Just different rates often down to politics, bit of free trade and a bit of protectionism, like I said though , I doubt anything would change between us and Europe if we left the eu.
Because in the Fisrt world, the child is protected, cared for and cherished. Not utilised for profiteering and preventing them getting a good education. But if you feel its ok for the third world countries and ans major inductrial countries like China na dIndia to employ kids thats your choice. But do not advocate such blatant stupidity to a decent parent...........................
I think it is very misleading to categorise the right as uncaring. What is uncaring is socialist policies where the poor are totally dependent upon handouts from the state. The gap between those at the top and those at the bottom is widening and that needs to be addressed. There are too many people at the top scratching each others back. Question - how much do you have to earn to be in the top 10% of earners. Answer at the bottom.
I don't think they are uncaring. I think they care a lot. About themselves. "What is uncaring is socialist policies where the poor are totally dependent upon handouts from the state." No, the uncaring bit is how they got to have to rely on handouts in the first place. Most people would cheerfully work, if they didn't feel they were being ground down just to make rich people richer. Where's the motivation to knuckle down so that you can live in some grotty council house on an arterial road? Not everyone can drag themselves to the top of the pile. It doesn't work like that. Some people are always going to be on the bottom and society has a duty to make sure that their lives aren't a living hell. "The gap between those at the top and those at the bottom is widening and that needs to be addressed" - well absolutely. You can start by taxing 'em. Ask whoever you like if they are rich. Doesn't matter how much they "earn", they never think they are. You might get the impression I'm a socialist. I'm not. I'm apolitical. I believe in being able to make money and hard work giving you rewards. But I don't believe in screwing all and sundry to make your pile. If you can afford a Ferrari, you can afford to give more away. It's that simple. A couple more books for your reading list: The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighbourhood: Amazon.co.uk: David Simon, Edward Burns: Books : deeply depressing but I don't think you'll look at inner city poverty and drug addiction the same way again Luxury Fever: Weighing the Cost of Excess: Amazon.co.uk: Robert H. Frank: Books : A brilliant book. I've read it twice and feel the need to read it again. Also suggests an interesting idea of a consumption tax instead of income tax.
Taxation, income tax anyway, is simply a game of numbers. Obviously people manipulate it by tax avoidance (or tax evasion) but ignoring that can of worms for the moment ... How someone can suggest that there should be an upper limit on the amount of tax an individual should have to pay is as obscenely stupid as someone else suggesting that there should be an upper limit to the amount of income a person should be able to earn. That's just plain foolishness. And immoral.
I think people should focus more on disposable income, i.e. what's left after you've paid your bills, tax and all the other crap. For many people, this is bugger all. For plenty of others, it massive. It's irrelevant if they are paying a big % of their salary if that salary is so huge it still allows them a monster disposable income. I don't mind people having big disposable incomes but they should be contributing disproportionately to society in terms of tax in that case. Taxing people to the hilt so that no one can ever get rich is also pretty stupid. When people can shell out £1'000 for a bottle of vino in a restaurant, you know they have too much cash. Go to the Dorchester bar on Park Lane and look at the price of the top Macallans. Quite eye-opening.
That is the case just fact is world is not so perfect. Exploitation and letting them earn decent wage are two different things. You talk about education well in most of those countries mentioned if they do not work they do not eat and that is sad fact. If you are so human tell me witch one is better starving, quite often to death, child in education or working for decent wage, full stomach and roof over head child. I do not talk about exploitation for minimum or no wage but a proper job. Remember your parents were probably working about age 15 so where is all this snobbish attitude coming from? Remember same child could work few hours a week to help his family and spend rest time in school but that would still be child labour right?
Lucaz, there's a big difference between working at 15 and working at eight or younger. Child labour is something we stopped a very long time ago. At 12, 13, 14, children's bodies are still maturing. Their bones are still growing. It's wrong to make them work. IMHO, the concept of 'too cheap' is one that we should all learn. I'm ok for jobs to be off-shored if people are getting a good, living wage. In many cases - and this probably goes for the hardware I'm using to write this response - people don't have what we would call a decent, living wage.
Focus a bit more on growth. Cutting government jobs sounds fine. However, if those jobs aren't replaced by the private sector, social security payments rise and tax receipts fall. Cutting inefficiencies is great if you can do it but that's been promised by governments of every political persuasion for years. Largely, it just means reorganising something without saving a penny in the long term. The problem is when we do emerge from this crisis we carry on doing more of the same. High levels of personal debt and increased public spending (usually before elections) just stores up problems for the future. Maybe we just need to accept that we've been living beyond out means for years. However, that means we spend less, growth slows and eventually stalls and........................... We are in a vicious circle.
When I was in India back in the seventies there was a young kid that would deliver milk another would collect the washing and a woman would come in to do the cleaning, is this exploitation or were they benefiting from the pay which would have been a lot higher than the locals paid. In the six months I was out there the kids looked healthier their clothing improved and their english language skills improved I think there was benefit on both sides. This was a far cry from kids working in factory's but in our present PC world it would still be regarded as exploitation.
I'll stick my ha'porth in (because that's all I've got)......... What really p*sses me off is that at the moment, having been ill and still can't fully function with work to the extent I used to be able to, I'm earning b*gger all. Mrs Arquebus is working long and odd hours for not much over the minimum wage..... So what with a mortgage to be paid, do you think we can get any assistance? Can we ****! I shan't repeat the criteria mentioned by many people who sarcastically say what I need to be entitled to help, suffice to say we don't qualify.... So, if they want to reduce the deficit it might help if the benefits system was aggresively overhauled. AL
Yes it is, thats why this is the western world and we strive to enable all children to be in full time education untilthe age of sixteen. Now if a child has to work to help support the family there is a fault in the system, and should be seen as a major failing requiring sction to rectify. Perhaps in eastern europe this is not so, and kids are expected to work to help the family. It may happen (probably does i mean), but does that make it right? No, thats why people are coming to this country, yourself included. I cant blame them for coming, but I can blame that same number for some of the financial mess we are now in. The uk's burden has grown in proportion to the residents of this country. We, the UK, are very very caring for immagrants - thisd country of ours is Eden for some, or even the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Should we strive not to be so? No, we should strive to enable other countries to look after themselves so residents remain in there and not migrate for economic reasons. The pot we have here is finite, and people are pissing in it. Maybe it is time to take a hardline and refuse entry into the country without visisble means of support. Ie many thousands of sterling in a UK bank................... Maybe our economy would be boosted by this influx of cash. And once we are back on our feet we could once again strive to improve the lives of others in less fortunate countries. Blimey, kick-start the empire building..........turn the world pink once more.
Al, over on the Landzone forum, there's a guy in Colchester who went to his local job centre. They told him that they couldn't lend him £44 to pay for a CRB check that he needed to get a job and that he should stop looking for a job and go on benefits. With this attitude, it's no wonder we have millions with their hands out for our money. BTW, roughly speaking, income tax pays for benefits. VAT, petrol, company tax etc. pays for the NHS, Defence, other stuff. So next time you see someone who has been on benefits for years, remember that you're paying for them. That's not to say that there aren't people on benefits who are deserving, just that there are maybe too many people who are directly being paid by you, me, everyone. Maybe not everyone should be taking our money.
Using government figures, the benefit system is costing over £176b/pa, which equates to £62k for each of the c3m families receiving benefits. But, the average household total benefit payment was £28k/pa (which is still a stupid amount)..... the 'system' itself actually costs £34k per claiming household to administrate! So if you just gave each claiming household their £28k as a lump sum, no questions asked, the other 17m households would save the £2k each they pay to run the benefit system! Now that is a complete farce ......
