as you describe them. See how you would like it, before you would disparage such a person.

You people are sick. I give you 60 grand a year and you don't even have the simple curtesy to say thanks.

I've done the teaching (too good, so the kids weren't screaming), and the minimum wage job. Not cruel or a girl so I haven't tried nursing.

And as for inequalities growing, who's fault is that? That's right the poor. They keep voting Socialist so the Socialists have an incentive to keep them poor, it's circular.

I don't know why I should have to pay corporation tax or VAT either. You explain it you're the one who thinks high taxes are so good.

And who's this guy in the £500,000K house? Some Northerner in a government job maybe? Wouldn't get you a decent flat round here.

P.S. Where did you get those laughable tax figures from? 35%??? Income tax 40%, NI 15%? Corp tax 30% VAT 17.5% (earnings) VAT another 17.5% (spending), inflation 10%?, petrol tax 80%?, booze 40%? Capital Gains 19%, car tax, council tax, hotdog tax, stamp duty, parking & speeding taxes, companies house fees, planning taxes, import taxes etc etc. It's madness.

[mightytharg]

ownership is enforced by law, law is paid for by taxation - what bit are you having difficulty understanding?

As I'm sure you are aware ownership existed before law, and exists just fine without it. It would be way cheaper to pay for armed guards anyway, instead of our overpaid police force (260K/year desk jockeys).

[Chrysalis]

I disagree because of the word 'abuse'. I took this to mean that the claiming of benefits wasn't legitimate.

However, if we are talking about legitimately claiming benefits versus legitimately avoiding tax then legally I agree with you BUT morally claiming benefits long term is wrong because you've done nothing to deserve them. At least people avoiding tax have earned their money in the first place!

The fault lies with the system that allows it.

I paid national insurance for the duration I was working, up until the point I couldnt work I was in full time employment from the age of 18, between 16 and 18 I was training. I now claim a contribution based benefit which I have paid enough contributions for and I may be on this benefit for decades if I am on it for decades in my opinion it means I am unlucky as I would much prefer to be healthy enough to be able to work full time again and have a life, so the question is who is better off? Certianly I preffered my life even when I was struggling on min wage as I had my health then. If I did a hard 12 hour shift in a factory my body felt battered at the end of it but the moment I got home there was relief and after sleep I felt fit and had energy to do what I wanted. Been ill there is no going to sleep to recover you remain ill when you wake up, the pain is there 24/7 with sleep the only relief, the restrictions to life are there 24/7 its like I am always at work as I have no break from the condition I have. I get income based benefits to help with housing costs. Now do you honestly think someone legitametly claiming benefits especially after they have paid into the system is wrong? you think everyone on state pension is wrong to be supported by the state?

The tax system exists for a clear reason from where I sit, before it came into play the situation must have been that the fortunate (the rich) did not voluntarily support the vulnerable so eventually they were forced to via means of taxation. Obviously not just the rich get taxed anyone who works is taxed but a fair tax system taxes the richer more. Tax avoidance is just as bad as benefit fraud there is nothing moral about it, it doesnt matter if you think the law is unfair its the law. The difference I see tho is something is been done about benefit fraud especially if the tories come into power they have some very radical things in mind like time limits so you will get your way somewhat, but little is been done about tax avoidance most likely because the parties are been funded by people who need the tax avoidance loopholes to stay.

As to things like social exclusion social movement etc. clearly someone who is born wealthy has an advantage from day 1, they can start up a business for example without having to beg a bank for a loan and have interest costs on that loan, they can get mummy and daddy to help with buying a home and pay for their education, daddys contacts will get you that nice job that pays 50k a year the day you graduate. ITs not what you know in this day and age its who you know and the chances are the people already in that position will know the right people to get you in that right position.

Looking at the state of incapacity benefit claimants etc. is it also any surprise the number is rising?

we have a rising total population in particular working age with immigrants.

the nhs is poor its useful for treating life threats ie. heart attacks but stuff that requires ongoing treatment and diagnosis like chronically non fatal illnesses its poor at, things people claim incapacity benefit for.

the working age have increased levels of stress and stress is linked with bad health.

more and more people have to work long hours to pay the bills, long hours (overtime) will reduce health.

the bulk of incapacity benefit claimants may be from working class backgrounds but these people typically do physical jobs such as factory work where you more likely to get work related illnesses and conditions.

it doesnt take a genius to work this out.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Chrysalis

[Saberu]

This seems like an entirely rational approach to me. The fact is any attempt to raise the standard of living through the implementation of the national minimum wage has simply been decimated by catastrophic rise in the price of home ownership. If we were able to get access to affordable housing then the minumum wage may not be so bad at all.

Nail on the head, sums up everything and sums up one of the things I hate most about this country. It's also one of the main reasons I'm leaving in May. Many people fail to take into consideration that it's not just house prices that are higher these days but also renting. If houses and renting were half the cost they are today then it would bring Britain back to the quality of life people here used to expect before they had the wool covered over their eyes and saw house prices as their new cash cow.

At the risk of being flamed I'm going to go against the grain of opinion on this thread by saying I have nothing against supermarkets and the reason they can afford to undercut local shops is mainly because they have a cheaper business model using economies of scale. Though I do think there should be tighter regulation and monitoring to prevent things like price cartels and other bad practices.

Of all the bad things that could be said about capitalism it's still a damn sight better than what we had before and no one can argue against that just look through history. The one big saviour for me is that I can use my intelligence to eventually build my own business and earn an income I think I deseve based on my own merits.

Based on things I've heard about how things were before women started working full-time a lot more it seemed that a husband in a modest job (lets say £20k/ year) was able to afford to support his wife, accomodation, children and a variety of other things. But thats all gone to the wall now because living expenses in this country have definitely increased a hell of a lot over the past 50 years. The only reason things aren't a lot worse than they are now is increases in efficiency by use of technology and better practices which have lowered costs for businesses and government.

As for the benefits system, it's no co-incidence that 90% of the benefits are given to people with children. The reason this is the case is that the government want to grow the population as fast as possible because it means better economic growth and more competition for jobs. Thats also why they like mass immigration.

Someone commented on supermarkets eventually replacing till workers with RFID tagged items and self-serving. I for one greatly look forward to this as it means much much lower costs for the supermarket which means savings passed onto the customers. Also in this day and age I think most people have no excuse to aspire no higher than a crappy till job as there is enough learning tools and training courses out there for people to pursue a better career which will also be more beneficial to society from their increased skill-set.

[Chrysalis]

Some of the posts I am reading make me feel sick, considering tax as theft these comments must be based on pure greed and nothing else.

If you live and work in this country you consent to paying taxes and abiding by these laws, those that dont do this and get caught are charged with breaking the law. Anyone who doesnt like this is free to live somewhere that doesnt tax.

Consider this, without taxation there would be no laws, there would be alot less technology, we would probably have been invaded by now as there would have been no army to defend the country and no diplomats to negotiate with america. disease would be rife like in africa as there would be no state health care to look after mass population, unemployment would be a majority of the population, without them working there would be noone buying products that fuel the wages of the top earners effectively making the richest people poorer as well. Everyone who currently works in the public sector would also be unemployed.

I think I know which system I prefer.

There is people who break the law to better themselves or abuse the law without breaking it eg. having a child just to get a council house and child benefit, it is wrong however someone saying they see themselves breaking the law as moral but others as not clearly very selfish.

[mightytharg]

The tax system exists for a clear reason from where I sit, before it came into play the situation must have been that the fortunate (the rich) did not voluntarily support the vulnerable so eventually they were forced to via means of taxation. Obviously not just the rich get taxed anyone who works is taxed but a fair tax system taxes the richer more. Tax avoidance is just as bad as benefit fraud there is nothing moral about it, it doesnt matter if you think the law is unfair its the law. The difference I see tho is something is been done about benefit fraud especially if the tories come into power they have some very radical things in mind like time limits so you will get your way somewhat, but little is been done about tax avoidance most likely because the parties are been funded by people who need the tax avoidance loopholes to stay.

Dear Scrounger,

Benefit fraud is a crime. Tax avoidance is not and is encouraged by the government (ISAs etc.).

Look up fair in the dictionary; treating people unequally probably isn't top of the list of definitions.

If something is legal it doesn't mean it is morally right, and vice versa. Scrounging unnecessary benefits is obviously morally wrong, and keeping more of your own money away from the scroungers is clearly morally OK.

HTH.

mightytharg

[Injin]

Some of the posts I am reading make me feel sick, considering tax as theft these comments must be based on pure greed and nothing else.

If you live and work in this country you consent to paying taxes and abiding by these laws, those that dont do this and get caught are charged with breaking the law. Anyone who doesnt like this is free to live somewhere that doesnt tax.

Consider this, without taxation there would be no laws, there would be alot less technology, we would probably have been invaded by now as there would have been no army to defend the country and no diplomats to negotiate with america. disease would be rife like in africa as there would be no state health care to look after mass population, unemployment would be a majority of the population, without them working there would be noone buying products that fuel the wages of the top earners effectively making the richest people poorer as well. Everyone who currently works in the public sector would also be unemployed.

I think I know which system I prefer.

There is people who break the law to better themselves or abuse the law without breaking it eg. having a child just to get a council house and child benefit, it is wrong however someone saying they see themselves breaking the law as moral but others as not clearly very selfish.

Tax is theft, get over it.

[jimmy_joe]

No, it can't. It can only be stolen.

When "we" went to Australia we put a flag on its soil and successfully claimed it as our own. When, as a protest, an Autralian Aborigine planted a flag in the UK a few years ago he was ignored. So what's the difference? Is it that the UK has the framework of a modern state to back up ownership? Without that anyone can take anything, and they did.

[Ah-so]

Tax is theft, get over it.

In an ideal world we would not have it, but it seems the least worst situation. If we could get tax level down from about 45% of GDP to 30%, most would feel less aggrieved at having to pay it. Doing away with some of Gordon Brown's sillier welfare schemes and finding a replacement for the NHS would be a good start, as well as allowing us to live longer.

[jimmy_joe]

Tax is theft, get over it.

If I built a load of roads, educated a load of children and healed the sick I would charge for it. Those who don't use the services would still benefit from living in a healthy, educated, mobile society. There will always be freeloaders, get over it.

[waiting_to_exile]

Tax avoidance is not and is encouraged by the government (ISAs etc.).

Do you really think that providing ways to gain tax efficiency on accrued assets is encouraging tax avoidance? ISAs and the like are only available to those who can accrue savings in the first place, so there's an immediate barrier on who can benefit. It also requires a positive act and a certain amount of legwork to find and buy into these tax efficient vehicles, something that someone who is managing to save fifty quid a month, say, is far less likely to pursue (not that I'm excusing laziness, but there are large swathes of society who really don't have a culture of taking much interest in financial matters). If the government were really in the business of encouraging tax efficiency/avoidance in an egalitarian manner, they would surely simply not tax the first x,000 pounds per year of savings for everyone without putting any barriers in the way and ramp the tax-free income allowances? ISAs, PEPS, SIPPs etc. are designed to ease the tax burden on the middle classes, not help out someone on minimum wage.

[Injin]

When "we" went to Australia we put a flag on its soil and successfully claimed it as our own. When, as a protest, an Autralian Aborigine planted a flag in the UK a few years ago he was ignored. So what's the difference? Is it that the UK has the framework of a modern state to back up ownership? Without that anyone can take anything, and they did.

Right.

And anyone can physically go anywhere. This is just a fact. They can only be prevented (or self prevent).

This is why land cannot be owned in the same way that houses and other things can.

In an ideal world we would not have it, but it seems the least worst situation. If we could get tax level down from about 45% of GDP to 30%, most would feel less aggrieved at having to pay it. Doing away with some of Gordon Brown's sillier welfare schemes and finding a replacement for the NHS would be a good start, as well as allowing us to live longer.

I have no problem with arguments saying that we need some of it etc. This is a fine position to take and is an arguable position to boot. To deny the basic facts of how the state operates does no one any favours, in fact it prevents limits to a state that would help us all.

If I built a load of roads, educated a load of children and healed the sick I would charge for it. Those who don't use the services would still benefit from living in a healthy, educated, mobile society. There will always be freeloaders, get over it.

Wrong order. You had to steal to build the roads and hospitals. That's not freeloading, it's theft with the thief then giving to charity.

Taxation is theft.

Get over it.

[jimmy_joe]

Do you really think that providing ways to gain tax efficiency on accrued assets is encouraging tax avoidance? ISAs and the like are only available to those who can accrue savings in the first place, so there's an immediate barrier on who can benefit. It also requires a positive act and a certain amount of legwork to find and buy into these tax efficient vehicles, something that someone who is managing to save fifty quid a month, say, is far less likely to pursue (not that I'm excusing laziness, but there are large swathes of society who really don't have a culture of taking much interest in financial matters). If the government were really in the business of encouraging tax efficiency/avoidance in an egalitarian manner, they would surely simply not tax the first x,000 pounds per year of savings for everyone without putting any barriers in the way and ramp the tax-free income allowances? ISAs, PEPS, SIPPs etc. are designed to ease the tax burden on the middle classes, not help out someone on minimum wage.

Who avoids tax by investing within a shares ISA? The dividend subsidy has been ended, like in pensions a few years ago, so it's only capital gains or high earners taking dividends that benefit. If you're making about 10%/year and trading about £90,000 of shares each year then having shares in an ISA will mean you pay less tax, if you are in the top tax bracket and take dividends then the same applies. There are clearly rewards for the rich but I don't think many in the middle class will be saving much tax with their ISAs so the tax burden on them is probably increased. It's all spin.

[jimmy_joe]

blah blah blah blah...

You are so far removed from reality I can't even work out where you stand any more.

[waiting_to_exile]

Who avoids tax by investing within a shares ISA? The dividend subsidy has been ended, like in pensions a few years ago, so it's only capital gains or high earners taking dividends that benefit. If you're making about 10%/year and trading about £90,000 of shares each year then having shares in an ISA will mean you pay less tax, if you are in the top tax bracket and take dividends then the same applies. There are clearly rewards for the rich but I don't think many in the middle class will be saving much tax with their ISAs so the tax burden on them is probably increased. It's all spin.

So, by arbitrarily drawing your own line between "rich" and middle-class and picking one product type you still end up saying that you will save tax. My point was that the government clearly doesn't encourage tax avoidance based on the mechanisms they provide for doing so. What exactly is your point?

[jimmy_joe]

So, by arbitrarily drawing your own line between "rich" and middle-class and picking one product type you still end up saying that you will save tax. My point was that the government clearly doesn't encourage tax avoidance based on the mechanisms they provide for doing so. What exactly is your point?

I agree with you.

My point was that lots of people won't save even though ISAs are sold as Tax Efficient. In reality they just shift more of the taxation burden from richer to poorer. Personally, I won't save any tax from ISAs.

[cartimandua51]

I think injin is following the line of Davy Crockett:

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

Balance of speec "Not yours to give" here if anyone's interested...

[Ruffian]

Also in this day and age I think most people have no excuse to aspire no higher than a crappy till job as there is enough learning tools and training courses out there for people to pursue a better career which will also be more beneficial to society from their increased skill-set.

Just because people have access to training and qualifications doesn't necessarily mean there's a suitable job or career path at the end of it. Give everyone in the country a PhD, and some of them are still going to have to clean toilets (or maybe the toilets will clean themselves too?) Maybe in the mythical "knowledge economy" we could all aspire to well-paid, highly skilled jobs, but currently most of the growth in jobs is at the low-wage, low-skill end of the spectrum.

[DabHand]

The concept of theft is meaningless in terms of taxation - wealth cannot be generated without the infrastructure that taxation pays for (law, government etc). Taxation is the price of society, if you don't want to pay there are plenty of other places that you can live - I hear Bagdad is nice this time of year.

I think its more like a civilised and highly controlled society is the only ones passivley rich and thus apathetic enough to withstand relatively high taxation without violently revolting and sticking a machete through the necks of their leaders.

I dont agree that governments are necessary to create wealth generating infrastructure. For example the internet wasn't built by governments, it was however built through a massively inefficient overinvestment of capital (hence why it hasnt already fallen over under the onslaught of video streaming etc) so l maybe get your point in a roundabout way.

[jimmy_joe]

I think its more like a civilised and highly controlled society is the only ones passivley rich and thus apathetic enough to withstand relatively high taxation without violently revolting and sticking a machete through the necks of their leaders.

I dont agree that governments are necessary to create wealth generating infrastructure. For example the internet wasn't built by governments, it was however built through a massively inefficient overinvestment of capital (hence why it hasnt already fallen over under the onslaught of video streaming etc) so l maybe get your point in a roundabout way.

Who funded CERN and ARPANET?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5kiUgr9dCrk

[Injin]

Who funded CERN and ARPANET?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5kiUgr9dCrk

Whoever the government stole the money from.

I wonder what they would have bought if they hadn't been victims of this evil intrusion.