Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

Age wage difference

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sssshh SG, you are proper grumpy :p I know you've been to uni TWICE and left TWICE but come on, leave the poor students alone :p
    If you're gonna have a go at me, at least attempt to get your facts right. Besides, how exactly are alleged personal circumstances relevant to this? Or do you know deep down that you're losing the argument?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As for wages, I agree with it. When I was 15, I was earning £3 per hour. That did me. It wouldn't now. Also, with age, comes experience so why shouldn't us older people get paid more?

    But not all older people are more experienced than younger people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh dear stargalaxy.
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    No it doesn't. It wastes it shamelessly. It pisses money up against whichever wall is going to win it the next election. Just ask New Labour - why do you think they're desperate to employ as many people as possible in the public sector? It's not because they suddenly love us! Your average government couldn't run a bath, never mind run front-line public services properly. Far better to let individuals make the decisions for themselves. Will they? People can easily say no if they want to. If I see an item of clothing reduced from £25 to £20, it doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to buy it. Mind you, most people seem happy buying all sorts of crap - just pay a visit to any shopping mall or supermarket around Christmas time for proof.

    Ok, there is a difference between equity and efficiency. No one would argue government taxation is 100% efficient. Look at it this way in a really simple example for you. Spend £200, pay £30 in tax. That tax is enough to buy food for 10 homeless people, but 50% gets squandered, so it only feeds 5. Still, this is better than you being free to get an extra £30 of goods that will increase your happiness a little amount (but there are decreasing returns), because giving just 5 people food when they're hungry is infinitely more beneficial.

    History has proved people are just too greedy to do this themselves.
    But students are far from the only group who have got it tough, especially in these times. Well, of course they are. Extending that argument, a person who is on Jobseeker's Allowance is unlikely to be spending their money on a new plasma television, even with a 2.5% cut in VAT on it.

    You're arguing the wrong thing here. I am making a point that people who have financially challenging situations should be supported, not that the students are the only ones in that situation, and certainly not the effects of a tax cut on spending.
    Besides, the guy who has a big house probably won't be complaining about paying too much in taxes - he'll be the one who's hired an accountant or lawyer to find legal loopholes to get out of paying his extortionate share. Did you know that, out of all those who are meant to pay tax at 40p in the pound, less than half actually do? The rest use legal loopholes in order to get out of paying the full amount. Hence why the Government's imminent introduction of a 45p tax rate shows New Labour are clearly detached from reality.

    I am not an accountant, but then, neither are you. There is the problem that is endemic to the world. Those with money will find ways to keep money. Those with power will find ways to keep power. By increasing the tax rate, the government have taken just that bit more from the wealthy, in order to provide a better service to everyone else.
    Well, I'm against using the tax system as a method for redistribution. I suppose I'm in need of re-education, according to your post. I view redistribution as nothing less than social engineering. A tax system should be in place purely to collect the money the government needs. Government should only take the amount of tax they need, deliver the services they're paid to deliver and shut the fuck up in the meantime.

    How is it social engineering? The vast majority of a hospital is paid for by the richer people in society. That's what meant by redistribution. Or are you against hospitals? You take money from the most wealthy (who, are only wealthy thanks to society, but as private individuals have little incentive to properly 'give back'), and then filter it through to everyone else who should share in the communal success of the country.

    Your argument, is that we should revert to feudalism, no? Don't pretend that without the taxation systems we have that you would be able to make it on your own, or even, that we do now. We are all cogs in someone elses machine - which isnt fair really - but at least with the current system we get a little bit more back of what we really deserve.

    Tax is NOT payment for a service. The government is NOT a company. It takes the money and it does not have to account for where it spends it. IT then spends the money in accordance with whatever policy it has, which it is voted in and out for, so you're right in that it's linked to politics, but that's a good thing. A government held to ransom by the masses sounds a fair way to make sure they are looking after those that need looking after.

    If all of a sudden every single public service including the armed forces etc. was privatised, what do you think you could *really* afford? You would be swung under protection rackets run by powerful individuals who would happily exploit you to death.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    History has proved people are just too greedy to do this themselves.

    What evidence have you for this assertion ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Or are you against hospitals?

    And if one is against the idea of hospitals funded by taxation ?

    You seem to ask that question as if the idea is unthinkable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Don't pretend that without the taxation systems we have that you would be able to make it on your own, or even, that we do now.

    Again you seem to assume your assertions are axioms.

    Are you able to provide evidence o back up your claims ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Tax is NOT payment for a service. The government is NOT a company.

    HM Government is a corporation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    If all of a sudden every single public service including the armed forces etc. was privatised, what do you think you could *really* afford? You would be swung under protection rackets run by powerful individuals who would happily exploit you to death.

    That last sentence seems to be a good definition of HM Government. (Take the time to look up a definition of protection racket,as I did, and try to find a difference).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh dear, oh dear ShyBoy...
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Ok, there is a difference between equity and efficiency. No one would argue government taxation is 100% efficient. Look at it this way in a really simple example for you. Spend £200, pay £30 in tax. That tax is enough to buy food for 10 homeless people, but 50% gets squandered, so it only feeds 5. Still, this is better than you being free to get an extra £30 of goods that will increase your happiness a little amount (but there are decreasing returns), because giving just 5 people food when they're hungry is infinitely more beneficial. History has proved people are just too greedy to do this themselves.
    And government is better at this job, because...?
    I am not an accountant, but then, neither are you. There is the problem that is endemic to the world. Those with money will find ways to keep money. Those with power will find ways to keep power. By increasing the tax rate, the government have taken just that bit more from the wealthy, in order to provide a better service to everyone else.
    But the wealthy are paying less tax than the poorest. Those on minimum wage often pay 31% tax on their salaries - 20% in Income Tax, 11% in National Insurance. They can't afford to join the tax avoidance schemes that the more affluent in society can do. We have heads of bloody private equity companies boasting that they pay less tax than their cleaners, for fuck's sake. That's not taking a bit more from the wealthy in anyone's book.
    Tax is NOT payment for a service.
    Talk about contradicting yourself. One minute, you drone on about stealing people's money in order to pay for some utopian health service which will never exist. Then you tell me that tax isn't a payment for service. Right, so I pay my taxes, it goes into the NHS, I get sick - I've already paid to get the "service" in this case.
    The government is NOT a company. It takes the money and it does not have to account for where it spends it.
    Do you even realise how retarded that sounds? Government does not have to account for where it spends our money? This is the United Kingdom, not Soviet fucking Russia. Of course it has to tell us where the money goes. We do still live in a democracy!
    It then spends the money in accordance with whatever policy it has, which it is voted in and out for, so you're right in that it's linked to politics, but that's a good thing. A government held to ransom by the masses sounds a fair way to make sure they are looking after those that need looking after.
    Finally, a bit of sense. What a shame that this system doesn't currently work. Example - over 1 million people descended onto the streets of London to protest against the possibility of a war in Iraq. And what does the Blair fantasist do? He ignores them. Cunt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    But not all older people are more experienced than younger people.

    No, they aren't. And not all 16 year olds are living comfortably at home and working for a bit of extra money, but when you are dealing with an entire country of people, people deal with generalities.

    Not all women in their late 20s are going to chuff off on maternity leave at a moment's notice, but mysteriously it becomes more and more difficult to find a job when you reach that kind of age. :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Now I'm not doing this to be flamed,I just think this thread would be boring if we all agreed.

    All the things that people have said aren't really perks of being students or young are, imo irrelevant. Yes you have to live on a loan of £3000, but compare that to the costs involved of going to uni in other countries, the USA in particular.
    Last time I looked people under the age of 18 paid less tax than those over. They get free NHS prescriptions unless they've dropped out of education and reduced cost travel is availble where I live at least to those in education.

    Yes, I was young once, and I benefited from some of the above. Likewise I realised that until I left education I would be paid below the market rates for my labour.
    All the minimum wage costs are irrelevant as soon as you leave education and get a career, unless you have your sights fixed on working in a shop or McDonalds for the rest of you life you will be earning significantly more than £3.70 an hour and will probably be on the same wage as everyone else if it's a reputable company.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But the lower rate of minimum wage includes everyone up to and including 21 years old. I just think it's wrong that you can have two people doing exactly the same job being paid a different wage. If it was a woman vs man issue, I believe it would be illegal, but because it's an age thing, it isn't?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    my points however are that it's only really an issue if you're in low paid work anyway, if you're in a proper career you'll be getting paid a higher rate, and normally the same as someone older anyway.

    My other point is, for people younger than 18 anyway, there are lots of discounts and perks available that if used regularly offset the difference in pay anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    my points however are that it's only really an issue if you're in low paid work anyway, if you're in a proper career you'll be getting paid a higher rate, and normally the same as someone older anyway.

    My other point is, for people younger than 18 anyway, there are lots of discounts and perks available that if used regularly offset the difference in pay anyway.

    Like what though? If you travel before 9.30 in the morning (which you would going to work) you can't use a 16-25 railcard and you won't get any reduced bus fare or anything where I live. You pay tax the same as everyone else, if you're working then you pay for your dental treatment, same as everyone else. For a working 17 - 20 year old, there aren't any perks/discounts I can think of, yet you'll earn less than someone a bit older for doing exactly the same job. You might get more advantages if you stay in education, but we're not talking about people in education, we're talking about two working people doing exactly the same job but receiving different amounts based purely on their age.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where I lived at home, you paid adult bus fare at 14. I geniunely don't remember ANY benefits I got that made up for earning £3.73 an hour, none at all. I was taxed the same, I worked the same, I did the early starts and the grotty dirty jobs but for a lot less money and no other benefit.

    It isn't fair that you can be paid so little for doing the same job as someone else, who then gets paid more than you just for being older.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't fair that you can be paid so little for doing the same job as someone else, who then gets paid more than you just for being older.

    I agree. I used to work at JJB when I was 16 till I was 17 and I was paid £2.85 (this was only 4 years ago) and others who were 21 and over got paid £5-something an hour...for exactly the same job!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't fair that you can be paid so little for doing the same job as someone else, who then gets paid more than you just for being older.

    It isn't.

    But then it also isn't fair that you can do the exact same job as someone and they get paid more than you because they have more experience and/or time with the company (experience not necessarily synonymous with capability), but that is standard practice in most workplaces.

    Bear in mind that minimum wage is just that - a minimum. Not a guideline. Saying that the minimum for younger people should be set lower is not the same thing as saying that younger people deserve a lower wage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you could argue in the case of experience/time with the company that it shows loyalty and a stability for the company, if you see what I mean.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you could argue in the case of experience/time with the company that it shows loyalty and a stability for the company, if you see what I mean.

    You could, but isn't that an assumption too? I'm not saying it's a good thing, and that we should pay teenagers as little as possible. I got paid £2.10 an hour for my first job, which barely covered my travel costs to get there, and I know how shit it is, but I also realise how shit it'd be for me now, at my age, getting paid the 12-years-later equivalent of £2.10 an hour, trying to carry on my normal adult life without any hope of a pay rise beyond maybe cost of living.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That last sentence seems to be a good definition of HM Government. (Take the time to look up a definition of protection racket,as I did, and try to find a difference).

    Good point ;). I guess the difference is, that with a democracy we have the power to vote out one dictator every 4/5 years for another one, and as such they kind of have to make some attempt to do things nicely. If we have individual protection rackets, they don't have to sign up to this. They don't have to obey the human rights act, and so on, and so forth.

    That's not to say that the government doesn't always follow even the geneva convention all the time, but it is *supposed* to. And for that reason, the government is better than say individuals, one who may be a philanthropist, but another who may be an absolute cunt and effectively force people into workhouses. At least in the current government, we have a degree of freedom.
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Oh dear, oh dear ShyBoy... And government is better at this job, because...?

    Because private individuals really just don't give to those who are in need. It's not just charity either. Your education, paid for by government spending in no small part, will go onto to help you contribute to society, to help other people, and in turn, we have all gained to a greater degree than if the taxes used to educate you were spent on 2 lamborghinis for some rich dude.
    But the wealthy are paying less tax than the poorest. Those on minimum wage often pay 31% tax on their salaries - 20% in Income Tax, 11% in National Insurance. They can't afford to join the tax avoidance schemes that the more affluent in society can do. We have heads of bloody private equity companies boasting that they pay less tax than their cleaners, for fuck's sake. That's not taking a bit more from the wealthy in anyone's book.

    I agree, like I said, those with money will have the money to find ways to keep money. Just as those with power will have the power to find ways to keep power. If we could afford to hire the best accountant in britain, we would probably find we end up spending far less tax and so on. A large proportion of our income (if not all) is wages, which is taxed proportionally. Now imagine, instead of having 100% income from wages, you split that into have just £10k from wages (thus paying little income tax), then more goes into sharesave schemes, then bonuses, then 'business expenses' (a lot of city jobs for example will give you large expenses as they're tax exempt vs actual wages).

    As income goes up, ability to understand the taxation system goes up, and so tax paid proportionally goes down. Consider though, that even spreading massive income across 500 different revenue streams so each one is at the lowest tax boundary, you'll end up paying more in absolute terms than the cleaners. So, regardless of the proportion of income, it is still rich people who feed masses of income into the government revenue stream.
    Talk about contradicting yourself. One minute, you drone on about stealing people's money in order to pay for some utopian health service which will never exist. Then you tell me that tax isn't a payment for service. Right, so I pay my taxes, it goes into the NHS, I get sick - I've already paid to get the "service" in this case.

    Except it's not a service in the way a private company would work. Private company, they would run a hospital, you would get sick, go in, they say £500 for your treatment, you say ok and pay, receive service. That's not how taxation works. It works to provide funding / make it more costly for services that are:
    - under free market not provided at all (military defence, police)
    - """" not provided enough (education, healthcare - if you buy you shouldnt pay for social good caused)
    - provided too much (alcohol, etc. - if you buy you don't pay for social damage caused)

    Without wanting to patronise, I have some lecture notes I can upload for your perusal (or entertainment if you prefer ;)) that explain the purpose of taxation, and it's justification pretty much. It's by no means a new phenomenon. If you started up your own little community without central government, would you be against everyone paying a tithe to pay for a community doctor, community refuse collectors, that kind of thing...? Because nobody will pay individually do most of those things. And even if they do, if the community teacher is sick, and hasn't paid for the doctor, then your kids have to suffer as well.
    Do you even realise how retarded that sounds? Government does not have to account for where it spends our money? This is the United Kingdom, not Soviet fucking Russia. Of course it has to tell us where the money goes. We do still live in a democracy!

    Ok, bad choice of words on my part. What I mean, is when you pay £100 in taxes, the government does not have to say to you individually "on payment of £100 you will receive 'x' amount of healthcare, 'x' amount of public transport subsidy" etc. and so you may be an under-user of public goods compared to what you pay (normally like very wealthy people are) or an over-user of public goods (normally like very poor people are) but you don't have to pay 'extra' or get money back. The government doesn't have to promise you individually any amount of specific service for your specific taxation - UNLIKE a private company.
    Finally, a bit of sense. What a shame that this system doesn't currently work. Example - over 1 million people descended onto the streets of London to protest against the possibility of a war in Iraq. And what does the Blair fantasist do? He ignores them. Cunt.

    Everyone hates politicians ;), atm my personal beliefs are:
    I want greens to be in power (but pro-animal testing)
    I will vote labour as it's FPTP and realistically I do NOT want tories getting in power

    Wish the lib dems were viable enough to vote, but really a vote for them is a vote wasted. Many other democratic systems are in use like PR but then do you want a situation like *I think* Belgium where they weren't able to form a government after 3 elections lol. There is something to be said for an elected dictatorship which is what we have as it can act relatively quickly and decisively which maximises the potential benefits for everyone (and reduces the 'costs' associated with deliberating, which I guess is the bit you hate, government waste?).

    Ultimately, look at Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for what are 'Good Tax Principles'

    Equity:
    The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

    Certainty:
    The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary.

    Conveniency:
    Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it.

    Efficiency:
    Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.

    To what extent taxation should look after people is up for political contention, but compare countries like the USA where they almost always have a more reserved tax policy (than the UK) to Sweden where they almost always tax more and give more (than the UK).

    Which one has better 'society welfare' would you say?

    Interesting reading:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/nov/16/sweden-tax-burden-welfare
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    xsazx wrote: »
    When you leave education, minimum wage is irrelevant on most grad jobs, but we're not talking about post-graduation we're talking about now, i.e. when we are students, are on minimum wage; or very close to it, and saying how student discounts are a life saver when it comes to making ends meet on a very low budget and a full time degree/course

    Although I would argue that the student discounts are just like sales in a shop designed to get students to spend as much of their small income as possible.

    Why don't we get a discount on things like beans etc. the only single practical discount I've had has been for Microsoft Office. It's nice that going to the cinema is a little cheaper, but that's just price segmentation. Students can't afford anything, so give them a 50% discount. You still make a profit, but are better able to fill up the cinema.

    e.g.
    cinema tickets £6
    100 cinema seats

    No price segmentation, you get 50 people in work and 20 students, at full price; 70 x £6 = £420

    Price segmentation, you get 50 people in work but 50 students, at half price; (50 x £6) + (50 x £3) = £450

    More money!

    So in that sense, student discounts run by companies are just money-making schemes and we should appreciate them as such. Discounts for medicine, etc. are there because 'on average' a student is more likely to not be able to afford healthcare than an 'on average' person who is in FTE. Same could be argued for young people 'on average', but depending how analytical you get you make the system of tax / spend more complicated and increase the costs of administering it, something I'm sure whowhere and sg are against.

    There is the added benefit that keeping someone young healthy has a greater economic impact than keeping someone old healthy, as they have a working lifetime to contribute. But normally politicians don't say that as it's political suicide, and just get the economists to do the numbers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    My other point is, for people younger than 18 anyway, there are lots of discounts and perks available that if used regularly offset the difference in pay anyway.

    As well as a bigger minimum wage, older people (well, 25+) get a much better deal when it comes to benefits. The idiscounts aren't usually that much I've found anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fisking Teh ShyBoy Part 4258...
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Without wanting to patronise, I have some lecture notes I can upload for your perusal that explain the purpose of taxation, and it's justification pretty much.
    Nice to see you're still your usual patronising, smug self ShyBoy...

    I happen to believe that generally, the state should provide services which cannot be provided elsewhere. Rubbish collection is one of those that couldn't be reasonably supplied by commercial markets, so that would be down to the state, for example. I wouldn't go as far as some libertarians to suggest that the NHS should be scrapped, though I do think it should not aim to do everything.
    Everyone hates politicians ;), atm my personal beliefs are:
    - I want greens to be in power (but pro-animal testing)
    - I will vote labour as it's FPTP and realistically I do NOT want tories getting in power.
    And why not? The Tories won't do anything differently to the shower of shit whom you currently support.
    There is something to be said for an elected dictatorship which is what we have as it can act relatively quickly and decisively which maximises the potential benefits for everyone (and reduces the 'costs' associated with deliberating, which I guess is the bit you hate, government waste?)
    More patronising crap...
    Ultimately, look at Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for what are 'Good Tax Principles'... To what extent taxation should look after people is up for political contention, but compare countries like the USA where they almost always have a more reserved tax policy (than the UK) to Sweden where they almost always tax more and give more (than the UK). Which one has better 'society welfare' would you say?
    People can look after themselves far better than any government can.

    As for that article from Teh Grauniad, I make a deliberate point to pay as little attention to what that hopelessly out-dated rag says. Unless, of course, it's yet another column where Pollyanna Toynbee is making a total arse of herself.

    Ah well, you'll grow out of your Left-wing fantasies one day.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's no point debating with your SG if you're just going to ignore all my points and say everything I've posted is patronising and that I'm just in a fantasy land. You never support any of your statements, you just pile on more and more rhetoric shit. You even pretty much agreed with me that taxation is necessary, but then continue to argue anyway. I've got better things to do tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    You even pretty much agreed with me that taxation is necessary, but then continue to argue anyway...
    Taxation is a necessary evil, that's what I think. I just happen to believe it should be kept as low as reasonably possible. Partly because people are better at spending money than governments are.
Sign In or Register to comment.