Jump to content

Middle


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Keiran Hannifin said:

^^ that's pretty much the idea. 

 

You set legislation in place, where any business can only pay out "x" amount of wages per week, between £8.25-£10.18.... Let's say £1,443, which is 5 people on minimum wage, 35 hours a week. Or as many part timers as is equivalent. The gov. Then subsidises those pay cheques to living wage (like an EPA, but no means testing). Any more members of staff than that, the employer must pay a living wage as standard.

 

This way the responsibility/obligation lands between both, the government and those who profit the most from the labour of low income workers.

I am going to hazard a guess you have never taken the huge financial, emotional and emotional risk of starting a business using your own funds, blood, sweat and tears to provide work for others and contribute to the economy though taxes, rent, rates, fuel, and supporting other local businesses.

Obviously in most cases the driver is personal gain in the long term, but if you think every business owner with more than a handful of staff is creaming the profits off and paying a pittance you are sorely mistaken.

An awful lot earn significantly less than those they employ on top of having the huge stress and often taking further lending to help their staff.

Your proposal would send lots of them under and leave far more than just the business owner out of work and dependent on state handouts.

Nice idea in theory - wouldn’t work in the real world 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, trmpton said:

I am going to hazard a guess you have never taken the huge financial, emotional and emotional risk of starting a business using your own funds, blood, sweat and tears to provide work for others and contribute to the economy though taxes, rent, rates, fuel, and supporting other local businesses.

Obviously in most cases the driver is personal gain in the long term, but if you think every business owner with more than a handful of staff is creaming the profits off and paying a pittance you are sorely mistaken.

An awful lot earn significantly less than those they employ on top of having the huge stress and often taking further lending to help their staff.

Your proposal would send lots of them under and leave far more than just the business owner out of work and dependent on state handouts.

Nice idea in theory - wouldn’t work in the real world 

I'm intrigued. What type business/service provider would you think would require more than 5 working under living wage, to a point where it would be detrimental to the owner? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Keiran Hannifin said:

I'm intrigued. What type business/service provider would you think would require more than 5 working under living wage, to a point where it would be detrimental to the owner? 

Hundreds

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, trmpton said:

Hundreds

There are - it's mostly multinationals that are taking the piss with horrific bonuses whilst underpaying their staff.

That said though, if the big corps were dealt with (be it by capping boss pay to a multiple of median worker pay, or similar) then the bulk of the population would have more money, enabling the small business owners to up their prices and pay themselves and their staff better...

Money in the pockets of the middle and working class is beneficial to all. Money in the swiss bank accounts of the super wealthy is not.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Banker said:

How would you pay for it? Presumably put taxes up for those working 

In the future many/most jobs will be automated.  There will be no need for humans.

What do we do then?

The furlough scheme has given some indication of how a universal basic income could work.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

That isn't true.

Automation is and will be replacing some jobs.   But in many environments it is simply freeing up more time for humans to do other tasks.

 

More people competing for fewer jobs whilst the rich get richer?  Can you see a problem here?

Remember that a lot of white collar jobs are about processing information.  Computers and AI can and will do it faster, more accurately and for less than a human.

Automation will continue to decimate production/factory jobs.

The service sector is already being impacted with more and more self service solutions which reduces the numbers of workers required.  They are evening trialling stores where you simply get scanned on the way out and your account is charged. 

Simply put there will be fewer and fewer jobs in future and as technology improves then those opportunities will diminish further.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

That isn't true.

Automation is and will be replacing some jobs.   But in many environments it is simply freeing up more time for humans to do other tasks.

 


Any idea what these other tasks might be?



image.png.1d172b585e9a1214d65ecdb041692f68.png
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

More people competing for fewer jobs whilst the rich get richer?  Can you see a problem here?

Remember that a lot of white collar jobs are about processing information.  Computers and AI can and will do it faster, more accurately and for less than a human.

Automation will continue to decimate production/factory jobs.

The service sector is already being impacted with more and more self service solutions which reduces the numbers of workers required.  They are evening trialling stores where you simply get scanned on the way out and your account is charged. 

Simply put there will be fewer and fewer jobs in future and as technology improves then those opportunities will diminish further.


& this is why there has to be planning for future funding of meaningful work for a good chunk of the population to do

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, trmpton said:

Potential MHK?

20210607_231809.thumb.jpg.a5881b5276f4debd6e5e2cf94f9c21de.jpg

Unsure if that's some how meant to discredit me? I've been misquoted in this before... So, to clarify. Kenny, is still in jail. He has had his sentence slightly reduced after an appeal (more tax payers money) 

 

Now. Do you think this reflects the wants of the manx public? Because I don't. 

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=58804&headline=People importing drugs can expect to go to prison&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2020&cat=Crime

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=58274&headline=Sentences for drug importers 'should be harsher'&sectionIs=News&searchyear=2020

 

 

FB_IMG_1623150950044.jpg

Screenshot_20210608_121711_com.facebook.katana.jpg

Edited by Keiran Hannifin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, trmpton said:

Potential MHK?

20210607_231809.thumb.jpg.a5881b5276f4debd6e5e2cf94f9c21de.jpg

Why not? Is it not reasonable to question the sentencing guidelines? I suspect there are many voters who would agree that paedophilia is a worse crime than cannabis supply. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The only victim from someone importing cannabis for personal use, is the dealer who is losing out on profit.... 

 

Which in the eyes of the law should be a win. 

Edited by Keiran Hannifin
I love sticking commas where they don't belong
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Keiran Hannifin said:

The only victim from someone importing cannabis for personal use, is the dealer who is losing out on profit.... 

 

Which in the eyes of the law should be a win. 

There's still UK/international dealers profiting, just no one local. 

If someone grows for personal use then I see them doing zero harm.  No money is put into the hands of any dealers at all.  In fact, some local garden centres might actually benefit! 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Phantom said:

There's still UK/international dealers profiting, just no one local. 

If someone grows for personal use then I see them doing zero harm.  No money is put into the hands of any dealers at all.  In fact, some local garden centres might actually benefit! 

it would also stop people being criminalised for £1.50 worth of weed

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...