How is robbing the wealth of others to pay for lower paid people 'fair'?

Fridge2

lynzpower wrote: »

That is absolutley not true. A pure market will never invoke fairness thats why we have to manage that market to give human and other rights to people.

Protection from Eviction act is a good example of this.

A market is more likely to be contaminated by unfairness from the greed that market encourages which is why we have to manage it.

It's an interesting one this:

It's true that you can never have such a thing as a truly "free" market as in such a situation you would get the formation of cartels and monopolies. it follows therefore that a certain amount of regulation is required to ensure this doesn't happen.

The key here is though, how much? In my view, it should be the barest minimum that is required to ensure free market conditions with as little Govt involvement as possible.

Thats why although I would class myself as Libertarian, I would say I was a Minarchist Libertarian, as there needs to be some sort of state....it should however, be the smallest size possible to carry out it's core functions.

A._Badger

carolt wrote: »

True, but I'm not sure the alternatives are actually better, in a long-term health-of-our-socity way.

I think the question one has to ask is, has society improved since this sort of policy has expanded? Specifically, are young people better adjusted (always an unpleasant phrase I can't help feeling) or not?

Equally, has the impact on business been such that fewer jobs have been created?

LydiaJ

carolt wrote: »

AFAIK, they always pay statutory maternity pay, whatever the size of the employer.

Yes, but only if you are actually employing the person, not just paying a self-employed person for their services, as you would with a cleaner, usually. Self-employed people are entitled to some kind of maternity benefit, I think, but IIRC it's not as much.

Snooze

Primrose wrote: »

I'm beginning to get rather weary of politicians who continually harp on about "the poor". Virtually all of us started out poor when we were young. Most people start from scratch when they finish education and start working for a living. It is only by hard work, prudence, getting qualifications and saving rather spending that many people, by the time they reach their latter years sometimes have substantial sum of money saved.

Why should these people become targets for being penalised because they are no longer at the starting point of their lives? Politicians should stop banging the drum about "Fairness". Life is never fair. It's up to individuals to make the most of their lives and if people choose to spend their finite amount of income on booze, cigarettes, expensive holidays or whatever, good luck to them! . But if they choose this route and end up living in rented accommodation until the end of their lives with very little put by for their old age, whose fault is that? We all have choices and it seems to be that those who have exercised their choices well are now the ones who are being penalised to subsidise those who haven't.

Great post but it's wasted on the people on this forum. They're all of the opinion that they 'deserve' something.

StevieJ

Snooze wrote: »

Great post but it's wasted on the people on this forum. They're all of the opinion that they 'deserve' something.

'Virtually all of us started out poor when we were young'

Yes OK, if you believe that all kids have the same advantages from birth then you are from a different planet.

WhiteHorse

A._Badger wrote:

... the rules surrounding maternity/paternity leave [....] make running a small business a nightmare and they impose enormous costs, both obvious and concealed

In some cases, they can actually make running a small business impossible.

Another example of opportunistic politicians putting short term political advantage ahead of common sense.

abaxas

WhiteHorse wrote: »

In some cases, they can actually make running a small business impossible.

Another example of opportunistic politicians putting short term political advantage ahead of common sense.

Easy, don't employ women or men under 40.

Problem sorted.

lostinrates

abaxas wrote: »

Easy, don't employ women or men under 40.

Problem sorted.

My mother was well in to her fourties when i was born. Increasing women aren't having their first child until mid thirties or later.

LydiaJ

lostinrates wrote: »

My mother was well in to her fourties when i was born. Increasing women aren't having their first child until mid thirties or later.

And men always have had children much older. A guy who works with my dad didn't start his family until well into his fifties (with a much younger wife, obviously).