Getting closer to minimum wage

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
261

Rjan, most of the things you mentioned should be covered by local councils, civil servants yes, but which colour tie the bloke/blokette in No10 wears is of no consequence.

No, we don’t need a minimum wage, a free market in its truest sense will not need one, supply and demand will take care of that. And a minimum wage standard becomes a maximum of sorts, if the law says you can pay X amount, guess how much wages will be!

The NHS and benefit system should only be available to those that pay into the system or have parents that have paid in, to allow younger people the use of the system.

Personally I would abolish income taxes and get revenue from a tax on purchases, no business to business tax either. There’s a bunch of Americans that have a very interesting proposal on that. I think it is fairtax.org, haven’t looked at it in a while, but I like the idea.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

262

newmercman:
Rjan, most of the things you mentioned should be covered by local councils, civil servants yes, but which colour tie the bloke/blokette in No10 wears is of no consequence.

No, we don’t need a minimum wage, a free market in its truest sense will not need one, supply and demand will take care of that. And a minimum wage standard becomes a maximum of sorts, if the law says you can pay X amount, guess how much wages will be!

The NHS and benefit system should only be available to those that pay into the system or have parents that have paid in, to allow younger people the use of the system.

Personally I would abolish income taxes and get revenue from a tax on purchases, no business to business tax either. There’s a bunch of Americans that have a very interesting proposal on that. I think it is fairtax.org, haven’t looked at it in a while, but I like the idea.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

The minimum wage is there to protect the weakest in society. And it’s certainly not a maximum… I certainly don’t earn minimum wage. And don’t think I know anyone who does. The idea that it’s a cap is ludicrous. I don’t think a single driver on this forum earns minimum wage - which debunks that myth.

The NHS and benefits system is only available to those who qualify for them. The idea of having to pay in is just one way of excluding the most vulnerable. How about the children of parents who don’t work. Do we let them starve? Do we let anyone in the UK suffer because they have not contributed enough? It sounds pretty barbaric to me. I’d also question if you really want Doctors in A&E checking your eligibility before resuscitating you.

If we were to abolish income taxes - how would someone pay in? Surely being a consumer of products is not enough? Otherwise anyone who buys and sells products in the UK would be eligible. And once we start heavily taxing transactions alone how competitive do you think we would be internationally?

The idea of a Victorian Britain with people starving and going without healthcare isn’t one I would aspire to.

263

sammym:

newmercman:
Rjan, most of the things you mentioned should be covered by local councils, civil servants yes, but which colour tie the bloke/blokette in No10 wears is of no consequence.

No, we don’t need a minimum wage, a free market in its truest sense will not need one, supply and demand will take care of that. And a minimum wage standard becomes a maximum of sorts, if the law says you can pay X amount, guess how much wages will be!

The NHS and benefit system should only be available to those that pay into the system or have parents that have paid in, to allow younger people the use of the system.

Personally I would abolish income taxes and get revenue from a tax on purchases, no business to business tax either. There’s a bunch of Americans that have a very interesting proposal on that. I think it is fairtax.org, haven’t looked at it in a while, but I like the idea.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

The minimum wage is there to protect the weakest in society. And it’s certainly not a maximum… I certainly don’t earn minimum wage. And don’t think I know anyone who does. The idea that it’s a cap is ludicrous. I don’t think a single driver on this forum earns minimum wage - which debunks that myth.

The NHS and benefits system is only available to those who qualify for them. The idea of having to pay in is just one way of excluding the most vulnerable. How about the children of parents who don’t work. Do we let them starve? Do we let anyone in the UK suffer because they have not contributed enough? It sounds pretty barbaric to me. I’d also question if you really want Doctors in A&E checking your eligibility before resuscitating you.

If we were to abolish income taxes - how would someone pay in? Surely being a consumer of products is not enough? Otherwise anyone who buys and sells products in the UK would be eligible. And once we start heavily taxing transactions alone how competitive do you think we would be internationally?

The idea of a Victorian Britain with people starving and going without healthcare isn’t one I would aspire to.

They do it in other European countries so why not check if someone has the means to pay or is eligible. I split my leg open in France on a loading bay first question in A & E was do you have your EHIC or a VISA card, took all of 10 seconds to produce the EHIC and treatment commenced.

264

Mazzer2:

sammym:

newmercman:
Rjan, most of the things you mentioned should be covered by local councils, civil servants yes, but which colour tie the bloke/blokette in No10 wears is of no consequence.

No, we don’t need a minimum wage, a free market in its truest sense will not need one, supply and demand will take care of that. And a minimum wage standard becomes a maximum of sorts, if the law says you can pay X amount, guess how much wages will be!

The NHS and benefit system should only be available to those that pay into the system or have parents that have paid in, to allow younger people the use of the system.

Personally I would abolish income taxes and get revenue from a tax on purchases, no business to business tax either. There’s a bunch of Americans that have a very interesting proposal on that. I think it is fairtax.org, haven’t looked at it in a while, but I like the idea.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

The minimum wage is there to protect the weakest in society. And it’s certainly not a maximum… I certainly don’t earn minimum wage. And don’t think I know anyone who does. The idea that it’s a cap is ludicrous. I don’t think a single driver on this forum earns minimum wage - which debunks that myth.

The NHS and benefits system is only available to those who qualify for them. The idea of having to pay in is just one way of excluding the most vulnerable. How about the children of parents who don’t work. Do we let them starve? Do we let anyone in the UK suffer because they have not contributed enough? It sounds pretty barbaric to me. I’d also question if you really want Doctors in A&E checking your eligibility before resuscitating you.

If we were to abolish income taxes - how would someone pay in? Surely being a consumer of products is not enough? Otherwise anyone who buys and sells products in the UK would be eligible. And once we start heavily taxing transactions alone how competitive do you think we would be internationally?

The idea of a Victorian Britain with people starving and going without healthcare isn’t one I would aspire to.

They do it in other European countries so why not check if someone has the means to pay or is eligible. I split my leg open in France on a loading bay first question in A & E was do you have your EHIC or a VISA card, took all of 10 seconds to produce the EHIC and treatment commenced.

My partner works in the NHS - and I’ll let you into a secret that you won’t read in the DailyMail (not directed at you - just general misinformation that is presented). We actually do check eligibility before treatment. Unless it’s considered an emergency. Every hospital has people whose job it is to do this.

And you will be turned away if it’s not an emergency. What’s more - even if you have emergency surgery you are still presented with a bill. Getting that bill paid if someone is dirt poor is a different matter. But the idea that the NHS accepts anyone in for treatment with no questions asked is a myth.

There are problems with people bringing relatives over who have serious conditions who they NHS can’t turn away. I’d like to see the bill being passed on to family members in the UK. But that won’t happen. I’d also like to see more screaning of people coming into the UK for health conditions and potentially for them to have to carry medical insurance. That seems reasonable to me.

265

Wouldn’t read anything in the Daily Mail as I don’t read it, don’t just assume because someone holds the view that they don’t want all and sundry using the NHS that they are a Daily Mail reader

266

Mazzer2:
Wouldn’t read anything in the Daily Mail as I don’t read it, don’t just assume because someone holds the view that they don’t want all and sundry using the NHS that they are a Daily Mail reader

I didn’t. I assumed you believed all and sundry could use the NHS.

Here is a link: nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSs … e-eea.aspx

You will see that you can’t just rock up to the UK and get any sort of treatment.

I still don’t think the system is strict enough - but it’s much tougher than some people assume.

267

sammym:

Mazzer2:
Wouldn’t read anything in the Daily Mail as I don’t read it, don’t just assume because someone holds the view that they don’t want all and sundry using the NHS that they are a Daily Mail reader

I didn’t. I assumed you believed all and sundry could use the NHS.

Here is a link: nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSs … e-eea.aspx

You will see that you can’t just rock up to the UK and get any sort of treatment.

I still don’t think the system is strict enough - but it’s much tougher than some people assume.

Most people are aware that the NHS is not open to all and sundry however compared to other countries in Europe it is a lot easier to get treatment when you are not entitled, simple tweaks in government policy could prevent some of the bigger abuses. For example Ireland had a problem with pregnant African women coming to Ireland ready to give birth and once given birth because the baby was now entitled to an Irish passport they were allowed to stay in the country. Ireland ended this by bringing in a policy whereby once the child was 18 it could return to Ireland to claim their passport having returned to it’s mothers country of origin in the meantime oddly enough this stopped the problem

268

This is a copy and paste of the basics of the fair tax, it’s an American idea, but the basic idea would work in Britain.

The Fair Tax Plan is a sales tax proposal to replace the current U.S. income tax structure. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes. It also ends all taxes on gifts, estates, capital gains, alternative minimums, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment. It replaces them with a federal retail sales tax of 23 percent to be administered by state sales tax authorities. The sales tax would not apply to imports, commodities used to produce other products, or used goods.

A group known as Americans for Fair Taxation developed the Fair Tax Act of 2003.
The Fair Tax would require the repeal of the 16th Amendment. It would disband and defund the Internal Revenue Service.
A 23 percent sales tax is regressivebecause it would impact the poor the most. To make it more progressive, the Fair Tax Act proposes that all Americans receive a monthly “prebate." The prebate would be equal to the 23 percent tax on the monthly cost of living at the poverty level. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the poverty level for a family of four was $24,600 in 2018. The prebate would total $5,658 a year (0.023 times $24,600.)

I’m not a expert, but I believe this is the way forward, far from punishing the weaker members of society it will help them, they may not be able to afford the latest iPhone, which is how it should be and unless you have an illness that prevents you from working that gives you benefits, you won’t be able to choose to laze around expecting the working man to support you.

Another huge plus is that it virtually eliminates the black market economy, a drug dealer or whatever buys a BMW or a Rolex, he pays the tax on it, same with the rest of us, we decide how much tax we pay by how much we spend, we don’t get punished financially for working harder or smarter.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

269

albion:
Part of a dastardly plan to overtake trucknet and become Supreme Leader. I’ll make. Kim Jong Un look like a daytime telly presenter :wink:

Can’t possibly be a bigger Communist style takeover of the media than the head of the BBC has pulled off. :smiling_imp: :laughing:

270

newmercman:
This is a copy and paste of the basics of the fair tax, it’s an American idea, but the basic idea would work in Britain.

The Fair Tax Plan is a sales tax proposal to replace the current U.S. income tax structure. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes. It also ends all taxes on gifts, estates, capital gains, alternative minimums, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment. It replaces them with a federal retail sales tax of 23 percent to be administered by state sales tax authorities. The sales tax would not apply to imports

:open_mouth:

Blimey is this the latest Chinese plan to wreck the US economy and take out their military machine. :laughing:

So no one buys domestic made/tax liable goods and/or at least minimises their consumer purchases to minimise their tax exposure.That’s what remains of their domestic industry brought to its knees and what is bought just adds to the trade deficit.While the lowest paid pay more tax as a proportion of their earnings than the highest paid and tax revenues collapse as a result.What could possibly go wrong.

271

newmercman:
This is a copy and paste of the basics of the fair tax, it’s an American idea, but the basic idea would work in Britain.
[…]
I’m not a expert, but I believe this is the way forward, far from punishing the weaker members of society it will help them, they may not be able to afford the latest iPhone, which is how it should be and unless you have an illness that prevents you from working that gives you benefits, you won’t be able to choose to laze around expecting the working man to support you.

Another huge plus is that it virtually eliminates the black market economy, a drug dealer or whatever buys a BMW or a Rolex, he pays the tax on it, same with the rest of us, we decide how much tax we pay by how much we spend, we don’t get punished financially for working harder or smarter.

The problem with flat taxes is that they are regressive and anything but “fair”, and it’s not surprising that the idea comes from the US, the richest society on Earth that has people living in cardboard boxes, dying on pavements, and jails one in ten.

Flat taxes hit those on lower earned incomes harder than they hit those on higher earned incomes or unearned incomes. This is partly because those with more money tend to save or invest at least a proportion of their income - and obviously, taxes that are purely levied on consumption don’t touch these flows at all, giving a tax break to those wealthy enough to make savings and investments - whereas those on lower incomes are usually compelled spend almost all their income on basic living expenses and recreation, and cannot afford to put substantial amounts aside for savings and investments.

Indeed, why should the dustman on an ordinary income pay the same amount of tax as a duke with inherited wealth? Consumption taxes are even more regressive than was the poll tax, because at least the poll tax was per person - a consumption tax is only levied on spending. Flat taxes also fail to control and moderate runaway market excesses, precisely because they do not let up on the poor nor become more aggressive on the rich as the market starts to reach extremes.

It also does not control the black market economy, because higher consumption taxes on goods encourage smuggling, and of course the drug dealer is not going to levy and pay taxes on the product he sells. In this particular case, it simply moves the tax from the income of the drug consumer, to the business that sells luxury goods to the drug dealer - there is no real gain in taxation overall, because drugs remain on the black market and out of the scope of consumption taxes (in the same way that the dealer’s personal income remained outside the scope of income taxation - that untaxed link in the chain of money and drugs is still present).

The only system in which flat consumption taxes are fair, are systems in which people’s labour is equally valued and paid at a flat hourly rate. I’ll pay the same in tax when I’m paid the same in wages, and I’m bequeathed the same in family wealth, and no sooner.

272

newmercman:
Rjan, most of the things you mentioned should be covered by local councils, civil servants yes, but which colour tie the bloke/blokette in No10 wears is of no consequence.

I disagree, the number of tax inspectors and the general enforcement of rules upon businesses is often very much a political issue, and local government is still a part of the state. Without enforcement, irresponsible businesses undercut those that act responsibly.

And the idea that every consumer (as neoliberal ideologues tend to argue) should be engaged in scrutinising every aspect of how a business operates - what taxes they pay, what wages they pay, how clean their kitchens are, how safe their processes are, and so on - and then engaging in a boycott of those that are not up to scratch, is ludicrous. People want to be able to come together to agree a set of standards (and develop them over time based on experience and past learning), and then delegate the monitoring to a minority, who then simply pull the shutters down on any business that is found to be flouting the rules - giving immediate respite to consumers, to workers, and to other responsible businesses.

No, we don’t need a minimum wage, a free market in its truest sense will not need one, supply and demand will take care of that. And a minimum wage standard becomes a maximum of sorts, if the law says you can pay X amount, guess how much wages will be!

But the free market hasn’t worked, has it? And why should the work I actually do be undervalued by society, simply because there is an ample supply of others willing to do the same work (but not in fact doing it)? And conversely, why should the work I actually do be overvalued, simply because society has been organised in a way that is inefficient in producing or distributing the skills available?

And as for minimum wages becoming target wages, that’s just not borne out anywhere in the world. True, it tends to compress relative differentials at the bottom end, by limiting how low the bottom end can go, but that is precisely the purpose of it, to stop some winners taking all whilst everyone else gets paid a pittance.

The NHS and benefit system should only be available to those that pay into the system or have parents that have paid in, to allow younger people the use of the system.

It’s fine to insist that people have the responsibility to pay in, so long as they have the right to the means of paying in. No responsibilities without rights.

273

The thing is Rjan, there’s no one size fits all solution, you lean to the left, I lean to the right, one of is always going to be disappointed.

I think that whoever gets in makes no difference, as I said earlier, each successive government has increased taxes and cut services, expecting anything different from the next lot is the true definition of insanity. I.E. repeating an exercise without changing anything and expecting a different result.

The system is broken, broken beyond repair and a new system is necessary, until that happens we are just papering over the cracks.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

274

newmercman:
The thing is Rjan, there’s no one size fits all solution, you lean to the left, I lean to the right, one of is always going to be disappointed.

I think that whoever gets in makes no difference, as I said earlier, each successive government has increased taxes and cut services, expecting anything different from the next lot is the true definition of insanity. I.E. repeating an exercise without changing anything and expecting a different result.

The system is broken, broken beyond repair and a new system is necessary, until that happens we are just papering over the cracks.

The reason it has made no difference who you vote for in the recent past is because the last time we had a real Labour government elected was 1974 - when there was industrial uproar over Tory attacks on the unions and Ted Heath went back to the country to ask “who governs?” - and as me and Carryfast discuss to no end, Callaghan’s government was vexed with firefighting economic troubles and allegations of treachery. In New Labour you saw a continuation of Thatcherite economic policy, based on attacking workers’ share of the economic pie and letting inequality rip, but with a watered-down slop of left-wing social policy.

You say taxes have gone up, but of course that is not the truth at all:

So too the higher rates have dropped dramatically:

You can see that in the UK, the red line, the highest rates of income tax today are lower than they were in the 1930s. What has gone up is regressive sales taxes, a variety of fixed charges, rents, residential property prices, and all sorts of other taxes and costs that hit ordinary earners hardest.

And as for corporation tax:

And what this shows, incidentally, is that as CT rates have fallen, more and more wealth has been taken as corporate profits. The Blairites used to (and probably still do) argue that this meant revenue for the Exchequer was staying (mostly) steady, but of course it also means that personal revenue for the rich (via unearned income) is massively increasing (whilst personal revenue for the poor, via earnings, has stagnated).

So when you say “taxes have gone up”, you can see that it’s not true - what has happened is that the tax burden has been shifted from rich to poor, and so too income itself has shifted from earners through wages, to wealthy idlers through profits. Public services are going down because the rich are paying less and less tax, year after year, and because earners have smaller and smaller shares of the economic pie.

275

Taxes cover a broad spectrum and although the taxes you use as an example haven’t risen, what about the taxes we pay now that we never used to? The fact is the government takes more of our money in taxes now than they used to, council tax, congestion charge, bedroom tax, to name a few. Alongside this is the cuts to public services, fire and police stations closing, the ■■■■ poor state of the armed forces, the navy in particular.

Then the selling off of stuff we have paid for through our taxes, the Dartford Crossing, Severn Bridge, the public utility companies. To add insult to injury, most are now owned by foreign companies.

So income tax may not have gone up, but the idiot’s in charge have made a proper balls up of the job so far and it’s the public that pay the price.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

276

newmercman:
Taxes cover a broad spectrum and although the taxes you use as an example haven’t risen, what about the taxes we pay now that we never used to? The fact is the government takes more of our money in taxes now than they used to, council tax, congestion charge, bedroom tax, to name a few. Alongside this is the cuts to public services, fire and police stations closing, the ■■■■ poor state of the armed forces, the navy in particular.

I broadly agree on all you’ve said - I’m reluctant to accept your characterisation of yourself as “leaning right”!

There has been a systematic shift of taxation away from the rich and onto the poor. Taxes which bear according to your means have been reduced, and taxes that bear regardless of your means (or, like the so-called bedroom tax, which bear because of your underlying lack of means and inability to pay market rents) have increased - a shift of the burden from rich to poor. That’s the overall picture.

The actual overall tax take (as a proportion of the economy) is actually pretty steady in the UK (in most Western countries it has increased slightly over the long-term), but because ordinary people are bearing a larger share of it on reduced means, and because public services have had competition and profit suckers stabbed in at every knuckle, tax money doesn’t go as far and feels like a much greater burden for ordinary working people to bear.

Then the selling off of stuff we have paid for through our taxes, the Dartford Crossing, Severn Bridge, the public utility companies. To add insult to injury, most are now owned by foreign companies.

Indeed. The whole purpose is to force everything into the marketplace where the rich have more votes and where capital owners can extract unearned incomes. Selling off council housing at a discount whilst building no new homes, it’s a one-time bribe to the working class electorate, but in the long-term it has eaten their children, who now face sky-high rents, insecure private-sector tenancies, and often squalid housing.

So income tax may not have gone up, but the idiot’s in charge have made a proper balls up of the job so far and it’s the public that pay the price.

They haven’t really ballsed up though - it was precisely the agenda to attack the interests of the public. Politics since 1979 has been one long period of the rich waging class war against workers unhindered (or even endorsed) by democracy at the ballot box.

277

My leaning to the right is more of a zero tolerance, harsher penalties kind of thing, economically I’m on the fence, I realise the need for big profits in business, but I also disagree with that when it comes at the expense of the working class.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

278

newmercman:
My leaning to the right is more of a zero tolerance, harsher penalties kind of thing, economically I’m on the fence, I realise the need for big profits in business, but I also disagree with that when it comes at the expense of the working class.

I see, so you’re more of a Stalinist? :stuck_out_tongue: :laughing: (only joking!).

279

I draw the line at Genocide, but I do believe that a clip around the ear is much more effective than a time out.

Hard to define, but as an example I don’t think speeding fines are just, however if you crash because you’re going too fast then you should be severely punished. I guess that falls into the libertarian category, with an emphasis on personal responsibility.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

280

newmercman:
I draw the line at Genocide, but I do believe that a clip around the ear is much more effective than a time out.

Hard to define, but as an example I don’t think speeding fines are just, however if you crash because you’re going too fast then you should be severely punished. I guess that falls into the libertarian category, with an emphasis on personal responsibility.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

I’ll make space for you on my bench :wink: