Divide & conquer

bendix

What is the average human, ninky?

I'm curious.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

What is the average human, ninky?

I'm curious.

okay i phrased it badly. i meant if you were to take the average expenses, cost of living index style. clearly there are some people who can actually afford to work for nothing because they live at home, spouse supports them etc etc. i was merely trying to head off one of the usual wingey right-wing arguments that just because some people are prepared / can 'afford' to work for a miniscule sum ridiculously low paid jobs have a 'market' and should therefore be allowed to exist.

bendix

I hate the idea of being average, but if you build a minimum wage to support the average human on average expenses, aren't you then endorsing exactly what it is that you are trying to fight - the idea that some people will naturally fall below that and, of course, above it?

And if you do that, surely the logic of a minimum wage is defunct because what level of wage or income is supporting those below average or with below average expenses?

You can't have an average without having people both under and above it . . . . . . . unless you unilaterally decide in a Stalinist way that everyone gets the sam . . .

Ahhhhhhh, I see where you're going with this Ninky. You commie, you. You had me going for a while . . .

Thrugelmir

N1AK wrote: »

Raising the total amount of money paid by employers to its employees, normally, would increase tax revenue and:

1. This could be done by having more people work but earn lower wages.
2. Increasing average wages doesn't automatically increase total wages (employment levels must remain steady)

However would reduce

(a) Corporation Tax.
(b) Reduce capital Investment by Companies.
(c) Discourage multinational Companies from investing in the UK. ( i.e. Dell's move from Eire to Poland, Tyco Electronics from the UK to Czech Republic).
(d) Impact on smaller SME's cashflow

and increase
(d) UK inflation rate with upward pressure on factory date prices.
(e) House prices
(f) Food prices

Thrugelmir

ninky wrote: »

okay i phrased it badly. i meant if you were to take the average expenses, cost of living index style. clearly there are some people who can actually afford to work for nothing because they live at home, spouse supports them etc etc. i was merely trying to head off one of the usual wingey right-wing arguments that just because some people are prepared / can 'afford' to work for a miniscule sum ridiculously low paid jobs have a 'market' and should therefore be allowed to exist.

If, as seems to be the current Coalition thinking, that everybody can earn a reasonable wage before paying tax. By raising the personal tax allowance. This seems better than imposing too high a minimum wage on the economy.

bendix

Thrugelmir wrote: »

However would reduce

(a) Corporation Tax.
(b) Reduce capital Investment by Companies.
(c) Discourage multinational Companies from investing in the UK. ( i.e. Dell's move from Eire to Poland, Tyco Electronics from the UK to Czech Republic).
(d) Impact on smaller SME's cashflow

and increase
(d) UK inflation rate with upward pressure on factory date prices.
(e) House prices
(f) Food prices

Pffffft, that doesn't matter.

In ninky's world, all we have to do to address any of this is repeal the Enclosure Acts and go back to common ownership of land.

Oh, and wear tunics all day, a hey nonny noh.

ninky_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If, as seems to be the current Coalition thinking, that everybody can earn a reasonable wage before paying tax. By raising the personal tax allowance. This seems better than imposing too high a minimum wage on the economy.[/QUOTE]

it's not imposed on the economy though. it's imposed on employers. you could equally say imposing too low taxes (if we are going to use your loaded verb) could damage the economy.

bendix

'Too', 'low' and 'taxes' are three words which just don't compute in my world, certainly not in a joined up way.

i8change

Originally Posted by bendix
With every new post, you continue to reveal insidious little insights into your nature.

Not content with portraying yourself as a self-obsessed 'cuts but so long as they don't affect me' quasi bigot with alarming and idiotic views (supported by posted links) professing to 'prove' the superior intelligence of white people over blacks

There's the mainstream scientific thought:-

http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/mainstream.html

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

And there's the reality:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jun/15/black-students-less-likely-first-class-degree

Researchers found that just 3.5% of students who were black achieved a first, compared with 11% of those who were white

The Cultural Marxist/PC brigade have little credible argument against the obvious reality.

If they (Americans) took the above advice as it was meant they would be smart enough to encourage intelligent University educated blacks to have kids and not the low achieving ones in the Ghettos. That is the way to change things.

But they are not (it's the other way round) and the process of reverse Darwinism will result in inevitable failure for any so called "affirmative action."

There is no hope for us either with Gordon Browns "tax credits" bounty per child motivating a chav breeding program (they call it beer/fag money.)

More food for thought:-

http://www.le.ac.uk/education/resources/SocSci/underclass.html

Murray's thinking has been widely influential in government policy in the 1980's and 1990's in the U.K. and U.S.A.
his thinking has dominated debates about the family and crime
he has had an impact on society - his thinking has become almost hegemonic

chucky

i8change wrote: »

Researchers found that just 3.5% of students who were black achieved a first, compared with 11% of those who were white

bl00dy foreigners innit i8change - get rid of 'em innit