At Last Politicians In UK Do Something Right...

[EddyTheDog]

Big multinational businesses will "pay their fair share." To stop legal tax dodging, a new 25% tax on profits generated by multinationals - but from their activity in the UK - will be introduced if they would otherwise move the money out of the country to avoid UK tax.

I guess the accountants will find a way around it - However, it was a massive loophole that needed to be closed...

EDIT: It was just announced a few minutes ago so no link - It will be interesting to see what the political commentators have to say about it.....

[RummyBoy]

So you're not a business man? I'm not entirely sure whether this is a good thing or not. To me it looks like just another step, in the same direction as the United States, in trying to cut out freedoms. They're trying to lock the gate and I am not sure at this early stage but it sounds like that kind of a move.

The fact is that business people and companies are smart and they will ALWAYS find a way around it like you say. The real ultimate bottom line is that this smacks of desperation - neither the UK nor the US want to cut spending (as its unpopular with the electorate) so they're going the route of attacking their tax slaves for more revenue.

Comes back to the same argument about turning milk cows into beef cows...

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

So you're not a business man? I'm not entirely sure whether this is a good thing or not. To me it looks like just another step, in the same direction as the United States, in trying to cut out freedoms. They're trying to lock the gate and I am not sure at this early stage but it sounds like that kind of a move.

The fact is that business people and companies are smart and they will ALWAYS find a way around it like you say. The real ultimate bottom line is that this smacks of desperation - neither the UK nor the US want to cut spending (as its unpopular with the electorate) so they're going the route of attacking their tax slaves for more revenue.

Comes back to the same argument about turning milk cows into beef cows...

yeah no kidding I'm at a 51% tax rate.. fuck. the tax rate on cell service here in LA is 17%

[Barry-xlovecam]

• Multinational company A pays no taxes
• Local company B suffers the national tax rate

Who's price can be lower?

I think this is a misguided approach to price equalization by distributing tax burdens better. Ultimately the consumers might pay more -- the multinational might leave that market.

How is this better?

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

yeah no kidding I'm at a 51% tax rate.. fuck. the tax rate on cell service here in LA is 17%

Well, you're not in France which has a pathetic 75% top rate. Honestly, I don't know why these sinking ships are so desperate to attack their golden egg laying hens. Kill everything that generates productivity and you're left with a pile of shit, because as Barry said, companies will leave these markets.

These kind of high levels are basically confiscation disguised as taxation.

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

• Multinational company A pays no taxes
• Local company B suffers the national tax rate

Who's price can be lower?

I think this is a misguided approach to price equalization by distributing tax burdens better. Ultimately the consumers might pay more -- the multinational might leave that market.

How is this better?

Why would multi nationals leave the market? - It's a tax on profits...

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

Well, you're not in France which has a pathetic 75% top rate. Honestly, I don't know why these sinking ships are so desperate to attack their golden egg laying hens. Kill everything that generates productivity and you're left with a pile of shit, because as Barry said, companies will leave these markets.

These kind of high levels are basically confiscation disguised as taxation.

It's levelling the playing field for the locals and the multi nationals...

Don't see this as a new tax - It's closing the loopholes that meant the MNs could get away with not paying the taxes that they always should have been paying.....

My concern is that it is such a blunt instrument they are using to do this that it will fail...

[arock10]

awwww those poor lil multinationals sob moan whaaa whaaa

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

Why would multi nationals leave the market? - It's a tax on profits...

Exactly. No reason for any company to leave a market, as long as it makes a profit.

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by DamageX

Exactly. No reason for any company to leave a market, as long as it makes a profit.

And profits are taxed. They won't have a choice in that matter but they will have a choice as to whether to leave or not. Actually the way they will more effectively achieve this is by doing what they've been discussing at Brisbane (G8) which is to switch taxation from residency based to territorial based (over time) which means that taxes will arise on income where it is accrued rather than where the entity is resident.

That may well work but it doesn't solve the fundamental issue which is that these highly indebted nations spend more than they earn, with big government, large welfare programs, war doctrine, etc. In the UK, I know many people who do nothing, claim every benefit in the book and can earn $400 USD per week doing absolutely nothing. How sustainable is that? For how long will taxpayers put up with this kind of so called "redistribution of wealth".

Dont forget that the U.S. government passed its first, permanent income tax law in October 1913. Prior to that there were periods of high growth experienced by the US at times when there was zero income tax.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

So you're not a business man? I'm not entirely sure whether this is a good thing or not. To me it looks like just another step, in the same direction as the United States, in trying to cut out freedoms. They're trying to lock the gate and I am not sure at this early stage but it sounds like that kind of a move.

The fact is that business people and companies are smart and they will ALWAYS find a way around it like you say. The real ultimate bottom line is that this smacks of desperation - neither the UK nor the US want to cut spending (as its unpopular with the electorate) so they're going the route of attacking their tax slaves for more revenue.

Comes back to the same argument about turning milk cows into beef cows...

Tax evasion is the opposite of "free markets", so I don't really get your point. Tax evasion places different companies in different kind of competition advantage points; favouring mostly big multinational companies those have lawyer armies (and will to evade taxes). Neither it is good for the society that loses the tax money.

If you want to have some laws, those laws must be enforced, or if you don't want those laws, those should be removed. Not so, that there is laws, but obeying those laws is arbitrary. If you don't want companies to be taxed, then support removing those tax oblications, not evading the laws.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

• Multinational company A pays no taxes
• Local company B suffers the national tax rate

Who's price can be lower?

I think this is a misguided approach to price equalization by distributing tax burdens better. Ultimately the consumers might pay more -- the multinational might leave that market.

How is this better?

People (and companies) will always pay the price at the end. Unless you do like in US; take debt over debt by huge quantities.

So, fair market brings more competition, kinda essential thing for working markets.

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by aka123

Tax evasion is the opposite of "free markets", so I don't really get your point. Tax evasion places different companies in different kind of competition advantage points; favouring mostly big multinational companies those have lawyer armies (and will to evade taxes). Neither it is good for the society that loses the tax money.

This has nothing to do with tax evasion as we're talking about companies that are avoiding tax legally ie not breaking the law. So it's closer to tax avoidance as it stands and the issue is about proposals changing the law to close up loopholes.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

This has nothing to do with tax evasion as we're talking about companies that are avoiding tax legally ie not breaking the law. So it's closer to tax avoidance as it stands and the issue is about proposals changing the law to close loopholes.

Whatever, it was my poor judgement when choosing the word, but the end result is still the same, and methods questionable.

Not everything that is legal is desirable.

[Barry-xlovecam]

You really don't understand predatory pricing, do you?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by arock10

awwww those poor lil multinationals sob moan whaaa whaaa

in spite of what Hillary Clinton thinks businesses do provide jobs

[mineistaken]

Another anti business tax, congrats. Rabble seems to not comprehend that it is business what makes a country go.
How about they close welfare fraud/leeching loopholes instead.

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Another anti business tax, congrats. Rabble seems to not comprehend that it is business what makes a country go.
How about they close welfare fraud/leeching loopholes instead.

These companies cost the UK jobs and money - Take Amazon for example - They have created a few jobs in logistics - But at what cost? - They import most products as it's cheaper than manufacturing here - So less manufacturing jobs - They run most back office overseas - Less jobs here - They take business from local UK stores - Less jobs again - Then they don't pay tax - Less money here...

I can't see how that is a good thing.....

How many of these companies create something that would not exist without their presence here? - They are the one we need to encourage...

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

They import most products as it's cheaper than manufacturing here - So less manufacturing jobs - They run most back office overseas - Less jobs here - They take business from local UK stores - Less jobs again - Then they don't pay tax -

Each to their own but for me in the UK, that's whole other problem caused by government interfering in the free market - in the UK you have high regulation and a Minimum Wage.

Now if company A (in the UK) wants to hire person B (in the UK) at $5/hour and it's not allowed, company A can find someone at that rate abroad, such as in many Asian countries.

One job leaves the country and person B goes on benefits because his skills allow him only to get a job paying $5/hour (which is below the minimum wage) - a rate of pay that is not allowed by law. Now person B goes on benefits and can earn a hundred UK pounds per week sleeping all day. However, he has no incentive to look for a job and he's just adding to the national debt and a growing welfare bill.

Company can achieve the same cost saving doing its manufacturing overseas where costs are lower, regulations are easy, no minimum wage. So many jobs end up going abroad and the cycle continues.... How can western countries like the UK compete with Asian countries for jobs? When a skilled guy will do the job at a fraction of the cost. Now person B may not have wanted to work for $5/hr but AT LEAST he should have had the choice!

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

These companies cost the UK jobs and money - Take Amazon for example - They have created a few jobs in logistics - But at what cost? - They import most products as it's cheaper than manufacturing here - So less manufacturing jobs - They run most back office overseas - Less jobs here - They take business from local UK stores - Less jobs again - Then they don't pay tax - Less money here...

I can't see how that is a good thing.....

How many of these companies create something that would not exist without their presence here? - They are the one we need to encourage...

Amazon even got taxbreaks and government funded roads built to their warehouses.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

Now person B goes on benefits and can earn a hundred UK pounds per week sleeping all day. However, he has no incentive to look for a job and he's just adding to the national debt and a growing welfare bill.

You seem to settle for a quite low sum. With 624 $ in a month you have no incentive to get more.

And when you talk about some jobs going to Asia and so on, how is USA any different, or any other western country? But the thing is, that it doesn't create good life, desirable life, or even that much long term competition advantage that you keep pricing your job lower and lower. As this discussion is not about that Asia, etc. stuff, I won't go further into that.

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by aka123

You seem to settle for a quite low sum. With 624 $ in a month you have no incentive to get more.

Me? I wouldn't take a job paying $5/hour and no-one is forcing me to do so but at least I should have the freedom of choice.

And when you talk about some jobs going to Asia and so on, how is USA any different, or any other western country?

I just use the UK as an example but it applies to many western countries.

But the thing is, that it doesn't create good life, desirable life, or even that much long term competition advantage that you keep pricing your job lower and lower.

I don't understand this argument at all. Free market determines the price of commodities and goods, why not also labour? It was like that for 1000's of years in all countries and worked perfectly well. Main problem with minimum wage:

(1) It makes unemployable all people whose labor is not worth the minimum wage and because those people claim benefits, it increases the national debt.

(2) It makes it impossible for thin profit margin businesses which rely on cheap labor costs to operate. In some cases, they hire in Asia to solve that problem.

(3) It raises the price of all goods & services produced by such labor which in turn makes it hard for that company to compete with the company that gets cheaper labor abroad, forcing the losing company to do the same in order to improve their competitiveness.

MINIMUM WAGE is a total disaster...!

[JJ Gold]

There are no good taxes. All taxes serve to grow the machine that oppresses freedom. Celebrating the taxation of another is like celebrating rape.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

Me? I wouldn't take a job paying $5/hour and no-one is forcing me to do so but at least I should have the freedom of choice.

I just use the UK as an example but it applies to many western countries.

I don't understand this argument at all. Free market determines the price of commodities and goods, why not also labour? It was like that for 1000's of years in all countries and worked perfectly well. Main problem with minimum wage:

(1) It makes unemployable all people whose labor is not worth the minimum wage and because those people claim benefits, it increases the national debt.

(2) It makes it impossible for thin profit margin businesses which rely on cheap labor costs to operate. In some cases, they hire in Asia to solve that problem.

(3) It raises the price of all goods & services produced by such labor which in turn makes it hard for that company to compete with the company that gets cheaper labor abroad, forcing the losing company to do the same in order to improve their competitiveness.

MINIMUM WAGE is a total disaster...!

That sum thing was about the incentive. You assumed that other people wouldn't have incentive to work if they would get that 100 UK pounds per week. That I was wondering.

Minimum wage is not a big problem, as the cost of living sets the actual minimum, not minimum wage. Minimum wages are already so minimum that it doesn't have any real impact.

About national debt, it is not caused because of unemployed people, it is caused because nation's expences are greater than income, for any reason(s), like for not collecting enough taxes.

Also, modern kind of outsourcing to "cheap countries" is just temporary phase. There will of course be differences, but not like now. These cheap wages are essentially exploiting people's poor status, and it will lessen as people/ countries improve their situation. And it is ethical dilemma also, so that alone may have changes, as it already has.

[PAR]

So does this mean multinationals based in the UK will be doing the same for say the business they do outside of the UK...

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by PAR

So does this mean multinationals based in the UK will be doing the same for say the business they do outside of the UK...

I assume they will pay the taxes that they are required to by law in that country...

[Sly]

I'm always amused that slow-moving politicians think they can outsmart hundreds of conglomerates with billions of dollars at their disposal for lawyers and workarounds.

[arock10]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Another anti business tax, congrats. Rabble seems to not comprehend that it is business what makes a country go.
How about they close welfare fraud/leeching loopholes instead.

Yes please close the corporate welfare fraud/leeching loopholes

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm always amused that slow-moving politicians think they can outsmart hundreds of conglomerates with billions of dollars at their disposal for lawyers and workarounds.

Governments set the playground, so, slow moving or not, they make the rules. That lawyer shit works anyhow mainly in US and UK and other places those still use common law (governments can change that too).

[ottopottomouse]

Quite easy to not make a visible profit in one market.

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by aka123

That sum thing was about the incentive. You assumed that other people wouldn't have incentive to work if they would get that 100 UK pounds per week. That I was wondering.

Yes because I've seen it with my own eyes. There are entire generations who live on benefits in the UK and never join the workforce, living in the council estates, on housing benefit and so on.

Minimum wage is not a big problem, as the cost of living sets the actual minimum, not minimum wage. Minimum wages are already so minimum that it doesn't have any real impact.

I disagree because the minimum wage in the UK (if calculate on month basis) is a good wage in many Asian countries such as India, China, Vietnam and so on. This makes their economies uncompetitive and causes the problems I explained before where people go looking for labour abroad. It also affects business confidence and risk taking - I know many people who could start a new business with very little capital if they could pay lower rates for labour. The key is that they only start out that way, eventually the wages would increase.

About national debt, it is not caused because of unemployed people, it is caused because nation's expences are greater than income

Correct but basically the welfare bill contributes to that national debt for every single country that operates a welfare state and has a national debt.

Also, modern kind of outsourcing to "cheap countries" is just temporary phase.

This is completely wrong - it's been going on for more than 20 years and is increasing every year markedly.

Governments set the playground, so, slow moving or not, they make the rules.

And they will live or die by them - time will tell. As of today however, its the big government, big regulation, big welfare state countries which are the debtor nations in the world and have the highest debt ratios. The bottom line is that a country owes almost its ENTIRE GDP to private sector and businesses. Without businesses and capitalism a country would be dead in the water.

[DamageX]

OK, the discussion that all taxes are theft aside, multinationals really do contribute less to a country's economy than other companies.

The basic argument against taxing companies' profits is that these are used to re-invest and grow the business. Sure, multinationals create jobs, just like all other companies. But all the profits are syphoned out of the country. So in reality they re-invest fuck all.

If any companies SHOULD be taxed, it's the multinationals.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

Yes because I've seen it with my own eyes. There are entire generations who live on benefits in the UK and never join the workforce, living in the council estates, on housing benefit and so on.

I disagree because the minimum wage in the UK (if calculate on month basis) is a good wage in many Asian countries such as India, China, Vietnam and so on. This makes their economies uncompetitive and causes the problems I explained before where people go looking for labour abroad. It also affects business confidence and risk taking - I know many people who could start a new business with very little capital if they could pay lower rates for labour. The key is that they only start out that way, eventually the wages would increase.

Correct but basically the welfare bill contributes to that national debt for every single country that operates a welfare state and has a national debt.

This is completely wrong - it's been going on for more than 20 years and is increasing every year markedly.

And they will live or die by them - time will tell. As of today however, its the big government, big regulation, big welfare state countries which are the debtor nations in the world and have the highest debt ratios. The bottom line is that a country owes almost its ENTIRE GDP to private sector and businesses. Without businesses and capitalism a country would be dead in the water.

I am impressed; you have seen whole generations in UK, not to mention to be able to make more exact segmentation. How you have done that?

It's totally irrelevant that is UK's minimum wage good wage in somewhere Asia. All it matters that is it that in UK. You can't pay salaries based solely on what those are in some other country. What you describe would be actually slavery in UK, maybe literally (considered as slavery).

That welfare state thing, not that much ago countries were shortening their debts, and some are even now. Welfare state thing is not some synonym for debt (well, maybe in your mind). And there really is not that much options, especially with current development. You will get very unstable society if you just abandon people. Not to mention ethics, but I think it's not worth to mention it to you.

Outsourcing, especially budget wise, is decreasing, as salaries have increased highly in China, and every other Asian country is on the same road. Africa is yet more or less unplundered, but once it is reaped, that will be it. China is flourishing today because of the manufacturing ecosystem, not because of just the low salaries, as those are higher and higher every day, and significantly higher than for example in India.

Countries have flourished for thousands of years, seems like that they have and will live. With and without capitalism. You have some kind of threatening going on. "Let us (business) do what we want, or you will fall.". Countries make the rules and I am very satisfied for it, as it makes the environment more stable and business friendly. At least I like to do business for example in EU, more than in Somalia.

[Cherry7]

Capitalism cant survive without massive payments from the state, and scientific research funded by the military, NASA and educational institutions.

Capitalism keeps wages low to maximize profits, in spite of massive increases in productivity and profitability wages have and are falling.

It is a myth that the rich are clever or more dynamic than others, they just have financial power. The system is set up to funnel money from the poor to the rich. It is time to take control of the wealth and use it for the benefit of all not just the 0.1%.

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by aka123

I am impressed; you have seen whole generations in UK, not to mention to be able to make more exact segmentation. How you have done that?

It's called being "well informed". It's also very common knowledge in the UK (ask anyone from there) and is often discussed in media & government reports. The government stats are also very clear on the matter.

It's totally irrelevant that is UK's minimum wage good wage in somewhere Asia. All it matters that is it that in UK. You can't pay salaries based solely on what those are in some other country.

Did I ever suggest that? I am simply saying that if you set a minimum wage, don't cry when some jobs go offshore.

That welfare state thing, not that much ago countries were shortening their debts, and some are even now. Welfare state thing is not some synonym for debt (well, maybe in your mind).

Not in my mind... in REALITY. The problem is that more people vote for a living than actually work for a living and that is a reality that creates political support for parties which give more free handouts. That tends to increase the welfare state. Some metrics you might examine more closely:

(1) Which countries have the largest welfare states?
Answer: All the most indebted ones

(2) Which countries have the largest Debt/GDP ratios?
Answer: Many of them have the largest welfare states

(3) Which countries have the largest amounts of total debt?
Answer: Many of them have the largest welfare states

(4) Which countries have the largest deficits?
Answer: Many of them have the largest welfare states

You can also look at which countries have the highest "Foreign Currency Reserves" and you will find that they tend to be those countries which do not have large, over bloated welfare states, high regulation or high minimum wages. I am not saying a welfare state is not desirable but if you encourage the welfare state to grow to an unsustainable level, eventually it does so at the expense of prosperity. A minimum wage helps the welfare state to grow.

Outsourcing, especially budget wise, is decreasing, as salaries have increased highly in China, and every other Asian country is on the same road.

The metric that matters here is "GDP per capita" and the run down is as follows just to give you an idea of income per person, per annum from years of 2012/13 for four different countries:

US: $52,527
UK: $39,422
China: $6,684
India: $1,506

GDP per capita may be increasing in Asian countries but there is still a "MASSIVE" gap which makes outsourcing viable for the foreseeable future. I've taken an average of four reliable sources (IMF, World Bank, CIA & UN) in USD. For someone who talks about China and India have you been to either country for longer than one month? Without knowing, I seriously doubt you've even been there at all...

You have some kind of threatening going on. "Let us (business) do what we want, or you will fall."

Sorry man, you just don't understand how an economy works and you're not the only one who has a problem facing facts. It's not a threat, its a reality - every institution of the state is funded by business & capitalism in one way or another and without them they "will fall".

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by Cherry7

Capitalism cant survive without massive payments from the state, and scientific research funded by the military, NASA and educational institutions.

Cherry no offence but what are you smoking man? You've got that the wrong way around.
The state cannot survive without business and capitalism.

Who funds the State?
Who funds Scientific Research?
Who funds the Military?
Who funds NASA?
Who funds Educational Institutions?

Ultimately (with emphasis on the word "Ultimately") it all comes down to private sector, business and capitalism. REALITY CHECK.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

It's called being "well informed". It's also very common knowledge in the UK (ask anyone from there) and is often discussed in media & government reports. The government stats are also very clear on the matter.

Did I ever suggest that? I am simply saying that if you set a minimum wage, don't cry when some jobs go offshore.

Not in my mind... in REALITY. The problem is that more people vote for a living than actually work for a living and that is a reality that creates political support for parties which give more free handouts. That tends to increase the welfare state. Some metrics you might examine more closely:

(1) Which countries have the largest welfare states?
Answer: All the most indebted ones

(2) Which countries have the largest Debt/GDP ratios?
Answer: Many of them have the largest welfare states

(3) Which countries have the largest amounts of total debt?
Answer: Many of them have the largest welfare states

(4) Which countries have the largest deficits?
Answer: Many of them have the largest welfare states

You can also look at which countries have the highest "Foreign Currency Reserves" and you will find that they tend to be those countries which do not have large, over bloated welfare states, high regulation or high minimum wages. I am not saying a welfare state is not desirable but if you encourage the welfare state to grow to an unsustainable level, eventually it does so at the expense of prosperity. A minimum wage helps the welfare state to grow.

The metric that matters here is "GDP per capita" and the run down is as follows just to give you an idea of income per person, per annum from years of 2012/13 for four different countries:

US: $52,527
UK: $39,422
China: $6,684
India: $1,506

GDP per capita may be increasing in Asian countries but there is still a "MASSIVE" gap which makes outsourcing viable for the foreseeable future. I've taken an average of four reliable sources (IMF, World Bank, CIA & UN) in USD. For someone who talks about China and India have you been to either country for longer than one month? Without knowing, I seriously doubt you've even been there at all...

Sorry man, you just don't understand how an economy works and you're not the only one who has a problem facing facts. It's not a threat, its a reality - every institution of the state is funded by business & capitalism in one way or another and without them they "will fall".

Then put some stats about the whole generations doing nothing, than living on "benefits".

You don't suggest paying same salary than they pay in India, etc., but you cry about minimum wage that is very low to begin with in western standards? What do you think will happen without minimum salary? If the point is not competing salary wise, then what the fuck is the point you are trying to make? In China the workers salaries are something like 2,5-3,5 $ per month, and you cry about 5 $ minimum wage, but you don't support paying what they pay in China etc. So again, what the fuck you suggest?

Also not all western countries have minimum wages, for examply my country hasn't. Still the situation is the same.

About the welfare states, pretty much none of the most in debt coutries are "welfare states" or at least the biggest ones. For example higly in debt US is not welfare state. Far from it.

About business, capitalism doesn't do shit; it's the trade that does. And you don't even get what I think, no even close, you think you know something and present assumptions based on your false imaginations. Also you funnily put business and state against each other. You don't seem to know that much about economy.

[aka123]

EDIT: Ok, the minimum wages in UK are currently much higher than 5 $ if you are over 21 and so on. But it doesn't change the situation that much, especially when viewing western countries broader and not just UK.

https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by aka123

Then put some stats about the whole generations doing nothing, than living on "benefits".

It's not a huge problem but they certainly do exist, they are becoming more common and most people know people like that or have neighbors like that. The more important figure is the fact that over 60% of families in the UK rely on welfare handouts in some form.

What do you think will happen without minimum salary? If the point is not competing salary wise, then what the fuck is the point you are trying to make?

Well you obviously didn't read what I said which I think was crystal clear...... bottom line, it is the free market that should set wages in the private sector and not the government.

For example higly in debt US is not welfare state. Far from it.

Wrong - the United States certainly is a welfare state. Although, "hybrid welfare state" is a more accurate description because of the way it is implemented.

You don't seem to know that much about economy.

Well since im a business man, a financial market trader and a student of economics. I do know a thing or two about the subject... you are none of these things and are completely clueless as you've proven in numerous previous threads.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

It's not a huge problem but they certainly do exist, they are becoming more common and most people know people like that or have neighbors like that. The more important figure is the fact that over 60% of families in the UK rely on welfare handouts in some form.

Well you obviously didn't read what I said which I think was crystal clear...... bottom line, it is the free market that should set wages in the private sector and not the government.

Wrong - the United States certainly is a welfare state. Although, "hybrid welfare state" is a more accurate description because of the way it is implemented.

Well since im a business man, a financial market trader and a student of economics. I do know a thing or two about the subject... you are none of these things and are completely clueless as you've proven in numerous previous threads.

We were talking about incentive to work. Getting some welfare handouts has nothing to do with it. More so, as I suppose that 60% of UK families aren't unemployed to start with.

US welfare state? LOL. Maybe you should look at US army's expences to look for one big reason for the debt.

You may be student, but I have already graduated. I am business man also, and I have done some trading too (for my own account). Although none of these guarantees knowledge or common sense as we have seen from your part. You are blinded by some ideology. Trying to be so hard capitalist or something like that, Mr. business man. Can't be other explanation because during the first macro economy lessons you will learn about the roles of the state and private sector, and it isn't like they would fight against each other, like you have painted the picture. It is symbiosis.

I don't support minimum wages, but those have very little actual impact to overal salaries, unless we are talking about some foreign workers and using minimum salaries to those. Like trafficking some Chinese workers to UK to work with 1 $ per hour, or some African folk for 1 $ per day. Or while we are at it, why not have some slaves and get over it. There you have the answer for salary competition, you don't pay any.

[Cherry7]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

Cherry no offence but what are you smoking man? You've got that the wrong way around.
The state cannot survive without business and capitalism.

Who funds the State?
Who funds Scientific Research?
Who funds the Military?
Who funds NASA?
Who funds Educational Institutions?

Ultimately (with emphasis on the word "Ultimately") it all comes down to private sector, business and capitalism. REALITY CHECK.

All wealth is created by working people whether by brain or labour. Not by clever arsed ant tr pur nears

[SekobA]

this gonna be canceled very soon

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

in spite of what Hillary Clinton thinks businesses do provide jobs

Of course they do:

[aka123]

Pornmasta, you really did nail it, although I don't know that how many will get the "joke".

I had to google the tricle-down economics. I had heard the term, but as it is mainly US politics term I was not that familiar with the whole concept (except the trickling down).

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by aka123

US welfare state? LOL. Maybe you should look at US army's expences to look for one big reason for the debt.

The US has a huge welfare program - perhaps you should get your facts right. However, sure there is a welfare state and a warfare state and both contribute to the national debt.

You may be student, but I have already graduated.

I have a legal education (I'm a law graduate) and a student of economics. What did you graduate in?

I am business man also, and I have done some trading too (for my own account).

A big fail because you don't understand the basics. I expect the ratio of those who do understand to those who don't to be not so far removed from the ratio of those in the top 5% to those in the 95%. As Mineistaken rightly said, the "rabble" simply do not understand how it works.

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by Cherry7

All wealth is created by working people whether by brain or labour.

And who pays their salaries?

[aka123]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

The US has a huge welfare program - perhaps you should get your facts right. However, sure there is a welfare state and a warfare state and both contribute to the national debt.

I have a legal education (I'm a law graduate) and a student of economics. What did you graduate in?

A big fail because you don't understand the basics. I expect the ratio of those who do understand to those who don't to be not so far removed from the ratio of those in the top 5% to those in the 95%. As Mineistaken rightly said, the "rabble" simply do not understand how it works.

US might have huge welfare program, but it is not welfare state. Pumping money to corporate pockets, etc. doesn't make welfare state. The services offered make it.

Welfare state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am BBA if that matters.

That rabble shit and such only confirms you being blinded by some ideology and also tells about your character. No smart guy brings up that kind of shit. You think so much about yourself and so little about others, that I guess there is not room for other things in your brain.

I think much about myself, but I don't think little about others. Also, usually we suppose others being like us, basic human behaviour. You thinking that others are idiots or something like that, tells more about you than the others. It's unconscious thing.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

And who pays their salaries?

Companies, but where do the companies get the money-> from customers, from where the customers get the money->from salaries, business profits, etc. and the cycle goes on.

As you study economy, maybe you should get basic stuff like this. This too is symbiosis.

[RummyBoy]

Originally Posted by aka123

Companies, but where do the companies get the money-> from customers, from where the customers get the money->from salaries, business profits, etc. and the cycle goes on.

So you have something to prove now? The question was directed to Cherry as Im sure you understood, so he could draw his own conclusion and realize that salaries do actually come, to a large degree, from risk taking and entrepreneurs who create businesses.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by RummyBoy

So you have something to prove now? The question was directed to Cherry as Im sure you understood, so he could draw his own conclusion and realize that salaries do actually come, to a large degree, from risk taking and entrepreneurs who create businesses.

Don't mind me proving something or not, focus to the issue. While we are at it; about one of your main thesis.

"Researchers have found very little correlation between economic performance and social expenditure.[55] They also see little evidence that social expenditures contribute to losses in productivity; economist Peter Lindert of the University of California, Davis attributes this to policy innovations such as the implementation of "pro-growth" tax policies in real-world welfare states.[56]

Nor have social expenses contributed significantly to public debt."

Welfare state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia