Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Govt defeated TWICE on tax credits watch

Announcements
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    The Daily Mash reports...
    :lol:

    Very amusing and also pretty accurate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Under 25s tend to retire significant training upon employment.

    Do you know how hard it is to find a 21 year old forklift driver with a minimum of 5 years experience. How about a 19 customer services operator who can demonstrate 5 years of customer services experience.

    It's the same reason why graduates don't get paid until they get some experience behind them. Because they're a risk due to lack of demonstrable skill.

    It's not a hard concept. It's why apprentices are on low wages. They're a drain on company resources.
    Which goes against a your whole 'high wages' crap.

    So to substitute their low pay they should be given tax credits.
    Cheers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can I just point out, all those claiming tax credits are replaced with higher wages? Well, no. There is no reason for a company to start paying more. Imagine someone on £7.20 an hour. They will be worse off. IMF agree with me, and sorry to insult your intelligence but you simply do not know more than the IMF.

    Furthermore, you completely disregard the fact the whole reason for welfare was after observing inequality and saying something must be done. Have you forgotten this? You believe removing welfare will magically create a society where wealth is proportionate to hard work? If you do you are rather silly.

    A dust-binman will see his wealth cut because of this. And you have the gall to claim he needs an incentive to work harder? How dare you! Are you waking up before 5 everyday, handling other people's waste to provide a basic service? No you are not. Yet you claim the reason he is poor is because he doesn't work hard.
    It is claimed socialists live in a Utopian fantasy. Well, either the Tories do too or they are lairs. I know which one I'm going for.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Which goes against a your whole 'high wages' crap.

    So to substitute their low pay they should be given tax credits.
    Cheers.
    Not quite. High skill, high productivity high wage comes with skill and experience.

    It's called training.

    Of course you're for tax credits. You aspire to have an easy ride and let somebody else be responsible for you're survival.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Murphy12)
    Can I just point out, all those claiming tax credits are replaced with higher wages? Well, no. There is no reason for a company to start paying more. Imagine someone on £7.20 an hour. They will be worse off. IMF agree with me, and sorry to insult your intelligence but you simply do not know more than the IMF.

    Furthermore, you completely disregard the fact the whole reason for welfare was after observing inequality and saying something must be done. Have you forgotten this? You believe removing welfare will magically create a society where wealth is proportionate to hard work? If you do you are rather silly.

    A dust-binman will see his wealth cut because of this. And you have the gall to claim he needs an incentive to work harder? How dare you! Are you waking up before 5 everyday, handling other people's waste to provide a basic service? No you are not. Yet you claim the reason he is poor is because he doesn't work hard.
    It is claimed socialists live in a Utopian fantasy. Well, either the Tories do too or they are lairs. I know which one I'm going for.
    There was a wonderful series a few years back about the welfare system in its first year.

    The welfare state was set up as a safety net. Not to address inequality.

    Mission creep springs to mind.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Not quite. High skill, high productivity high wage comes with skill and experience.

    It's called training.

    Of course you're for tax credits. You aspire to have an easy ride and let somebody else be responsible for you're survival.
    Haha.
    Nice personal jab. I'm a law graduate, currently doing the lpc,working part time and looking for a training contract.

    I certainly am not looking for tax credits.

    You see, some of us do put others ahead of ourselves and place the needs of society ahead of our own bank accounts. Shame you don't.
    It's also pretty sad that a 36 year old hangs about on a Student forum quoting Tory propaganda. Seems like it's you who needs a job papa.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    So you'd rather companies not provide an incentive for people to work harder, and let these companies languish in inefficiency? They're not charities, you know.

    And neither is the government.

    Furthermore, your plan would not raise worker income (if you could even consider tax credit as income) in any way - in order to pay more tax to further fund the tax credit carousel, companies have to be more productive, but without any incentive to work harder, the workers will not become more productive. What you get, however, is a stagnation of the economy.

    And that is why people voted for Conservative in the last election.
    Because most minimum wage jobs are not fulfilling, the jobs are micromanaged and closely supervised. That is the mechanism at present for ensuring the work is done. Have you ever heard of a minimum wage worker receiving a raise for hard work? I haven't, at least not in unskilled jobs.

    We need to disabuse ourselves of the myths and moralising around work. There is already little intrinsic or extrinsic incentive to work hard on minimum wage, and with good reason: most of the jobs are routine and procedural. The last thing anybody needs is some idiot maverick trying to do things in a different way from what the handbook says in the name of getting ahead.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Because most minimum wage jobs are not fulfilling, the jobs are micromanaged and closely supervised. That is the mechanism at present for ensuring the work is done. Have you ever heard of a minimum wage worker receiving a raise for hard work? I haven't, at least not in unskilled jobs.

    We need to disabuse ourselves of the myths and moralising around work. There is already little intrinsic or extrinsic incentive to work hard on minimum wage, and with good reason: most of the jobs are routine and procedural. The last thing anybody needs is some idiot maverick trying to do things in a different way from what the handbook says in the name of getting ahead.
    The John Lewis Partnership rewards employees with bonuses from their profits. Fast food chains promote staff to managerial positions if they're proven to be capable. I can see many examples of big companies awarding employees for their hard work, and the only myth about minimum wage is that the workers are able to receive higher wages by doing nothing different.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    There was a wonderful series a few years back about the welfare system in its first year.

    The welfare state was set up as a safety net. Not to address inequality.

    Mission creep springs to mind.
    Every western government has moved from a 'don't let people actually die' ultimate safety net to a 'fix social ills' programme, even the US - Johnson's Great Society programme was an example of this trend.

    This was considered affordable by the super rich during the Cold War, because it was necessary to stop people at home being vulnerable to recruitment to the Communist cause. As soon as it was clear that the Soviets had effectively given up the struggle, the banking authorities and their political allies brought down the old regulatory structures and began to dismantle the consensus about a fairer society. This government is part of that process. Their aim is to continue the agenda of the hedge funds and the global banks and ensure that profits are processed into fewer and fewer hands, paying lower and lower taxes, whilst shutting down the welfare state.

    We haven't seen anything yet, because their can be little doubt that their next target is the NHS. They are allowing the Trusts to go into deep debt so that they can label them 'broken'. (This is a standard attack strategy for pre-privatisation maneuvers.) Step two will be a declaration that they must now allow private operators to run Trusts. Step 3 will be charging patients for access to many services.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'd prefer to see people receiving a higher wage and the removal of tax credits. There's then a cost saving in administering the tax credits.
    There is an administration cost, but hey whatever it provides jobs doing something actually useful to society and the economy.

    I'm far less interested in what you'd prefer to see than what is the best mechanism for keeping people out of poverty.

    If the tax credits thing fails or is declawed, Osborne will still have raised the minimum wage, accidentally throwing poor people a bone entirely thanks to his own incompetence. The man must be livid with himself.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    The John Lewis Partnership rewards employees with bonuses from their profits. Fast food chains promote staff to managerial positions if they're proven to be capable. I can see many examples of big companies awarding employees for their hard work, and the only myth about minimum wage is that the workers are able to receive higher wages by doing nothing different.
    JLP is very much the exception to the rule, plus there is still no incentive because there are so many thousands of staff scattered across the country. If it was calculated by store then there would be an incentive and natural policing of dead weight in the team.

    Managerial positions in fast food type jobs, i.e. "team leader", usually pay only a few pence more and come with about 10x the responsibility and all the work of a lowlier team member. I'd wager for people who take them that it's about CV value and a miserable version of job security.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    There was a wonderful series a few years back about the welfare system in its first year.

    The welfare state was set up as a safety net. Not to address inequality.

    Mission creep springs to mind.
    I do admit and concede in this area you are right. Atlee did set up a 'safety net' with the National Assistance Act 1948. However, it quickly did and has evolved - free school meals, an NHS, standardized education, these are all measures of bringing equality. Benefits went from only going to the handicapped or otherwise disadvantaged to anyone who simply was not getting a fair wage.

    If we look at the definition of welfare today, 'The welfare state of the United Kingdom comprises expenditures by the government of the United Kingdom intended to improve health, education, employment and social security'.

    Sounds like we have moved on from the first year of welfare.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    The practice of other taxpayers having to subsidise those who breed like rabbits shall continue. Oh joy. The Tories won a majority based on the idea of reducing the silly welfare state and reducing the deficit; well looks like one of the biggest steps has been stopped.
    Firstly; Working Tax credits are there for a reason. The main one being that the current minimum wage is below that of the living wage, meaning that working families require this so as to be able to reach the cost of living. Secondly; The Tories did win a majority, although a very slim one. They do not, however have a mandate to carry out these cuts. On TWO seperate occasions, Mr Cameron has said that he will not cut the Working Tax Credis, as has Michael Gove. Without a genuine mandate for these cuts, what else where they expecting. What they are planning to carry out simply does not comply with that they set out to do before the General Election.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Murphy12)
    Can I just point out, all those claiming tax credits are replaced with higher wages? Well, no. There is no reason for a company to start paying more. Imagine someone on £7.20 an hour. They will be worse off. IMF agree with me, and sorry to insult your intelligence but you simply do not know more than the IMF.

    Furthermore, you completely disregard the fact the whole reason for welfare was after observing inequality and saying something must be done. Have you forgotten this? You believe removing welfare will magically create a society where wealth is proportionate to hard work? If you do you are rather silly.

    A dust-binman will see his wealth cut because of this. And you have the gall to claim he needs an incentive to work harder? How dare you! Are you waking up before 5 everyday, handling other people's waste to provide a basic service? No you are not. Yet you claim the reason he is poor is because he doesn't work hard.
    It is claimed socialists live in a Utopian fantasy. Well, either the Tories do too or they are lairs. I know which one I'm going for.
    Nobody says hard work equals more wealth and nor should it. That's not how it works. It's obviously based on contribution and skills. Supply and demand.

    People don't dispute that a cleaner or a customer service agent might work as hard as a CEO or a doctor but why on Earth would you pay them anywhere near the same? Not sure what planet you're living on but it's certainly not this one
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    JLP is very much the exception to the rule, plus there is still no incentive because there are so many thousands of staff scattered across the country. If it was calculated by store then there would be an incentive and natural policing of dead weight in the team.

    Managerial positions in fast food type jobs, i.e. "team leader", usually pay only a few pence more and come with about 10x the responsibility and all the work of a lowlier team member. I'd wager for people who take them that it's about CV value and a miserable version of job security.
    If that's how everyone thought, then it's no wonder they will be forever stuck on the minimum wage. Similarly, it is because of welfare like tax credits which make people less incentivised to try increasing their earning capacities.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    If that's how everyone thought, then it's no wonder they will be forever stuck on the minimum wage. Similarly, it is because of welfare like tax credits which make people less incentivised to try increasing their earning capacities.
    What, rationally? Why should they be unswervingly dedicated to working ever harder to inflate someone else's profits? It is like asking corporations to be unswervingly dedicated to the public finances and to choose to ignore tax optimisation.

    Insofar as employees have a choice of what job to do, managers have to build in either extrinsic or intrinsic incentives and the ones associated with a "team leader" position in a fast food joint are not worth it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    There was a wonderful series a few years back about the welfare system in its first year.

    The welfare state was set up as a safety net. Not to address inequality.

    Mission creep springs to mind.
    Progress springs to mine. How much healthier, happier and better housed people are today thanks to the welfare state.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This could well put a dent in osbournes leadeship prospects. He's not just been criticised by the left, but also by those voted Tory in the last election, the House of Lords and staggeringly some of his own party and the press. Even the Tory graph and spectator have been taking shots at him, heck even the sun came out against -
    Extraudinary.

    This may well be osbournes poll tax, in a way though the lords have done him a favour in allowing him to weasel out without it looking like a u-turn.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    This could well put a dent in osbournes leadeship prospects. He's not just been criticised by the left, but also by those voted Tory in the last election, the House of Lords and staggeringly some of his own party and the press. Even the Tory graph and spectator have been taking shots at him, heck even the sun came out against -
    Extraudinary.

    This may well be osbournes poll tax, in a way though the lords have done him a favour in allowing him to weasel out without it looking like a u-turn.
    Boris was looking remarkably chipper on TV this morning, he could hardly conceal his glee that Ossie and Cammie are in difficulties.

    Not that he would have done things any differently.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Boris was looking remarkably chipper on TV this morning, he could hardly conceal his glee that Ossie and Cammie are in difficulties.

    Not that he would have done things any differently.
    While osbourne no doubt expected criticism from the left, he certainly wasn't from the right or the press. He's rattled and you could tell by him harping on about a 'constitutional crisis' , since when have the Tories ever cared about the unelected nature of the HoL?!

    He's rattled for sure, i also don't think he has the 'soft' side (appearance) that Cameron does. Osbourne is much less of a pr man, is far more cold and unfriendly, he won't have the same personal appeal that Cameron does.
    And if these tax credits go through he may just well have put the first nail in his leadership coffin.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.