A great day for Britain

[Old Greg]

Ok so that is actually two things you are saying, and one of them is that taxes should not subsidise business, which is exactly what happens when you allow employers freedom to set wages as low as they like and the benefits system has to make up the shortfall. The minimum wage is a mechanism for ensuring that doesn't happen. Abolishing it amounts to nothing more than subsidising the cost of labour for businesses.

The free market response is that the benefits system does not have to make up the shortfall and people will just have to make do on £1 per hour if that is the market value of their wage.

Of course what these free market warriors forget is why the welfare state was created in the first place - not to help the poor but to stop them overthrowing the rich and powerful. no less a Tory grandee than (the future) Lord Halisham said, 'Give them social reform or they will give you social revolution.'

[DodgyAgent]

The free market response is that the benefits system does not have to make up the shortfall and people will just have to make do on £1 per hour if that is the market value of their wage.

Of course what these free market warriors forget is why the welfare state was created in the first place - not to help the poor but to stop them overthrowing the rich and powerful. no less a Tory grandee than (the future) Lord Halisham said, 'Give them social reform or they will give you social revolution.'

Of course your earnings are accredited entirely to market forces. They are disproportionately high in relation to the responsibility you take. What is so fascinating is to hear so much guff from you guys about inequality and dreadful exploitative employers and yet you are the most priviliged people of all.

[DodgyAgent]

I don't need to, because I'm not arguing that it is. Did you not notice that in my example the amount of wealth doubled? Or that I talk about wealth creation? Do you even know what a zero sum game actually is? Are you starting to understand why I might think you are a prat yet?



I'm pointing out that a measurable characteristic of the current system is that the additional wealth created accrues disproportionally to the already rich. I'm not attributing it to a "conspiracy" although one can certainly imagine that those who currently benefit have little interest in changing the system.

I think your basic problem is that you struggle to step back and look at things in the abstract, therefore you assume that others suffer from the same myopia.

No it does'nt. There are thousands and thousands of small businesses that benefit from free market capitalism.
The problem we have is that too many jobsworths like you select the tiny proportion of very wealthy people and invent rules and regulations to cut the wealthy back. The very wealthy are out of reach of people like you but it is as always the small hard working businesses that get caught up by ensuing regulation and taxes.

[doodab]

No it does'nt.

Yes it does.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...wing-faster-uk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

No doubt you will trot out the same old cliches about how it's all their own fault, back them up with a couple of anecdotes about your mate who started off poor, and completely avoid the fact that in there is a systemic bias in favour of the already wealthy.

There are thousands and thousands of small businesses that benefit from free market capitalism.

Yes there are. What is your point? That we shouldn't bother trying to make things better because things are OK for some people?

The problem we have is that too many jobsworths like you select the tiny proportion of very wealthy people and invent rules and regulations to cut the wealthy back. The very wealthy are out of reach of people like you but it is as always the small hard working businesses that get caught up by ensuing regulation and taxes.

This is what you don't seem to be grasping Dodgy. The "tiny proportion of very wealthy people" have the vast majority of the wealth, and because of that they are the primary beneficiaries of additional wealth creation. I run one of those small hard working businesses who would like to see simplified regulation and a simpler more transparent tax system, and even lower taxes if it makes sense, but I'd also like to see a more equitable world. I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive.

[Old Greg]

Of course your earnings are accredited entirely to market forces. They are disproportionately high in relation to the responsibility you take. What is so fascinating is to hear so much guff from you guys about inequality and dreadful exploitative employers and yet you are the most priviliged people of all.

Is it so hard to imagine that someone might want to change a system that benefits them personally?

[doodab]

Is it so hard to imagine that someone might want to change a system that benefits them personally?

It's clearly not an itch that Dodgy will ever have to scratch.

[DodgyAgent]

Yes it does.

Income inequality growing faster in UK than any other rich country, says OECD | Society | The Guardian

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No doubt you will trot out the same old cliches about how it's all their own fault, back them up with a couple of anecdotes about your mate who started off poor, and completely avoid the fact that in there is a systemic bias in favour of the already wealthy.



Yes there are. What is your point? That we shouldn't bother trying to make things better because things are OK for some people?



This is what you don't seem to be grasping Dodgy. The "tiny proportion of very wealthy people" have the vast majority of the wealth, and because of that they are the primary beneficiaries of additional wealth creation. I run one of those small hard working businesses who would like to see simplified regulation and a simpler more transparent tax system, and even lower taxes if it makes sense, but I'd also like to see a more equitable world. I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive.

So how many people do you employ then?

Regulations are not made to be equitable at all. They are made for political reasons and usually by people with their own agenda. ho for example is the figure of the minimum wage arrived at? If it was fair and equitable it would allow for differencies in living costs, areas of high/low unemployment, region etc.
Why is it you think that tax is spent wisely when it could instead be spent on wine women and boats?

You clearly have a chip of presumably envy about really wealthy people. if you concentrate on your own game rather than hitting at people you cant touch anyway the world would be a better place.

[DodgyAgent]

Is it so hard to imagine that someone might want to change a system that benefits them personally?

Ok so would you give up say 80% of your wealth in order that it can be distributed "more equitably"?

[Doggy Styles]

Ok so would you give up say 80% of your wealth in order that it can be distributed "more equitably"?

<hand up mode>Me sir! Me! I know the answer sir!

[Old Greg]

Ok so would you give up say 80% of your wealth in order that it can be distributed "more equitably"?

You haven't heard me - I'm not looking for plain redistribution in wealth without systemic reform.

I would gladly see a significant reduction in my wealth and income within a cooperative system of production and distribution that tended to equalise incomes and wealth.