Re: @codejunky @ Preston Munchensonton - "The argument will be that...
@ Graham Marsden
"Balderdash. How many million pounds of bonuses does the owner need? How about they give some of that money back to the little people who are actually doing the work instead of just paying them thte minimum required by law? Who knows, that may even help improve staff morale and reduce turnover! (But, hell, there's enough unemployed people out there that if someone quits, there are plenty more desperate for a job...)"
This is the trap of aiming for the wrong direction. How much money do you need? Arbitrarily lets decide that you have too much money, you cant need all that! So lets take it from you and redistribute it as we please. Maybe moats and duck houses (maybe porn for ministers husbands). You dont need it and we can drag everyones pay down. Vs letting the person who earns the money to keep the majority of it (regardless of their wage). That way it is worth making money and employing people, and with the increased wealth associated with that we can "improve staff morale".
"Oh gods, someone else who has swallowed the "Scrounger Narrative" hook, line and sinker. Try looking up how much money is lost through that, then how much is lost through big corporations dodging tax. Again, take the log out of your eye first."
So you have a boner for businesses money (they earned it, you didnt) but have no problem with people dropping out of work to take a slice of that money because you think it isnt much being taken? You may need to clear your eye before we go on.
"I know, given I started my own business on a self-employed basis over 20 years ago, however there is a difference between that and people who have been forced to sign contracts where they "work" for businesses on a self-employed basis, meaning that they can be sacked without notice, don't get sick pay or paid holidays or any of those other tedious and expensive annoyances..."
I can see the problem. So many regulations making it harder to employ someone properly that it makes more sense to hire them as self employed. Makes sense. Although I guess you think these people are better served being out of work and using the 'safety net' welfare is supposed to be?
"And I bet you believe Copyright Violation is theft too."
Not seeing what you are getting at here. I said nothing about copyright (I would argue that stealing a copy is not the same as stealing something irreplaceable such as someone's earnings).
"Great, but how about we actually pay people a *living wage* insted of a pittance? Or is that too left-wing for you?"
What living wage is that? Food? Shelter? TV? Internet? Wifi? Unlimited funding for unlimited children? Also how many jobs are you happy to see disappear to afford your living wage? Obviously as costs go up the money must be found and the business owner will allocate as they please (for the business they own, run, theirs, not yours. Hope thats not too right wing for you).
"Erm, excuse me? Isn't that what you're saying that the business owners should be able to do? Because that's sure as hell what they're doing! The little people do the work, the owners trouser the profits...!"
Aww poor you (*tiniest violin*). You mean the owner who is liable for the running of the business? To make long term decisions including appointment of staff? To keep the thing running so the 'little people' can do their job and come back to it again tomorrow? The profits which are earned against a business not set up by the 'little people' but instead employs them and makes money through viable business to pay them? Poor you. Maybe you should go set up your own then you can make that risk free, easy money.
"I have, they run it around in a massive hamster wheel that generates lots of money for them, but precious little of it (if any) gets back to the people at the bottom of the pile."
You might want to look again. You missed most of it.
"Are you naiive or just ignorant? Yes, Labour made a mess, but Osborne has made the problem worse and dumped the costs on us, the tax payers, not on the banks and businesses who caused the issue!"
Eh? You do know that labour spent the money in a boom? And you know it was labour who bailed out the banks letting them carry on? And while various scandals have hit, the banks 'rescued' by tax payer bailout have performed worse than most of the private ones? The issue was caused by lack of regulatory oversight (3 bodies, no eyes, no teeth) and govs loving the boost to their finances (of funny money). Osborne hasnt been brilliant but the sinking you attribute to him was pre-him.
"Anyway, as fascinating as this is, I see little point in continuing this discussion because it's clear that your ideology is blinding you to what is *really* happening out there. Money is going *up* the tree, it is *NOT* coming back down."
While I have the same opinion of you and your ideology I do agree with your assessment of the direction money is going. So many subsidies and market fudges are pushing money to the rich, but thats not the market doing it. The market didnt bail out the risks the banks took. The gov sloshed money to underwrite the risks (here and US). Plausibly storing further problems (and yes Osborne is doing this too).
"because I can see the flaw in that model even if you can't."
The funny problem with this debate is we both have the same opinion of each other. So I will watch France and Greece apply your ideas and see how they get on.