Single Mother Of 4 Admits On Dragons Den She Needs £60k

[Cogs]

We should yet again go the HK route, in that most people there pay no tax,

You have a child ? , no you don't get direct child benefit instead you get a higher personal allowance..

Therefore if you choose NOT to work you get nowt extra,

If you choose to work you are incentivised to work harder,

Everyone is going to scream at me for saying this, but that is actually what socialists used to believe at any rate. Which is to say, everyone has a right to work. Not that everyone has a right to a handout. That the benefits system has created a situation where people are effectively denied the right to work is obsene and not at all socialist (arguably a capitalist scheme to devalue labour in fact by creating a reserve pool). The best reward structure, according to Marx in The German Ideology, is incidentally what City traders get.

Anyhow, its an interesting thought experiment to consider what would happen if the lowest 20% weren't taxed at all on earnings.

Everything else continues as it has done, benefits still paid out, everyone else still taxed the same etc.

My suspicion, again a bit contentious and probably equally offensive in theory to people of all political hues, is that it would actually change the shape of distribution and result in a higher overall tax take, lower unemployment, lower benefits bill and higher overall productivity. Be a bit of a modelling activity to prove it through.

Or perhaps drinking this early in the day doesn't agree with me

[cells]

Oh God it's Cells. OK Cells, do let me know what Capitalism is about? I have read the wealth of nations too.

Capitalism provides full employment, everything else provides shortages in jobs and goods.

The ultimate aim of capitalism is to create a machine that runs itself and maintains itself and serves man fully. Then there would be no jobs but no need for jobs as everything would be free. Up to that date capitalism provides full employment.

But earth has never seen true capitalism although we got pretty close at times.

[CONDEX]

So, name me some countries where 100% employment exists?

Just come back from Norway must be close to full employment there

apart from maybe some asylum seekers...

[cells]

So, name me some countries where 100% employment exists?

In countries with 100% capitalism.

And employment within itself is meaningless. You could quite easily create 2 jobs where one man digs a hole and another man fills that hole right back up. Two jobs for eternity but are they really jobs and does the world benefit? Does anyone benefit?

In a capitalistic system there are few laws, few regulations and no interference. So you can do any job without restriction so that means so long as there is 1 job in the country there are an infinite number of jobs.

[Optimuswolf]

why are there any benefits of any sort? that is the job of family/friends/charity.

perhaps have a last resort where you can go to get a bed and 3 meals but nothing else.

There are many social reasons why we redistribute. The major one is, we want some level of equity in outcomes amongst ourselves. We vote for this.

But if you're in the anti-society stable I doubt whether this will convince you. Basically, no developed country in the world has a lack of benefits. systems differ of course, but from food stamps in the US to 80% replacements in France, benefit systems are common across the globe.

[cells]

Everyone is going to scream at me for saying this, but that is actually what socialists used to believe at any rate. Which is to say, everyone has a right to work. Not that everyone has a right to a handout. That the benefits system has created a situation where people are effectively denied the right to work is obsene and not at all socialist (arguably a capitalist scheme to devalue labour in fact by creating a reserve pool). The best reward structure, according to Marx in The German Ideology, is incidentally what City traders get.

Anyhow, its an interesting thought experiment to consider what would happen if the lowest 20% weren't taxed at all on earnings.

Everything else continues as it has done, benefits still paid out, everyone else still taxed the same etc.

My suspicion, again a bit contentious and probably equally offensive in theory to people of all political hues, is that it would actually change the shape of distribution and result in a higher overall tax take, lower unemployment, lower benefits bill and higher overall productivity. Be a bit of a modelling activity to prove it through.

Or perhaps drinking this early in the day doesn't agree with me

The roots of socialism is price controls and lots of regulations and laws via a controlling body, usually the government. Everything else is propaganda. Socialism = price controls.

Capitalism is no price controls what so ever with very few laws and regulations. You don't even require a government to have capitalism.

The problem is we have never seen a true capitalistic or socialistic country, only half-breed mixes of both. The two most extreme we have seen has probably been America and the soviets but neither where close to 100% capitalism or communism.

[JohnnyB]

In countries with 100% capitalism.

And employment within itself is meaningless. You could quite easily create 2 jobs where one man digs a hole and another man fills that hole right back up. Two jobs for eternity but are they really jobs and does the world benefit? Does anyone benefit?

In a capitalistic system there are few laws, few regulations and no interference. So you can do any job without restriction so that means so long as there is 1 job in the country there are an infinite number of jobs.

But capitalism works on the basis of supply and demand, if there is a large supply of workers, but low demand for them, then labour costs go down, and profits increase. The more you can replace a job with a machine, the more profit you can make.

Your idea of capitalism is similar daft utopianism to Marxs idea of true communism. They are both the same unobtainable ideal that allows an intermediary stage which is very dystopian to exist eternally. Unless you are proposing we start decanting babies and conditioning them for certain economic roles, like in Brave New World, then your concept of capitalism is just as much a daydream as others ideas about communism.

[cells]

There are many social reasons why we redistribute. The major one is, we want some level of equity in outcomes amongst ourselves. We vote for this.

But if you're in the anti-society stable I doubt whether this will convince you. Basically, no developed country in the world has a lack of benefits. systems differ of course, but from food stamps in the US to 80% replacements in France, benefit systems are common across the globe.

how does taxation create equality in society?

taxation is theft from bob to give to jim and lots of waste in the process.

how is theft from anyone fair or moral?

if your richer than me, is that a justification for me to break into your house and steal your TV?

true equality in society would be achieved only via a pure capitalistic system with zero "handouts".

[cells]

But capitalism works on the basis of supply and demand, if there is a large supply of workers, but low demand for them, then labour costs go down, and profits increase. The more you can replace a job with a machine, the more profit you can make.

Your idea of capitalism is similar daft utopianism to Marxs idea of true communism. They are both the same unobtainable ideal that allows an intermediary stage which is very dystopian to exist eternally. Unless you are proposing we start decanting babies and conditioning them for certain economic roles, like in Brave New World, then your concept of capitalism is just as much a daydream as others ideas about communism.

look its quite simple. is theft morally acceptable?

to answer your question of capitalism = less jobs. you are incorrect. for your simple example of replacing a man with a machine. well yes it makes the company more profits and a man has lost his job. in very short time other companies do the same and they compete on price. lowering the price of the product the company sells. now the population pays less for this product and spends more on other things so a job is created in another part of the economy.

Look at coal mining in this country for a good example, some 2 million miners replaced mostly by machines. But do we have 2m less jobs today? As a society are we better off or worse now that machines do that job?

[ad9898]

So, name me some countries where 100% employment exists?

I understand your point, my point is that the benefits system has gone way too far.

As someone pointed out earlier, benefits should be set at a level that people want to strive to get away from, not make it a career move.

[sods law]

F**k off ExeC...!!!

All my life all i have ever done is go to school, educate myself and try to better myself...

These low life sc*m sit at home all day feeding off my hundreds of thousands in tax money i pay from MY work....

As for one who has never been on benefits, keeps healthy, never borrows or been in debt, am totally against all these benefits and council houses and waste of money...

GET A FREAKING JOB i say...!!!

If you cant afford kids, dont have them...! This is not Ethiopia!

Spot on. My mum's a social worker and I can confirm that the stories you hear are all true

[PropertyGuru]

but the point stands that it would be difficult to run a market economy without a welfare state.

no it doesn't.

it didn't appear to be that difficult before 1914....

[Tiger Woods?]

[quote name

Quote

"If I could pull £60,000 a year then I could get off benefits"

Think you'll find she was upping it on a cheeky punt.

But to get anywhere near that number is a bit rich.

I'd love to see some benefit breakdowns.

Because when we hear these numbers we knee jerk without an understanding of what we are jerking about.

One of the dragons comments saying this is to help single mums go to work... £60,000 is not help it's a drain and a liberty.

Actually, from some of the figures I have seen, this isn't far off. Remember that after tax 60k = 40k.

If she was working she would have to pay childcare (which is ridiculously expensive), transport, work clothing etc. and would have nowhere near as much time so things like food bills would go up. Someone gave a breakdown of possible benefits to someone with 4 kids on this site a month or so ago. It was staggering.

In the south at least, if you have a few children, I can see how one might think that you'd need to earn at least 60k to make getting off benefits worth it.

[Tiger Woods?]

I suppose that these benefits are only available if you've littered this Isle with your hopeless drooling scumbrats?

Is "drooling scumbrat" a technical medical term...or just creative license?

Thank you for extending my internal dictionary. I will file this one in my easy mental access area, along with my other HPC favourite - slavebox

[Mr Prudence]

Actually, from some of the figures I have seen, this isn't far off. Remember that after tax 60k = 40k.

If she was working she would have to pay childcare (which is ridiculously expensive), transport, work clothing etc. and would have nowhere near as much time so things like food bills would go up. Someone gave a breakdown of possible benefits to someone with 4 kids on this site a month or so ago. It was staggering.

In the south at least, if you have a few children, I can see how one might think that you'd need to earn at least 60k to make getting off benefits worth it.

Her child care costs would be 4 children x £4 an hour x 40 hours a week equals about £2500 a month just on childcare.

At 60k whe would take home £3447.45 so I don't think 60k would do it.

[JohnnyB]

look its quite simple. is theft morally acceptable?

to answer your question of capitalism = less jobs. you are incorrect. for your simple example of replacing a man with a machine. well yes it makes the company more profits and a man has lost his job. in very short time other companies do the same and they compete on price. lowering the price of the product the company sells. now the population pays less for this product and spends more on other things so a job is created in another part of the economy.

Look at coal mining in this country for a good example, some 2 million miners replaced mostly by machines. But do we have 2m less jobs today? As a society are we better off or worse now that machines do that job?

But surely the owner of the capitalist company is stealing part of his workers' labour to make a profit. Profit implies that someone has been stolen from at some point in the chain, in the same way that you view tax.

[Tiger Woods?]

A woman near me is in her mid 40's has 5 kids from 5 fathers. She takes 23,5000 pa benefits. Fact. She has never done a days paid work .Fact.

( she appeared on j kyle show to brag about it )

When my da came home from hospital after a major stroke he enquired from the social worker how he was meant to get up to the bathroom. He was told to arrange a paddling pool in the lounge with a seat in it for ablutions and to forget about having baths. FACT.

Does the 23.5k include housing costs? I suspect not...or if it does, the housing will be heavily subsidised. You can easily see why there is no incentive to work. If you have to buy at market prices and go to work, the average salary does not compete with benefits.

[Mr Prudence]

Does the 23.5k include housing costs? I suspect not...or if it does, the housing will be heavily subsidised. You can easily see why there is no incentive to work. If you have to buy at market prices and go to work, the average salary does not compete with benefits.

And Council Tax, she would get that 90% discounted too.

[Tummybanana]

F**k off ExeC...!!!

All my life all i have ever done is go to school, educate myself and try to better myself...

These low life sc*m sit at home all day feeding off my hundreds of thousands in tax money i pay from MY work....

As for one who has never been on benefits, keeps healthy, never borrows or been in debt, am totally against all these benefits and council houses and waste of money...

GET A FREAKING JOB i say...!!!

If you cant afford kids, dont have them...! This is not Ethiopia!

As soon as you return the money that the government gave to your mother as Child Benefit to raise you, you can make this point again and hopefully regain some dignity.

[Tummybanana]

no it doesn't.

it didn't appear to be that difficult before 1914....

That's what happens when you give women the vote; bloody do-gooders.

[cells]

But surely the owner of the capitalist company is stealing part of his workers' labour to make a profit. Profit implies that someone has been stolen from at some point in the chain, in the same way that you view tax.

Wrong. In all transactions there is profit else the transaction is not done.

If I swap 10 chickens for a goat then in my eyes the goat is worth more than 10 chickens and in the eyes of the goat seller 10 chickens is worth more than 1 goat.

Another example might be, your great at making tennis rackets and i'm great at making cricket bats. You trade one of your tennis rackets for one of my bats. We both profit as we suck at making the thing we traded for but can quickly and easily make the things we make.

With work, you profit in ways else you would not work. The employer profits as the work you do is worth more to him than the wages he pays.

All trade is profit, both parties gain. Profit is not theft!

[stonethecrows]

no it doesn't.

it didn't appear to be that difficult before 1914....

Well no clearly, because we had such wonderful 'Poor Laws' and institutions such as these:

A marvellous idea to be sure!

[cells]

As soon as you return the money that the government gave to your mother as Child Benefit to raise you, you can make this point again and hopefully regain some dignity.

Why?

If his mother/father paid tax then that was stolen and should be given back to them which would far outweigh the child tax credits.

As an example, if I mugged you on the street and stole your wallet with £100 in it, then I bought you an ice-cream for £1. your saying you should refund the mugger £1 as he bought you an ice-cream.

[cells]

Errmmm...19th century, 1 million irish people die of starvation, inner city infant mortality rates in britain around 300 per 1,000, children under 9 working in factories, rickets about as typical as the common cold, child prostitution rife.

Yes please, let's all go back in time to those good old victorian values...lummy

Welfare should be about protecting children and giving everyone a chance to survive, get an education and contribute to society. Granted there are some lazy arses out there that just see children or injury as a meal ticket but that's about abuse of the system, not the system itself.

Stupid comment as none of those things where caused by capitalism or free markets.

Its like pointing to earth quakes in America and saying look capitalism sucks 10m died in this capitalistic country. Or perhaps pointing to a bad winter in Russia and blaming the 10m dead on socialism.

[t350t]

Child Benefit:

I think you should receive benefit for the first 2 children and that's it.

I think all benefits should be dependant on STERILIZATION.

no problem looking after life once created,(safety net - life involves risks, so much so i don't think anyone would reproduce if they required 100% confidence) but the incentive should be toward self-sufficiency.

i.e. you want kids, make sure you dont need benefits. You want grand-kids, make sure your kids dont need benefits.

i dont mean this to sound harsh/agressive - responsibility is with the parents, you didn't choose to be born

Edited August 27, 2008 by t350t