Reply to: Russell Brand

[darmstadt]

What he really wants is attention and more money

...and a smack to knock him back into reality

[DodgyAgent]

Maybe he should become a contractor

and be his own agent

[doodab]

What he really wants is attention and more money

Maybe he should become a contractor

[DodgyAgent]

I think he wants an end to exploiting the workers. An end to hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
I think, instead, he'd like an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Everyone would take it in turns to act as sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer would have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two thirds majority, in the case of more major issues.

He wants help, as he's being repressed.

What he really wants is attention and more money

[Ticktock]

I think he wants an end to exploiting the workers. An end to hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
I think, instead, he'd like an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Everyone would take it in turns to act as sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer would have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two thirds majority, in the case of more major issues.

He wants help, as he's being repressed.

[DodgyAgent]

Blog From The North: Russell Brand: a very trivial man?

" In the middle of Brand’s diarrhetic monologue, Paxman summed him up in just six words: “You are a very trivial man”. "

No, he wants “a socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations and massive responsibility for energy companies and any companies exploiting the environment. Any concept of profit should be hugely reduced.”

His language is that of an O-Level essay containing long words almost in context, written by a teenager who’s been given a new Thesaurus for his birthday.


I wonder if he and I have the same Thesaurus

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Blog From The North: Russell Brand: a very trivial man?

" In the middle of Brand’s diarrhetic monologue, Paxman summed him up in just six words: “You are a very trivial man”. "

[DodgyAgent]

The lunatics have now taken over the asylum

[Doggy Styles]

What about the cheesemakers?

[doodab]

Agree with your higher threshold concept. We could save a fortune by simplifying tax, but we'd have to find jobs for all the left over Hectors....

yes, I'd get rid of NI and merge that into income tax too. The whole employers, employees NI distinction is arbitrary, the only point I can see is to cause confusion and allow governments to target tax cuts to one or the other. If you reduce income taxes on the low paid, another knock on of that is that the overall cost of labour to business will fall.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

All laudable ideas but I don't see how any of them will address the fact that half of all people in work receive benefits. Those people aren't going to take out loans to fund private education, and they clearly haven't chosen not to work.

Indeed - and the "cottage industry in schools" is done in plenty of State (and private) schools already.

Not having 20% VAT might help a bit - it's highly regressive.

Agree with your higher threshold concept. We could save a fortune by simplifying tax, but we'd have to find jobs for all the left over Hectors......

Agree about auto-enrolment - it's a shambles dreamt up by Civil Servants.

[doodab]

I would incentivise businesses by reducing the employer's national insurance contribution to 10% and I would also scrap pensions auto-enrolment. I would offer tax incentives to businesses who offer free private health insurance to their employees and also who offer loans with the specific purpose of funding private education.

I would educate children in such a way that they were able to recognise and therefore fulfill their potential but I would also teach them that life isn't fair and give them the mental and emotional tools to be able to deal with that. I would teach them how to manage money, how to prepare fresh food on a budget, how to mend etc but I would also have each class work on a business idea - put together the business plan, work out finances, marketing, sales etc and allow them to take that to fruition - have children actually running a cottage industry type business before leaving school or going to Uni.

I would introduce a work programme whereby people who were perfectly capable of working but choose not to worked within their community to improve it. They would still receive their benefits but they would be able to see first hand what hard work can achieve at close quarters.

All laudable ideas but I don't see how any of them will address the fact that half of all people in work receive benefits. Those people aren't going to take out loans to fund private education, and they clearly haven't chosen not to work.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

We live in a nominally capitalist mixed economy. The whole system depends upon everyone having cash to spend - if we are paying wages that don't cover the costs of housing and food to a reasonable standard plus some discretionary disposable income*, then the system is broken. It's a complex calculation, but if you want a crude back of the fag packet rate - minimum wage needs to be about £7 an hour certainly in London and SE.

*people need some money to spend to support other jobs - eg in leisure etc.

I don't disagree with any of that, but you're like a politician, just restating the problem, not giving a solution. I don't think anyone thinks that the majority of employers are rip-off merchants to their employees, but if they really cannot pay a living wage, something is wrong.

I never said that people shouldn't be paid a living wage - personally I think minimum wage should be around £8 per hour.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that, for whatever reason, many jobs don't pay enough for people to live on. That creates a conundrum that requires a solution, whether it's to let them starve, give them benefits, or try and change the system so that the situation no longer occurs, or something else.

How would you address the issue?

I would incentivise businesses by reducing the employer's national insurance contribution to 10% and I would also scrap pensions auto-enrolment. I would offer tax incentives to businesses who offer free private health insurance to their employees and also who offer loans with the specific purpose of funding private education.

I would educate children in such a way that they were able to recognise and therefore fulfill their potential but I would also teach them that life isn't fair and give them the mental and emotional tools to be able to deal with that. I would teach them how to manage money, how to prepare fresh food on a budget, how to mend etc but I would also have each class work on a business idea - put together the business plan, work out finances, marketing, sales etc and allow them to take that to fruition - have children actually running a cottage industry type business before leaving school or going to Uni.

I would introduce a work programme whereby people who were perfectly capable of working but choose not to worked within their community to improve it. They would still receive their benefits but they would be able to see first hand what hard work can achieve at close quarters.

I could go on but I have a successful business to run and no doubt poor people to exploit

[Peoplesoft bloke]

As I have just said to Doodab - define 'living wage'

We live in a nominally capitalist mixed economy. The whole system depends upon everyone having cash to spend - if we are paying wages that don't cover the costs of housing and food to a reasonable standard plus some discretionary disposable income*, then the system is broken. It's a complex calculation, but if you want a crude back of the fag packet rate - minimum wage needs to be about £7 an hour certainly in London and SE.

*people need some money to spend to support other jobs - eg in leisure etc.

Not everyone is employed by Richard Branson or Alan Sugar - many people who work and are on benefits are employed by small companies whose employment costs are increasing due to pressures from Government e.g. pensions auto-enrolement[sic]. You cannot assume that people who receive a low wage are being exploited or penalised by their employer. I am sure there are unscrupulous bosses out there who could pay more and don't but, conversely, there are also people who exploit the benefit system.

I don't disagree with any of that, but you're like a politician, just restating the problem, not giving a solution. I don't think anyone thinks that the majority of employers are rip-off merchants to their employees, but if they really cannot pay a living wage, something is wrong.