Trader speaks his mind

[joe-90]

The blame belongs with any government that pays someone more not to work than to work. All benefits should be capped at the minimum wage.

 

[enyam]

The blame belongs with any government that pays someone more not to work than to work. All benefits should be capped at the minimum wage.

Interesting idea, with the minimum wage @ £6.08 an hour do you work it out on a forty hour week and pay them over £240 a week,is this a pay cut or a pay rise.

 

[opps]

whilst I believe that the welfare state should be a safety net rather than a life style choice I remain unconvinced that the state of the economy is a direct result of the (relatively) small redistribution of income to benefit recipients.

 

[joe-90]

If they claim more than the minimum wage in benefits the government offer them guaranteed work at the minimum wage. If they refuse it they lose all benefit. If they take it and can't afford to live in London - they move. Simples.

 

[opps]

Btw Joe, I do agree that in the main, working should be seen as the better option. The structure of the benefits system is long overdue a rehash, as is the VAT regime which hits the poorest but has the advantage of clawing back tax from those on lesser incomes who don't declare any income and thus don't pay pays.

 

[opps]

So after employer taxes etc they then cost £10+ per hour, plus a pension, union rights and so on.

plus the hefty compensation to the firms operating in that industry.

Not dissing the idea but don't see how it would work in the real world

 

[joe-90]

The government pay their wage so tell them where to work. They would be offered out to firms that export and manufacture free of charge for 12 months at a time, if trade increases they can then employ them incrementally ie pay £2 per hour and the government pays the rest until they are doing well enough to take the employee on full time. It does two things. It gets manufacturing and exports moving - and stops any silly benefit claims (ie £100,000 per year).

 

[Brigadier]

Where's this trader going to put his money so it's "safe", when it all goes tits up? Banks will only guarantee a certain amount - gold and buried cans of baked beans perhaps?
Do Goldman Sachs really rule the world? What if all of the world's governments just said "fug it!", and defaulted en masse - wouldn't the financial charlatans i.e. those like Goldmans just collapse anyway? How can Sachs be considered to "rule the world", since it was bailed out anyway after Lehman?
They don't "create" wealth anyway - they just redistribute what is there anyway, to their own advantage. Confidence and fear are their "assets", the ones where they "make" the big money, fast.

 

[Corgigrouch]

The Chinese rule the world.... All of our money is headed towards China and they are busy buying up countries and world resources...

There will be trouble ahead....

 

[joe-90]

But the madness is that China manufacture goods that the west can't pay for so they lend money to us to buy their goods to stop their own economy collapsing. It's a perpetual motion machine.