NationStates Jolt Archive

Unemployment is climbing in most western countries, and in many cities there are now more unemployed than there are available jobs. What’s the solution?

Poll coming, but because of lack of descriptive space on the poll, options are given below.

Option 1:
There is no shortage of work. The only reason unemployed people exist is because of the welfare state causing the market to be perverted from a natural state of balance. Eliminating the welfare state will eliminate unemployment, like in Indonesia.

Option 2:
Crack the whip! Gently, gently… Unemployment is a real issue. Welfare alone isn’t the solution. The government should recruit people who have been unemployed (with welfare) for over X number of months and put them to work for a reasonable wage, and in work appropriate to their skills, on useful government projects. Those who refuse three such offers of work will have their welfare entitlement reduced/suspended.

Option 3:
Unemployment is a bourgeois crime! Everyone has the right, and where able, the responsibility to work. People who loose their jobs should immediately be offered another one appropriate to their skills and needs. (As above but with no period of finding their own source of employment first, and with no welfare in between)

Option 4:
Let an’ let live, man…. People want to work. Support the and provide them with training and assistance, as well as welfare to tide them over, until they can get back into work and become self sufficient once again, and start paying back into the system through their taxes.

Option 5:
Gawdh will provide! The church and family should provide for these unfortunates, not the government. People should be encouraged to give to private charities.

Option 6:
And now for something entirely different… Please explain!

Option 4 is closest.

option four but I guess I approve of the snazzy government idea of offering subsidized apprenticeship training for the jobless masses

in b4 libertarians

Kill them. Kill them all. Kill the employed an unemployed indiscriminately. In the first case you free up jobs, in the latter case you reduce the number of people needing a job. And you can employ people to do the killing.
As always, violence is the answer.

I'd go for option 2 as closest to my views - you need a decent welfare system as a safety net, but measures to encourage people to climb down from that net, and, failing that, to kick them off it.

I'd go for option 2 as closest to my views - you need a decent welfare system as a safety net, but measures to encourage people to climb down from that net, and, failing that, to kick them off it.

I don't seriously beleive there are many people who just sit on welfare all their lives to actually warrant any action being taken (especially as any action taken threatens those who actually do need the support)

I don't seriously beleive there are many people who just sit on welfare all their lives to actually warrant any action being taken (especially as any action taken threatens those who actually do need the support)

I've spent some time in a situation where I could see these people first hand and trust me, there are.

Obviously the moral thing to do is to kill the unemployed (remember, kids, productivity equals morality!). The only issue is whether we should then burn them for cheap fuel or use them for cheap meat. Either way, this solution will help reduce prices and the tax burden on decent hardworking families. Anyone who has read the Bible can also clearly see that baby Jesus approves.

EDIT: Better solution. Start a nuclear war. No life left on Earth = zero unemployment. Win.

Kill them. Kill them all. Kill the employed an unemployed indiscriminately. In the first case you free up jobs, in the latter case you reduce the number of people needing a job. And you can employ people to do the killing.
As always, violence is the answer.

You are my leader now. You speak great wisdom which makes me happy in the pants.

Option 2.

For several reasons, really, but the main reason for me would be that growing up in an area where permanent unemployment is the norm, and in a family with one or two parents out of work, it's very difficult to get your mind around holding a permanent job. The mental infrastructure was just never built up, commonplaces like "to earn a living, you must get up every day and go to work" are not being internalised.
And that, in the long term, is doing far more damage than a shortage of jobs...

option four but I guess I approve of the snazzy government idea of offering subsidized apprenticeship training for the jobless masses

in b4 libertarians

Would this only be aimed at young people? There is a system vaguely like this in the UK with the "New Deal", but much (not all) of it is age restricted to under 24's. However it could be useful to others too.

you need a decent welfare system as a safety net, but measures to encourage people to climb down from that net, and, failing that, to kick them off it.That's one of the problems with most welfare systems, that getting off often means going down (in first instance), rather then up.
I'm partial to the idea were everyone is given a basic (taxfree) minimum income, and anything you earn simply goes on top. That way there is always an incentive to work, because you'll always benefit from it (financially at least); rather then needing three (poorly payed) jobs just to stay at the level you were on when you didn't have a job but had welfare.
It also has the advantage of simplicity; such as, you don't need a large bureaucracy checking for fraud.

Hmm, reading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income that Milton Friedman (apparently) supports the idea gives me second thoughts. But I may just have an unjustified bias against him.

Would this only be aimed at young people? There is a system vaguely like this in the UK with the "New Deal", but much (not all) of it is age restricted to under 24's. However it could be useful to others too.

its what I was referring to really (:p) and what I find useful about these programs is it offers employment and training to school leavers which is dead on the money in what they need

SNIP

I've always been cautious of the idea as the government (British government anyway) has always been slightly "slow" when it comes to paying money

I'm generally for option 2, except without actually really kicking people off welfare even if they don't accept the job offers from the government. If the government provided meaningful jobs and paid appropriately, much of the unemployment problem would go away. The minimum wage should be set to be higher than unemployment benefits by at least 10% which would give people an incentive to go to work. However the unemployment benefits should still be enough to keep a person fed and healthy.

Government could also act as an employment service. When people come for unemployment benefits, they also register in the worker database which companies can then search and find people they need.

That's one of the problems with most welfare systems, that getting off often means going down (in first instance), rather then up.
I'm partial to the idea were everyone is given a basic (taxfree) minimum income, and anything you earn simply goes on top. That way there is always an incentive to work, because you'll always benefit from it (financially at least); rather then needing three (poorly payed) jobs just to stay at the level you were on when you didn't have a job but had welfare.
It also has the advantage of simplicity; such as, you don't need a large bureaucracy checking for fraud.

Hmm, reading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income that Milton Friedman (apparently) supports the idea gives me second thoughts. But I may just have an unsupported bias against him.

I agree that the biggest disincentive to take work is that in the short term you are going to be worse off by doing so, especially when looking at McJobs and the like. Also the idea of a basic income is good in concept, due to it's simplicity. However I can't see how it would be paid for, taxation wise. If everyone is receiving it, regardless of need, then the amount would have have to be so low as to be unlivable, or a sharp increase in taxation would be called for, which negates the cost effectiveness of it being a simplified programme.

I think two things which may help solve this problem, while less radical, may be effective.

1. Raising the minimum wage to the point where a single person working a 40 hour week and paying taxes can be completely independent of direct government financial support. This would be a big incentive in and of itself, particularly in the UK where rents are disproportionate to earnings.

2. Placing a "transition period" in benefits that ensures your job is stable and secure, and you have gotten in your first pay packet before the safety net is withdrawn. In the current system the day you start work, benefits are cut, even though you may not get paid for a month, and have to buy season tickets or a suit for work.

I'd go for option 2 as closest to my views - you need a decent welfare system as a safety net, but measures to encourage people to climb down from that net, and, failing that, to kick them off it.
Wait a bit...

So I'm falling off from the height of employment onto the safety-net of welfare below me, but I might get kicked off the net onto... what?

Sucky analogies suck.

I agree that the biggest disincentive to take work is that in the short term you are going to be worse off by doing so, especially when looking at McJobs and the like. Also the idea of a basic income is good in concept, due to it's simplicity. However I can't see how it would be paid for, taxation wise. If everyone is receiving it, regardless of need, then the amount would have have to be so low as to be unlivable, or a sharp increase in taxation would be called for, which negates the cost effectiveness of it being a simplified programme.

I think two things which may help solve this problem, while less radical, may be effective.

1. Raising the minimum wage to the point where a single person working a 40 hour week and paying taxes can be completely independent of direct government financial support. This would be a big incentive in and of itself, particularly in the UK where rents are disproportionate to earnings.

2. Placing a "transition period" in benefits that ensures your job is stable and secure, and you have gotten in your first pay packet before the safety net is withdrawn. In the current system the day you start work, benefits are cut, even though you may not get paid for a month, and have to buy season tickets or a suit for work.
I'm option two, out of interest.

I'd be interested in seeing whether raising the income tax allowance to a higher level, perhaps to the amount that a minimum wage worker would earn in a year for a 35-40 hour week, would have any effect.

Option three, though I'd do it:

All-able bodied lay-abouts enlisted (after 1 month unemployed).

All others given some form of work.

Benefits reduced to a level where you can just avoid starvation.

Untimately, there's a problem. We want the unemployed to enjoy a reasonable standard of living, but want their standard of living and income to improve when they get a job, no matter how poor, to prevent the benefits/welfare trap. Seems that you have to square a circle here.

Out of interest, Tory policy can be found here (http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/welfare.pdf). Don't agree with much of it myself, but that's politics for you...

all-able bodied lay-abouts enlisted (after 1 month unemployed).

ah yes that exactly what a professional army that intends to keep around 100,000 personnel only needs!

then their is the whole Unfree labour thing and given said unfree labourers guns

All others given some form of work.

I'm sorry but until disabled incorporated starts business its going to be difficult to find work for disabled citizens

Benefits reduced to a level where you can just avoid starvation.

and what about heating, housing and childcare?

I've always been cautious of the idea as the government (British government anyway) has always been slightly "slow" when it comes to paying money

We could get Revenue & Customs to do it - if they are as vigorous in paying people as they are in claiming money from them I'm sure there would be no problem.

All-able bodied lay-abouts enlisted (after 1 month unemployed).
You'd enlist roughly a million people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7447791.stm) into the army?

To do what?

ah yes that exactly what a professional army that intends to keep around 100,000 personnel only needs!

then their is the whole Unfree labour thing and given said unfree labourers guns



I'm sorry but until disabled incorporated starts business its going to be difficult to find work for disabled citizens



and what about heating, housing and childcare?

The army needs expanding. We have wars coming up *hides the secret documents*

Who said they'd get guns? Knives maybe.

After WWI we had large numbers of people disabled. They worked, e.g. as park keepers, and not only earnt their keep but helped rebuild the nation.

Heating can be foraged for (for fires, central heating is a luxury, not a right).
Housing would be provided, but unfurnished.
Their children would be taken into Orphanages if not looked after.

You'd enlist roughly a million people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7447791.stm) into the army?

To do what?

Other than get shot? Maybe sort out the Falklands once and for all. Oh, and Kick the Americans out of Our Islands in the Indian Ocean.

Other than get shot? Maybe sort out the Falklands once and for all. Oh, and Kick the Americans out of Our Islands in the Indian Ocean.
Go to war with Argentina and the US? :p

Your funny.

The army needs expanding. We have wars coming up *hides the secret documents*

like we could afford it:p

Who said they'd get guns? Knives maybe

yeah but its a war crime to sharpen those

After WWI we had large numbers of people disabled. They worked, e.g. as park keepers, and not only earnt their keep but helped rebuild the nation.

they also starved to death in the streets and died of Spanish flu...

Heating can be foraged for (for fires, central heating is a luxury, not a right).
Housing would be provided, but unfurnished.
Their children would be taken into Orphanages if not looked after.

1) sadly we don't have enough trees anymore let alone the fire hazard that would cause (followed by a city burning down just as it is about to replace London as the capital :mad:)

2) and this housing would come from? we hardly have the room for mass shanty towns

3) which would end up costing the taxpayer more

Go to war with Argentina and the US? :p

pfft all we would need to do is give Brazil a bit of a poking followed by a nuclear conflict with the US which (as records prove) the US will wipe itself out with friendly fire :p

Go to war with Argentina and the US? :p

Your funny.

Argentina : YES. :sniper: :mp5:

US : No, just explain that we need somewhere to shove 1 million troops and say "can we have our land back now the War's been over for over 60 years".

like we could afford it:p

yeah but its a war crime to sharpen those

they also starved to death in the streets and died of Spanish flu...

1) sadly we don't have enough trees anymore let alone the fire hazard that would cause (followed by a city burning down just as it is about to replace London as the capital :mad:)

2) and this housing would come from? we hardly have the room for mass shanty towns

3) which would end up costing the taxpayer more

Britain needs a lot of cut backs, that would make a surplus.

If They all die, who'll give evidence at the trial?

Point is?

1) Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

2) Lots of flats.

3) Not that much to feed them.

Argentina : YES. :sniper: :mp5:
Don't worry, you'll grow out of this kind of thing when you're old enough to vote.

Wait a bit...

So I'm falling off from the height of employment onto the safety-net of welfare below me, but I might get kicked off the net onto... what?

Sucky analogies suck.

Only when you try taking them too far. :)

Isn't option 4 slightly wishful thinking, I mean morally its all good, but pragmatically it doesn't sound particularly sound, but then it is a bit vague so people could interpret it differently.

Wait a bit...

So I'm falling off from the height of employment onto the safety-net of welfare below me, but I might get kicked off the net onto... what?

Sucky analogies suck.

Perhaps we could get a rugby player to whack them from the bottom off the net back up onto the platform of employment!

Argentina : YES.
Why?

US : No, just explain that we need somewhere to shove 1 million troops and say "can we have our land back now the War's been over for over 60 years".
'Our' land? In the Indian Ocean?

I think someone needs to look at an atlas. One that isn't covered all in pink.

Only when you try taking them too far. :)
They call me Mr. Pedantic. :p

Public works schemes ahoy!

Plant more trees, please. Looks nice, and soaks up water causing less flooding etc., as well as taking some carbon dioxide of the air. Happy days.

If They all die, who'll give evidence at the trial?

our imperial occupiers :)

Point is?

apart from the fact that it leads to a spike in crime, disease and instability?

1) Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

fires cost money and in all likelihood even with increased funding the fire brigade won't be able to cope thus all the factories burn down and a vicious cycle begins!

2) Lots of flats.

not really

3) Not that much to feed them.

actually I hear from a reliable source that looking after children costs a great deal of money...

who would of guessed all this time I thought adults where just miserable because they get such shitty Christmas presents

Option 1:
There is no shortage of work. The only reason unemployed people exist is because of the welfare state causing the market to be perverted from a natural state of balance. Eliminating the welfare state will eliminate unemployment, like in Indonesia.

While I agree that the welfare state in it's current formulation does cause some unemployment, I don't agree that a total end will abolish unemployment.

Option 2:
Crack the whip! Gently, gently… Unemployment is a real issue. Welfare alone isn’t the solution. The government should recruit people who have been unemployed (with welfare) for over X number of months and put them to work for a reasonable wage, and in work appropriate to their skills, on useful government projects. Those who refuse three such offers of work will have their welfare entitlement reduced/suspended.

Government make work projects as i've seen them applied, tend to be harmful - TVA, make work here in Japan.

Option 3:
Unemployment is a bourgeois crime! Everyone has the right, and where able, the responsibility to work. People who loose their jobs should immediately be offered another one appropriate to their skills and needs. (As above but with no period of finding their own source of employment first, and with no welfare in between)

This assumes that a given skill and needs sets will be needed. Such is not the case.

Option 4:
Let an’ let live, man…. People want to work. Support the and provide them with training and assistance, as well as welfare to tide them over, until they can get back into work and become self sufficient once again, and start paying back into the system through their taxes.

This is pretty darn close. Yes, most folks do wanna work. But such programs need careful monitoring for those who don't.

Option 5:

Gawdh will provide! The church and family should provide for these unfortunates, not the government. People should be encouraged to give to private charities.

As a non-theist religious person (Buddhist), there're several problems here.

"Gawdh" won't provide, as no such being exists. However, religious and familial organizations do have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. Dana is definately to be encouraged.

Option 6:
And now for something entirely different… Please explain!

A "Chinese take out" combo of the above...

Why?


'Our' land? In the Indian Ocean?

I think someone needs to look at an atlas. One that isn't covered all in pink.


Argentina still claims the Falkland Islands. That needs correcting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territories

There are Americans on it, The cold war is over, Polaris is redundant. Ergo, the Americans shoud high tail it back to Washington.

Call to power: raising children costs lots, just keeping them alive considerably less so.

Argentina still claims the Falkland Islands. That needs correcting.
By what... invading Argentina?

There are Americans on it, The cold war is over, Polaris is redundant. Ergo, the Americans shoud high tail it back to Washington..
Then the British should high-tail it back to London.

If you want to play the game of 'who owns what land', then we've got some serious re-drawing of borders on our hands, especially in relation to places such as Diego Garcia, who's previous inhabitants were forcibly removed by UK and US interests.

Argentina still claims the Falkland Islands. That needs correcting.

considering Argentina is not acting upon it and such a war would involve the total destruction of the current Argentine constitution not just dicking about off the Argentine coast I say we would lose

There are Americans on it, The cold war is over, Polaris is redundant. Ergo, the Americans should high tail it back to Washington.

under the same logic Britain should pull out of all overseas territories because they do not belong to us...

but the point is needless as the islands will soon be leaving our control anyway

Call to power: raising children costs lots, just keeping them alive considerably less so.

you know absolutely nothing about raising children do you? :p

By what... invading Argentina?


Then the British should high-tail it back to London.

If you want to play the game of 'who owns what land', then we've got some serious re-drawing of borders on our hands.

No, just removing their military capabilities so that they can't ever invade us. Oh, and seizing the South of Argentina to preserve the oil rights for Britain.

Like getting back the Eastern USA?

We are the rightful owners. The USA has a lease which is 10+ years out of date.

considering Argentina is not acting upon it and such a war would involve the total destruction of the current Argentine constitution not just dicking about off the Argentine coast I say we would lose



under the same logic Britain should pull out of all overseas territories because they do not belong to us...

but the point is needless as the islands will soon be leaving our control anyway



you know absolutely nothing about raising children do you? :p

Well given Argentina's possible WMDs I think war can be justified in a slightly better manner than Iraq (aswell as oil and possible WMDs there's the threat to Democracy)

If The USA leaves please could they stop having such a close relationship with Britain. Though if you could take the EU down, much obliged.

And They Like Being Part of Britain. Don't remember anyone being too chirpy about joining the USA lately... (something I saw in the Economist a while back)

I didn't say raising. They'd only be there untill their parents had jobs.

No, just removing their military capabilities so that they can't ever invade us.
'They' won't be invading 'us' any time soon. I needn't worry about Argentina, dear, this isn't the 1980s.

Oh, and seizing the South of Argentina to preserve the oil rights for Britain.

Like getting back the Eastern USA?

We are the rightful owners. The USA has a lease which is 10+ years out of date.
What are you droning on about? 'Oil rights'? Occupying Argentina? The UK owning the Eastern Seaboard?

This doctor prescribes a healthy dose of reality.

'They' won't be invading 'us' any time soon. I needn't worry about Argentina, dear, this isn't the 1980s.


What are you droning on about? 'Oil rights'? Occupying Argentina? The UK owning the Eastern Seaboard?

This doctor prescribes a healthy dose of reality.

Never trust Anyone. Especially someone with a dodgy Parliamentary system (again, thanks Economist)

If You decide to have an all out debate on who owns what going bask indefinitely you have a lot of silly claims on your hands, is my point.

Oil is off the coasts of Argentina and The Falklands.

Occupying parts. We need assets.

Well given Argentina's possible WMDs I think war can be justified in a slightly better manner than Iraq (aswell as oil and possible WMDs there's the threat to Democracy)

however justifying it in any military or economic sense...

If The USA leaves please could they stop having such a close relationship with Britain. Though if you could take the EU down, much obliged.

and then we could be a isolated set of impoverished islands hurrah!

And They Like Being Part of Britain. Don't remember anyone being too chirpy about joining the USA lately... (something I saw in the Economist a while back)

no they don't and they have already won the case for the islands back

resettlement is already underway (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/07/foreignpolicy.law)

I didn't say raising. They'd only be there until their parents had jobs.

which is still a considerable drain on resources in case you have never played babysitter

Never trust Anyone. Especially someone with a dodgy Parliamentary system
No, I wouldn't trust the UK parliamentary system either.

If You decide to have an all out debate on who owns what going bask indefinitely you have a lot of silly claims on your hands, is my point.
Then why make those silly claims yourself?

Occupying parts. We need assets.
The time of being imperialistic cunts has ended. Get over it.

No, just removing their military capabilities so that they can't ever invade us.
Uhu. Give it a go, then. As valuable as the Commando Comics are to a young Briton's military education, they're not entirely accurate in showing the fighting potential of our forces.
Oh, and seizing the South of Argentina to preserve the oil rights for Britain.
Uhu... seeing as the South of Argentina is like Afghanistan, but garrisoned by a proper army rather than a bunch of sexist morons, I think that'd be a bit tricky.
Like getting back the Eastern USA?
... their government has plenty of nukes, and the population has plenty of guns, also there's no real point to it...
We are the rightful owners.
No, we're not, for the same reason that the Falklands don't belong to the Argentinians any more.
The USA has a lease which is 10+ years out of date.
*yawn etc*

I'm option two, out of interest.

I'd be interested in seeing whether raising the income tax allowance to a higher level, perhaps to the amount that a minimum wage worker would earn in a year for a 35-40 hour week, would have any effect.

I imagine it'd be a positive incentive, since the increase in take home pay would be a determining factor for some people. One thing to bear in mind is that NI contributions make up as bigger stoppage as tax in many cases. Perhaps some form of "NI credit" as well could be considered.

On the downside, I think having people paying zero tax can be a bad thing. If people aren't paying taxes then essentially they are alienated from the system. They don't have a "stake" in the nation, so to speak. People who don't pay tax tend to feel far more apathetic about government decisions, making them an easy scape goat for the electorate (see Camerons recent speeches on making unemployed [non tax paying] people attend Job Centres 5 times a week). Taxation, in some ways, ties people to the government, and government to the people, forcing them to interact, for better or worse.


We could get Revenue & Customs to do it - if they are as vigorous in paying people as they are in claiming money from them I'm sure there would be no problem.

:eek: :confused:

Tax Credits is run by HMRC...

<various points>

I don't think any of these can seriously be considered as rational debate.

A "Chinese take out" combo of the above...

The most sensible idea so far. I'm so glad someone mentioned this :-) I was wondering when people would pick up that, in the real, practical world, no ideal is perfect. You need a bit of everything to get things working. Even if we hold one ideal as precious, we still have to compromise.

In the UK, it's far too easy to finance oneself through welfare - getting a minimum wage job would make some unemployed people poorer, IIRC. So it's obvious that there isn't an incentive. There are unemployed women who have children for the welfare benefits. Perhaps if employment were a prerequisite to child-rearing or something like that (more specific circumstances).

Unemployment is the result of capitalism.

Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving the capitalist system, to reduce unemployment to a certain minimum. But surely, no capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labor market, to ensure a supply of cheap labor. Here you have one of the rents in the "planned economy" of bourgeois society.

Furthermore, planned economy presupposes increased output in those branches of industry which produce goods that the masses of the people need particularly. But you know that the expansion of production under capitalism takes place for entirely different motives, that capital flows into those branches of economy in which the rate of profit is highest. You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people. Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create planned economy.

You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people.
Complete and utter nonsense.

I'm an anti-capitalist myself, but painting all capitalists (by which I take you to mean 'business owners') as one-dimensional bogeymen, solely motivated by profit, is a big mistake.

Complete and utter nonsense.

I'm an anti-capitalist myself, but painting all capitalists (by which I take you to mean 'business owners') as one-dimensional bogeymen, solely motivated by profit, is a big mistake.

I never said that, but the systematic program of capitalism encourages such behavior, and creates the economic environment in which selfish and unjust actions flourish.

And also I would challenge your claim to being anti-capitalist, you strike me as just another class enemy.

I never said that, but the systematic program of capitalism encourages such behavior, and creates the economic environment in which selfish and unjust actions flourish.
Somewhat true, if a little one sided.

And also I would challenge your claim to being anti-capitalist, you strike me as just another class enemy.
Well I would, seeing as everybody bar a Marxist-Leninist is a 'class enemy' in your eyes. Ahhh, Marxists...

*ruffles Andaras' hair*

And also I would challenge your claim to being anti-capitalist, you strike me as just another class enemy.

Oh, lighten up. The belief you espouse is part of the problem, not the solution. By continuously acting adversarial you only worsen things. Communism is supposed to be about peaceful cooperation, not bloodthirsty savagery.

For all of my anti-government libertarianness, I rather like option 2. It's a fairer system, and covers for the failures in the market (specifically, the continued survival of those who don't ride out the business cycle as well as others). Even Adam Smith, the "father" of capitalism recognized that market failures would occur, and that the role of government was to cover these failures for the benefit of society.

Everyone becomes hobos. It'll be like a support system.

Unemployment is the result of capitalism.


Because there was no unemployment during the reign of the Soviet Union.

:eek: :confused:

Tax Credits is run by HMRC...

I thought the issue with tax credits was that the (government designed) system to qualify for them was so complicated that people didn't know they could claim their tax credits?

Still, I wouldn't trust HMRC with a computer disk full of bank details...

Every society has the unemployed. The question is what to do with them. You can give them generous welfare and therefore remove incentive to get a job.
You can give them some welfare that strongly pushes them to a job but might end up stopping them from robbing people
You can give them nothing then arrest them once they steal a loaf of bread (or bury them once they die). This has even more job incentive
Or if your evil you can just kill them outright.
The one im most against is creating a system that makes people happy they are on welfare. There needs to be something to convince them to move off.
The problem is many people are on welfare (or financially struggling) because they are addicted to something, have a mental impairment or are otherwise just stupid/lazy. This dosnt mean that you can simply turn your back on them because this group can do a lot of damage to themselves and others if not appropriately managed.

-snip-

You know, this is so good you should consider posting it another four times.

Meh, if you want a welfare state, just make sure it's like Denmark and not like France or Germany. Get rid of things that make it difficult to hire and fire, minimise non-wage labour costs and bureaucracy where possible and take whatever measures you can to get people to move around for a job.

If you can, also make sure you can dispel the myth that a job is a right, that someone getting a job is a favour and so on. A job is a contract between two people, or a person and an organisation. No more, no less.

Of course, if I was in charge, I'd save the money. But a well-designed welfare state wouldn't actually cost that much because it would be mindful of preventing NAIRU from increasing and thus minimising its actual use.

I imagine it'd be a positive incentive, since the increase in take home pay would be a determining factor for some people. One thing to bear in mind is that NI contributions make up as bigger stoppage as tax in many cases. Perhaps some form of "NI credit" as well could be considered.
Well, NI contributions are a tax in my book, the government claim that they are merely insurance premiums nonwithstanding. I'd very much like to see NI made flat or progressive, rather than the regressive system we have now, whereby the amount one pays as a proportion of income falls as income rises. Raising the lower NI threshold could be a way of helping make NI less regressive.

Personally, I'd much rather do that than have another system of tax credits - the whole tax system is Byzantine enough as it is (although I'm going to make it much easier for myself by opting out of PAYE) without all that jazz. I'm not also convinced that withdrawing benefits as income rises is the best way to wean people off the benefits system.

On the downside, I think having people paying zero tax can be a bad thing. If people aren't paying taxes then essentially they are alienated from the system. They don't have a "stake" in the nation, so to speak. People who don't pay tax tend to feel far more apathetic about government decisions, making them an easy scape goat for the electorate (see Camerons recent speeches on making unemployed [non tax paying] people attend Job Centres 5 times a week). Taxation, in some ways, ties people to the government, and government to the people, forcing them to interact, for better or worse.
People would still be paying various other taxes, I can think of VAT, Council Tax and fuel duty off hand, but being more invisible (in some ways) than income tax, I suppose they don't have the same psycological impact on the taxpayer.

I thought the issue with tax credits was that the (government designed) system to qualify for them was so complicated that people didn't know they could claim their tax credits?

Still, I wouldn't trust HMRC with a computer disk full of bank details...

That is merely one part of the problem. Once the inordinarily complicated applicatioin procedure has been completed, you soon get half a dozen different, utterly conflicting letters giving you wildy differnet levels of entitlement, before getting yet another, totally unrelated amount, suddenly dropped in your account. This amount is usually wrong and will be followed around 18 months later by a further half dozen conflicting letters demanding repayment of different amounts. It's a wonderful system :)

Every society has the unemployed. The question is what to do with them. You can give them generous welfare and therefore remove incentive to get a job.
You can give them some welfare that strongly pushes them to a job but might end up stopping them from robbing people
You can give them nothing then arrest them once they steal a loaf of bread (or bury them once they die). This has even more job incentive
Or if your evil you can just kill them outright.
The one im most against is creating a system that makes people happy they are on welfare. There needs to be something to convince them to move off.You're more against the last type of system than killing people outright?

Well, NI contributions are a tax in my book, the government claim that they are merely insurance premiums nonwithstanding. I'd very much like to see NI made flat or progressive, rather than the regressive system we have now, whereby the amount one pays as a proportion of income falls as income rises. Raising the lower NI threshold could be a way of helping make NI less regressive.

Very true. I've never been happy with the way NI is paid. I'd be happy to see it treated in the same way income tax is. At present if you are are on a low wage (anything under 18k, really) it hits you very hard. I think in any "raise the threshold" situation, NI would have to be considered long and hard.


Personally, I'd much rather do that than have another system of tax credits - the whole tax system is Byzantine enough as it is (although I'm going to make it much easier for myself by opting out of PAYE) without all that jazz. I'm not also convinced that withdrawing benefits as income rises is the best way to wean people off the benefits system.


Agree. Tax credits = fail. Only those with a good deal of financial and tax knowledge even attempt it, which are usually the people who need it least. Any interference in the tax system would need to be a simple, easy to understand (to the layperson, not an account) automatically applied system (i.e. the money is automatically left in your pay packet or added to it, much as student loans are deducted, with either minimised or no end user involvement).

Weaning people off as income increases makes it hard to ensure people are always better off working. Raising the minimum wage, as already said, helps ensure this, but as long as you have a wlefare system and low paying jobs, it's always going to be a balancing act.

It's why favour Option 2. I can't ethically support leaving people to starve, and neither can I ethically agree with letting people continue to claim indefinitely without fulfilling their responsibilities, because it won't pay them that much more. Feed them, house them, take care of them, and put them to productive work.

People would still be paying various other taxes, I can think of VAT, Council Tax and fuel duty off hand, but being more invisible (in some ways) than income tax, I suppose they don't have the same psychological impact on the taxpayer.

They don't, I suspect because they are indiscriminate. They aren't an interaction between you personally and the state, because everyone passing though who picks up a packet of biscuits pays exactly the same, with no personal "intrusion". When it's your own pay packet, it's a direct and personal interaction. It's much more "your" money and "your" taxes. Personally, I dont mind, as long as I have enough to get by.

You're more against the last type of system than killing people outright?
Just

The world is overpopulated. And this is at least one way of reducing it :p

Yes I know its evil. I know it will never be done. But it does at least have some benefits. Creating a welfare state will cause put more pressure on the economy, forcing more people out of work or to work for nothing. This in turn will raise the birth rate to something simular of a third world country.

Then you will be progressing towards a third world country with disease and starvation are killing of more people then the previous number of unemployed

Realistically for governments the best way is to make the lives of people somewhat uncomfortable on welfare so they WANT to find a job with an ability to obtain them.

Why are you implying that I am responsible for solving unemployment?

They choose to live in a place where they have no opportunities, who am I to stop them?