David Cameron You are a a fucking sack of shit

[devogue]

Why not let everybody do what they want to do but give everyone a set wage of (eg UK average) £26,000?

So say B'stard's bank generates £5 billion of profit in 2011 - their 12,000 staff get paid £26,000 each so that's about £300 million. The other £4.7 billion is surrendered to a central collective to be used to supplement the wages of workers in other essential companies who happen to generate less turnover but also put in a hard 40 hour week, as well as helping provide for the public infrastructure. If the GDP rises, so does the average wage.

Sir Baldy A'sole worked his way up from being a counter clerk within the bank to chairman of the company - his sole motivation is personal advancement, to see how good he can be within the company. Nothing can stop him, but he must accept that his wage will never rise.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but so does the fact that currently 80%+ of the world's GDP is owned by 20% of the world's population.

[klr]

Why not let everybody do what they want to do but give everyone a set wage of (eg UK average) £26,000?

So say B'stard's bank generates £5 billion of profit in 2011 - their 12,000 staff get paid £26,000 each so that's about £300 million. The other £4.7 billion is surrendered to a central collective to be used to supplement the wages of workers in other essential companies who happen to generate less turnover but also put in a hard 40 hour week, as well as helping provide for the public infrastructure. If the GDP rises, so does the average wage.

Sir Baldy A'sole worked his way up from being a counter clerk within the bank to chairman of the company - his sole motivation is personal advancement, to see how good he can be within the company. Nothing can stop him, but he must accept that his wage will never rise.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but so does the fact that currently 80%+ of the world's GDP is owned by 20% of the world's population.

Won't work. It certainly never worked in most "communist" countries. The most ambitious will usually find a way of circumventing or flouting the rules, and/or will accumulate wealth, power and stature by other means.

Sad but true.

[devogue]

Why not let everybody do what they want to do but give everyone a set wage of (eg UK average) £26,000?

So say B'stard's bank generates £5 billion of profit in 2011 - their 12,000 staff get paid £26,000 each so that's about £300 million. The other £4.7 billion is surrendered to a central collective to be used to supplement the wages of workers in other essential companies who happen to generate less turnover but also put in a hard 40 hour week, as well as helping provide for the public infrastructure. If the GDP rises, so does the average wage.

Sir Baldy A'sole worked his way up from being a counter clerk within the bank to chairman of the company - his sole motivation is personal advancement, to see how good he can be within the company. Nothing can stop him, but he must accept that his wage will never rise.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but so does the fact that currently 80%+ of the world's GDP is owned by 20% of the world's population.

Won't work. It certainly never worked in most "communist" countries. The most ambitious will usually find a way of circumventing or flouting the rules, and/or will accumulate wealth, power and stature by other means.

Sad but true.

Yep, as I said earlier we're an aspirational animal in all ways - as Psychoserenity says hope lies in changing attitudes from an early age, but it ain't going to happen any time soon, and it's actually even worse than religion because the monied classes will not give up their wealth easily.

[.Morticia.]

The problem is demographics. There are too many older people supported by too few younger people. The answer is a seventy year cap on health care and class all illnesses over that age as untreatable except for in the paliative sense. This will reduce the number of old people and solve the problem in a humane manner.

Nah, we could let old people work longer and put back retirement.

The problem is simple greed, selfishness and the desire for more toys mixed with a large spoonful of apathy. That isn't helped by the fact that the average person can decide for himself if he wants a £600 TV, but can't have any input at all in issues regarding his local hospital, library or whatever. Capitalism has made us too individualistic, so the really important social projects that will benefit us and our neighbours become too abstract, too far removed from our sphere of influence.

Everyone in the UK and Ireland could live on £15,000 per year if we really had to. We just don't want to because we are immensely greedy and selfish people.

Even that downgraded lifestyle is supported by the cruel wages and work conditions suffered by the people of China and illegal farm labour in the UK.

[klr]

Why not let everybody do what they want to do but give everyone a set wage of (eg UK average) £26,000?

So say B'stard's bank generates £5 billion of profit in 2011 - their 12,000 staff get paid £26,000 each so that's about £300 million. The other £4.7 billion is surrendered to a central collective to be used to supplement the wages of workers in other essential companies who happen to generate less turnover but also put in a hard 40 hour week, as well as helping provide for the public infrastructure. If the GDP rises, so does the average wage.

Sir Baldy A'sole worked his way up from being a counter clerk within the bank to chairman of the company - his sole motivation is personal advancement, to see how good he can be within the company. Nothing can stop him, but he must accept that his wage will never rise.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but so does the fact that currently 80%+ of the world's GDP is owned by 20% of the world's population.

Won't work. It certainly never worked in most "communist" countries. The most ambitious will usually find a way of circumventing or flouting the rules, and/or will accumulate wealth, power and stature by other means.

Sad but true.

Yep, as I said earlier we're an aspirational animal in all ways - as Psychoserenity says hope lies in changing attitudes from an early age, but it ain't going to happen any time soon, and it's actually even worse than religion because the monied classes will not give up their wealth easily.

IMHO, it's not just those with the bulk of the wealth, but the much larger group below that seem to be focused so much on money and social stature as well. And most of the time, social stature equates to being a visible high earner and spender.

I'm one of those people who can happily live on your 15K STG a year, even though my take-home pay is considerably higher. I just have no desire to be part of the rat race, none at all. But most people seem to be wired differently, no matter what political/ideological system they are living under.

[Feck]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... of-century


Yeah he feels our pain , social services must be cut , the economy cannot support them !

"

Is your assertion that it can, in fact, support them at their present and projected levels?

My assertion is that allowing big business to ignore tax reduces the money available for the rest of us . We vote and there are announced budgets that include tax for companies and capital games tax etc but then we find out that this does not actually apply to those companies and individuals most able to pay . If you can tell me anything right about this situation please tell me because it's not honest ,democratic or fair . It's not good for business, employment or the country in general .

[Coito ergo sum]

Everyone in the UK and Ireland could live on £15,000 per year if we really had to. We just don't want to because we are immensely greedy and selfish people.

Wow - the desire to live above the minimum necessary to survive is "greed?" Most people who make more than 15,000 pounds (about $23,000 I think) do so by working. Working hard and making money is not "greed." And, if I don't want to simply live life paying rent and buying daily food and sitting in an apartment sharing one bathroom with a wife and 3 kids, doesn't make me greedy.

Christ on a bicycle.

Fundamentally, it is greed.

Look at the bigger picture: tens of thousands of children die from malnutrition and preventable diseases daily. Hundreds of millions of people work far harder than you and I for $365 a year or less, and just about survive. Does your effort entitle you to 70 times more money than they earn? While we live in such a world and aim to live even beyond that we can be nothing else but greedy.

Their deaths aren't attributable to me having 2 bathrooms in my house instead of one, or me eating something other than rice and beans every day. Tens of thousands of children die of malnutrition in countries where their own governments and their own countrymen don't do anything about it. And, different economies have different scales - if someone in India, for example, made what I make here, they'd be among the wealthiest of Indians. It's relative.

I'll not be judged guilty of causing children to die -not when the the real causes of it are the more direct failures and corruptions of governments elsewhere. Like with LIve Aid in the 1980s - I could send them everything I have - and some corrupt government officials would take it, and not give it to the needy. That's not my fault.

[.Morticia.]

Coito, you are correct. We in the west are not accountable for the decisions of governments , nor are we accountable for the decisions made by corporations. None of us have any power or influence in the decision making processes of the power elite. All we are expected to do is consume and work. And in a lot of ways that is all we can do.

[Santa_Claus]

Fortunately most people don't understand just how broke the Western Economic system is - and to be fair it's because the scale is unimaginable. The problem is not from simple borrowing (albeit that bad enough - especially when the "assets" acquired were either your own home or some tat from China)...........but that the Western (and Japanese) finanicial systems have effectively been printing money (as they always have been), but over the last 20 years have done so on an industrial scale............economic gravity says that a system where Money not supported by Wealth goes splat sooner or later (I paraphrase).

The double (triple?!) whammy is that the West no longer able to write the rules enough to force feed our mistakes to the rest of the world. and make them pay for it - thanks to China.

At the moment we are like Wily Coyote - ok as long as no one looks down...............

[Atheist-Lite]

Fortunately most people don't understand just how broke the Western Economic system is - and to be fair it's because the scale is unimaginable. The problem is not from simple borrowing (albeit that bad enough - especially when the "assets" acquired were either your own home or some tat from China)...........but that the Western (and Japanese) finanicial systems have effectively been printing money (as they always have been), but over the last 20 years have done so on an industrial scale............economic gravity says that a system where Money not supported by Wealth goes splat sooner or later (I paraphrase).

The double (triple?!) whammy is that the West no longer able to write the rules enough to force feed our mistakes to the rest of the world. and make them pay for it - thanks to China.

At the moment we are like Wily Coyote - ok as long as no one looks down...............

That may be so still before the panic and nightmare years set in do you have a lifeboat? pm me if it is credible?

[Santa_Claus]

That may be so still before the panic and nightmare years set in do you have a lifeboat? pm me if it is credible?

Plan A is France.
Plan B is to use my Axe......

[Coito ergo sum]

Why not let everybody do what they want to do but give everyone a set wage of (eg UK average) £26,000?

O.k. - then I'll sleep until 9am every morning and when I want to, I'll spend the rest of my time working on the next great novel. Sounds like an awesome plan! Something tells me every maid and janitor is going to start working on a novel, too....don't ya think?

So say B'stard's bank generates £5 billion of profit in 2011 - their 12,000 staff get paid £26,000 each so that's about £300 million. The other £4.7 billion is surrendered to a central collective to be used to supplement the wages of workers in other essential companies who happen to generate less turnover but also put in a hard 40 hour week, as well as helping provide for the public infrastructure. If the GDP rises, so does the average wage.

But, after the workers start their own screenwriting companies and work on their scripts for the movie they've dreamed about - or when some of them decide they want to be crossing guards for children before and after school - who is actually going to put up with "bastard bank" and their pesky 40 hour work weeks?

Why would anyone serve as a treasurer of a corporation, for example, and entail significant fiduciary responsibilities and risk of liability? For 26,000 pounds? You fucking kidding? Why would a lawyer agree to work for 26,000 pounds a year, when he has professional liability for everything he puts his name to? Why would a doctor be a doctor for that? Sure, he wants to help people, but you think you'd want to stay up late at nights, work 20 hour days, and lose sleep worrying about your hospital patients for 26,000 pounds a year?

Sir Baldy A'sole worked his way up from being a counter clerk within the bank to chairman of the company - his sole motivation is personal advancement, to see how good he can be within the company. Nothing can stop him, but he must accept that his wage will never rise.

Why would he take any job except "Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master," or "Nintendo Video Game Tester?" If people can do whatever they want for the set wage - damn - I'd go with "novelist" and write my book on the beach. Might take me years to get one together, but I'll be guaranteed free health care and 26,000 pounds a year, so it sounds good to me.

But, once the new system is put in place, you'll definitely have tons of people wanting to be CEOs, because, it would still be worth the long hours, pressure, and personal risk associated with being in that position. There would definitely be acccountants, who could be arrested or sued for their defalcations when preparing financial reports. There would definitely be ditchdiggers, and sewerage workers, and and all that. They could choose to do whatever they want, but they'll do all the unpleasant jobs.... ya think?

I know it sounds ridiculous, but so does the fact that currently 80%+ of the world's GDP is owned by 20% of the world's population.

Yes, it does sound ridiculous.

When productivity is gone, because everyone wants to be an artist, sportsman, girl watcher, reader, writer, or professional masturbator, then where will the money come from to pay everyone?

[PsychoSerenity]

Always with you it cannot be done.

[Coito ergo sum]

Always with you it cannot be done.

Not always, but it's pretty obvious that "give everyone $X and make it illegal for anyone to pay anyone anything else other than the $X" won't work. Someone might want to mow lawns and trim hedges for money. Other than money, what possible reason would anyone have for doing it? Job satisfaction? He was born to shorten plants? He has such of love of his comrades that he will do what he can for the collective?

[devogue]

Why not let everybody do what they want to do but give everyone a set wage of (eg UK average) £26,000?

O.k. - then I'll sleep until 9am every morning and when I want to, I'll spend the rest of my time working on the next great novel. Sounds like an awesome plan! Something tells me every maid and janitor is going to start working on a novel, too....don't ya think?

No, because we can now begin to tweak our system from its basic premise and find solutions. If you want to go on the dole and write books that no one wants then fair enough - here's £8,000 per year to live on. But if you want the £26,000 you have to work. The education sector will be immensely strong because of heavy funding - you can take as little or as much advantage of it as you want. If you want to be a lawyer, doctor or dentist and you have the natural aptitude and interest you will go in that direction and end up having a fulfilled professional life. Lucky you - but should you get all the readies as well because you were born smart? Perhaps like most cleaners today you don't have the natural aptitude to be what you want, even though you work just as hard - you're not good at school so you end up being a cleaner. You do a forty hour week but you still earn £26,000, enough to lead a comfortable life and enjoy your pastimes - perhaps you have suddenly found a talent for writing at the age of 30. In your spare time you can write a book. It becomes a great success - you don't have to work as a cleaner any more. If the book makes £400,000 in a year you keep £26,000 and the rest goes back to central funding. If it makes £200,000 profit in year two, you take £26,000 and the rest goes back to central funding and so on.... Of course there is detail to be worked out, and nothing is perfect (not even the current system), but it's worth looking at.

So say B'stard's bank generates £5 billion of profit in 2011 - their 12,000 staff get paid £26,000 each so that's about £300 million. The other £4.7 billion is surrendered to a central collective to be used to supplement the wages of workers in other essential companies who happen to generate less turnover but also put in a hard 40 hour week, as well as helping provide for the public infrastructure. If the GDP rises, so does the average wage.

But, after the workers start their own screenwriting companies and work on their scripts for the movie they've dreamed about - or when some of them decide they want to be crossing guards for children before and after school - who is actually going to put up with "bastard bank" and their pesky 40 hour work weeks?

Why would anyone serve as a treasurer of a corporation, for example, and entail significant fiduciary responsibilities and risk of liability? For 26,000 pounds? You fucking kidding? Why would a lawyer agree to work for 26,000 pounds a year, when he has professional liability for everything he puts his name to? Why would a doctor be a doctor for that? Sure, he wants to help people, but you think you'd want to stay up late at nights, work 20 hour days, and lose sleep worrying about your hospital patients for 26,000 pounds a year?

Plenty of people work for less than £26,000 per year with the threat of legal liability hanging over their heads. Change laws to ease the fear. As for your doctor example, I could talk about a part time company executive earning £300,000 per year for doing two days work per month. Is his labour really worth three times what a doctor earns for working 28 days a month? Is it "more important"?

Sir Baldy A'sole worked his way up from being a counter clerk within the bank to chairman of the company - his sole motivation is personal advancement, to see how good he can be within the company. Nothing can stop him, but he must accept that his wage will never rise.

Why would he take any job except "Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master," or "Nintendo Video Game Tester?" If people can do whatever they want for the set wage - damn - I'd go with "novelist" and write my book on the beach. Might take me years to get one together, but I'll be guaranteed free health care and 26,000 pounds a year, so it sounds good to me.

But, once the new system is put in place, you'll definitely have tons of people wanting to be CEOs, because, it would still be worth the long hours, pressure, and personal risk associated with being in that position. There would definitely be acccountants, who could be arrested or sued for their defalcations when preparing financial reports. There would definitely be ditchdiggers, and sewerage workers, and and all that. They could choose to do whatever they want, but they'll do all the unpleasant jobs.... ya think?

Why can't the cream still rise to the top without the need for a carrott and stick system? Why do such smart people have to see their own personal possessions as the yardstick for their success? Why can't Bill Gates live next door to his pizza delivery man?

I know it sounds ridiculous, but so does the fact that currently 80%+ of the world's GDP is owned by 20% of the world's population.

Yes, it does sound ridiculous.

When productivity is gone, because everyone wants to be an artist, sportsman, girl watcher, reader, writer, or professional masturbator, then where will the money come from to pay everyone?

Everything is still the same, but the motivation is different. Personal accumulation of wealth and possessions is gone. Personal accomplishment and achievement becomes a means to an end in its own right with the added bonus of incredible social provision. If such a thing could be achieved on a world wide scale poverty would end.