Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:26 am
Mintball wrote:
And I'm also fairly sure that they won't have objected too much to the proposition of free labour.
As I've mentioned before, the government has effectively been advertising for big businesses (Unilever & McDonalds, for starters) in its 'health advice' - which came only a few months after the government invited the same companies to discuss public health.
These are also some of the same (very) big businesses that promised to create the jobs that would remove the effects of the cuts. They are not doing this.
Perhaps one should look at corporate donations to the Conservative Party ... I do suspect such things a entirely mutual arrangement based, not least, on ideology.
That doesn't entitle them (or any other company) to free labour. They pay lots of tax because they make millions and millions in profit - although not enough, according to the City earlier this year, which isn't happy with Tesco's growth. Which does raise a different question about why we need continued growth.
This is essentially like a tax break: yet every one of the FTSE 100 companies is already using tax havens, so why do big companies need further hand outs (in effect) from government? They're not poor. They're not suffering.
If we seriously think that some claimants might benefit from some form of 'work experience', then I would far rather see people do things like working for a spell with elderly patients in a hospital. It is more socially productive - potentially on both sides. But I am very wary of forcing people into working for their benefits - not least because it assumes that we have a nation of skivvers. Ys, some people take the proverbial. But the majority of people who are out of work do not. They want to work. They want to earn a living. They want to get a proper wage with all that means. There is a very causal tendency among many people to fall into the trap of assuming a nation of the workshy. A little as people assume a nation of people dodging work because they're on the sick - whereas the facts (and the personal stories) tell a different story - for which you can see the relevant thread on this forum.
As I've mentioned before, the government has effectively been advertising for big businesses (Unilever & McDonalds, for starters) in its 'health advice' - which came only a few months after the government invited the same companies to discuss public health.
These are also some of the same (very) big businesses that promised to create the jobs that would remove the effects of the cuts. They are not doing this.
Perhaps one should look at corporate donations to the Conservative Party ... I do suspect such things a entirely mutual arrangement based, not least, on ideology.
That doesn't entitle them (or any other company) to free labour. They pay lots of tax because they make millions and millions in profit - although not enough, according to the City earlier this year, which isn't happy with Tesco's growth. Which does raise a different question about why we need continued growth.
This is essentially like a tax break: yet every one of the FTSE 100 companies is already using tax havens, so why do big companies need further hand outs (in effect) from government? They're not poor. They're not suffering.
If we seriously think that some claimants might benefit from some form of 'work experience', then I would far rather see people do things like working for a spell with elderly patients in a hospital. It is more socially productive - potentially on both sides. But I am very wary of forcing people into working for their benefits - not least because it assumes that we have a nation of skivvers. Ys, some people take the proverbial. But the majority of people who are out of work do not. They want to work. They want to earn a living. They want to get a proper wage with all that means. There is a very causal tendency among many people to fall into the trap of assuming a nation of the workshy. A little as people assume a nation of people dodging work because they're on the sick - whereas the facts (and the personal stories) tell a different story - for which you can see the relevant thread on this forum.
I don't think any big business would categorically say it would - regardless of circumstances - create unnecessary jobs. What the government intimated was it expected the private sector to pick up the people who were to be made redundant in the public sector. It said it would create an environment where business could flourish - has that happened!! SME's were supposed to have access to funds for capital projects and operating cash flow - has that happened? In the same breath the government say growth will be virtually non-existent - how do they expect the private sector to absorb these jobs?
I agree regarding your last point to a certain degree. Is your view that those on the dole should be doing something for their money if so then community projects is the correct use of this resource. If the idea is these people get experience that might lead to a job then perhaps putting them into a sector where it is generally agreed there will be less opportunities is perhaps not the best strategy.
On donations, you think it is OK for unions to dictate the policies of the labour party - Ed got the top job because the unions decided that, but its not OK for the Tories to do the same?
Tax collection is a careful balance - if you close all the loop holes you would most likely reduce the total tax take. Companies will always look to reduce their tax bill - it frees up money for capital investment, dividends - which are taxable etc. If I could find a way of paying less tax I would and I suggest so would you.
