Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    I can't see it happening now anyway, it would be too complex to get rid of the mixed economy. But I like the idea of compassionate capitalism and local capitalism.
    I'll rephrase that. I believe in the current system we have Welfare, Benefits and Health.

    Benefits should never be higher than is possible on teh owrking wage. Although I do think that there should be some sort of change whereby say you've been earning £60K a year, you're entitled to a higher benefits package for say 6 months before it gets cut.

    I also believe in the NHS. But I have no problems with elements of it being farmed out to the private sector as long as it's free at the point of use for the population.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    I don't want people to be underpaid where they cease to survive. However, I don't think it's fair to dictate to businesses what they ought to do, when responsible ones will pay enough to their employees. I know I would as I have a conscience. However, with the big companies, there might be problems through the layers of management. You need to be more specific, like which roles etc.? But in general, I would be less inclined to get rid of the NMW now because people need to get jobs. Although I really hate the government for deterring SMEs from starting up due to too much bureaucracy and hurdles they need to cross, and for setting an arbitrary wage on how much you should be paid, then there may be little initiative to raise it above that level if they know the employees have just enough.
    a till operator at tesco or a food maker at mcdonalds, how much do you think they would suffer without NMW, a hell of a lot is the answer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by natninja)
    socialism=high tax, high governement support and equal distribution of income as the core ideas, communism is socialism in its purest form.

    a laissez-faire approach to a free-market economy also wouldn't work due to market failure and nformation asymmetry.

    so actually slightly too much to the right comes out as better for the majority than slightly to the left as if you lean too far left the teacher's analogy becomes correct.
    clear and total misunderstanding of socialism. wealth does not exist in socialism so there is no tax. educate yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'll rephrase that. I believe in the current system we have Welfare, Benefits and Health.

    Benefits should never be higher than is possible on teh owrking wage. Although I do think that there should be some sort of change whereby say you've been earning £60K a year, you're entitled to a higher benefits package for say 6 months before it gets cut.

    I also believe in the NHS. But I have no problems with elements of it being farmed out to the private sector as long as it's free at the point of use for the population.
    The welfare state is supposed to be a safety net, so I agree that those who have paid into the system (low, middle or high earners), should receive "compensation" if they lose their jobs. Most redundancies where I am from have been short term, I don't think it's fair that say the family in question earning £60k has to sell their home, lose savings or future inheritance, etc. if it becomes too bad. Especially if they bought their properties honestly (not demanding homes they cannot afford the mortgage payments on) and paid taxes when they were working. But then again, provisions do need to be made for a "rainy day", but I cannot argue against compensating them if they have contributed. Although I'm glad child benefit has been scrapped for certain families, more needs to be done though, like scrapping it completely by a certain date.

    What I am opposed to is people thinking they are above the system or law and decide to claim benefits. If they get pregnant or refuse to accept any job offered because working in McDonald's is beneath them. It has to be a safety-net, not a long term lifestyle choice.

    Lastly, in regard to the NHS, I think it is unsustainable and there is too much free-loading. Perhaps more means-testing. I need to look more into the NHS to be honest.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    The welfare state is supposed to be a safety net, so I agree that those who have paid into the system (low, middle or high earners), should receive "compensation" if they lose their jobs. Most redundancies where I am from have been short term, I don't think it's fair that say the family in question earning £60k has to sell their home, lose savings or future inheritance, etc. if it becomes too bad. Especially if they bought their properties honestly (not demanding homes they cannot afford the mortgage payments on) and paid taxes when they were working. But then again, provisions do need to be made for a "rainy day", but I cannot argue against compensating them if they have contributed. Although I'm glad child benefit has been scrapped for certain families, more needs to be done though, like scrapping it completely by a certain date.

    What I am opposed to is people thinking they are above the system or law and decide to claim benefits. If they get pregnant or refuse to accept any job offered because working in McDonald's is beneath them. It has to be a safety-net, not a long term lifestyle choice.

    Lastly, in regard to the NHS, I think it is unsustainable and there is too much free-loading. Perhaps more means-testing. I need to look more into the NHS to be honest.
    and what about when cammy gets his way and destroys the NMW and mcdonalds offers 1.50 an hour?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    a till operator at tesco or a food maker at mcdonalds, how much do you think they would suffer without NMW, a hell of a lot is the answer.
    When you say suffer, do you mean I can't afford food suffering, or I can't afford the night out suffering?

    Obviously I'm opposed to the former type of suffering. It would affect their health (duh) but also their ability to perform a job, so in that case, it is in the businesses interest to pay enough.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    clear and total misunderstanding of socialism. wealth does not exist in socialism so there is no tax. educate yourself.
    So why did the Soviet Union economically fail?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    and what about when cammy gets his way and destroys the NMW and mcdonalds offers 1.50 an hour?
    I don't recall him ever saying that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    a till operator at tesco or a food maker at mcdonalds, how much do you think they would suffer without NMW, a hell of a lot is the answer.
    Probably not. You seem to think that NMW solves problems. It doesn't. It causes them.

    People will work for whatever they feel is the best wage. If you feel you're been shafted on wages, then you move on and get a better paid job.

    There was aloveley programme last year called 'The town that took on China.' It was a cushion manufacturer in Liverpool who wanted to bring back Production to the UK. Th eowner had a social conscious so only wanted to take on long term unemployed. About a third didn't like the salary so they left and found work paying more. A third just quit as benefits were an easier option and a Third stuvk it out. As the company grew, so did their wages.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    So why did the Soviet Union economically fail?
    because it was run for the enrichment of the elite, it was more state capitalism than the people power of socialism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    When you say suffer, do you mean I can't afford food suffering, or I can't afford the night out suffering?

    Obviously I'm opposed to the former type of suffering. It would affect their health (duh) but also their ability to perform a job, so in that case, it is in the businesses interest to pay enough.
    why should they slave away for only enough to barely exist?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Probably not. You seem to think that NMW solves problems. It doesn't. It causes them.

    People will work for whatever they feel is the best wage. If you feel you're been shafted on wages, then you move on and get a better paid job.

    There was aloveley programme last year called 'The town that took on China.' It was a cushion manufacturer in Liverpool who wanted to bring back Production to the UK. Th eowner had a social conscious so only wanted to take on long term unemployed. About a third didn't like the salary so they left and found work paying more. A third just quit as benefits were an easier option and a Third stuvk it out. As the company grew, so did their wages.
    yes because jobs are so easy to find arent they
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    yes because jobs are so easy to find arent they
    I was going to say 'Get on your bike....' but that wouldn't go down to well with you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    why should they slave away for only enough to barely exist?
    Because you don't need to spend money to "live lyf 2 da full".

    In all seriousness, as an employer I'm interested in my employee doing the job they are hired to do. I'll pay them enough to buy food, shelter, and extra depending on their skills.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Because you don't need to spend money to "live lyf 2 da full".

    In all seriousness, as an employer I'm interested in my employee doing the job they are hired to do. I'll pay them enough to buy food, shelter, and extra depending on their skills.
    well bully for you, mcdonalds wont though, they know that they can pay as little as they want when cammy gets his way and removes the NMW and benefits, you cant turn down a job offer on benefits anyway even if it only paid £1 an hour
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    I was going to say 'Get on your bike....' but that wouldn't go down to well with you
    without NMW all jobs would be poorly paid except for leeching executives.

    why do you tories want to make it easier for the workers to be exploited for the financial gain of the people at the top, i thought you were the "party of the hard working", doesnt a hard working cleaner deserve a fair wage?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam543)
    They don't want to abolish minimum wage.
    They don't want to abolish health and safety.
    They don't want to abolish regulations on working times or conditions.
    They don't want to abolish the benefits system.

    Do a bit of research before posting and actually learn about views other than your own.
    I want to abolish all of the above, as well as the NHS and social housing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I want to abolish all of the above, as well as the NHS and social housing.
    read as, i want to make it eaiser for the rich to get richer at the expense of the workers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    well bully for you, mcdonalds wont though, they know that they can pay as little as they want when cammy gets his way and removes the NMW and benefits, you cant turn down a job offer on benefits anyway even if it only paid £1 an hour
    Where did Cameron say he wants to remove the NMW?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    read as, i want to make it eaiser for the rich to get richer at the expense of the workers.
    No... Read as Aspiringlawstudent wants people to take responsibility over their own lives and stop being the product of subsidisation.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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