State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[jean]

This argument is not about market forces, though - it is about where the money comes from that people earn, and who decides to manipulate as a means of social control the sums that come from the public purse.

[Beef Oven!]

This argument is not about market forces, though - it is about where the money comes from that people earn, and who decides to manipulate as a means of social control the sums that come from the public purse.

RB was talking about benefits paid to people from the tax payer that haven't been earned. It's the amount of money that's decided by supply and demand. I think you have misunderstood.

[ahinton]

No. About 4.3 million workers have their income supplemented with tax-credit, housing benefit, council tax reduction, non means-tested benefits such as disability living allowance etc. They do not receive these benefits for working, they receive it because they do not earn enough money, or are disabled. They get paid benefits despite their work, unlike IDS who gets paid because of his work. Big difference - surely you can see that.

You are actually agreeing with RB by saying that 4.3m working people who are paid for working also receive benefits because they're taking insufficient funds in respect of that work. The reason that you give for why these people are paid benefits is also correct. It's in your third sentence that I depart from your statetments on this. Working people don't receive benefits despite the fact that they receive payments for working; they receive them in addition to the net payments that they receive for working, which is not quite the same thing, really. Working people who are paid for their work and also claim benefits are different to people like IDS only to the extent that the latter do not claim benefits; both those working people who do claim benefits and the likes of IDS who don't are all paid because of their work, the only difference being that IDS et al get all of their earned income from working whereas working people on benefits get only some of theirs from working.

[Beef Oven!]

............the likes of IDS who don't are all paid because of their work, the only difference being that IDS et al get all of their earned income from working whereas working people on benefits get only some of theirs from working.

Earned income?

[Richard Barrett]

They get paid benefits despite their work, unlike IDS who gets paid because of his work. Big difference - surely you can see that.

They get paid benefits because their work does not pay them enough. Supply and demand has little to do with it. The badly-paid jobs that so many people do are at least as important as many well-paid jobs. What do we need more, toilet cleaners or hedge fund consultants, for example? (And, as an aside, one might ask what kind of demand is it that supplies someone like IDS?) But let's not descend into sophistry. This no-benefits-after-two-children idea is clearly a piece of class warfare which saves nothing significant while spreading more misery around.

[ahinton]

Earned income?

Yes - subject to your view as to whether IDS et al actually earn what they're paid for working. Those people who receive no benefits and derive an income from working earn all of that income from working; those who are, as RB points out, on benefits as well as deriving an income from working aren't being paid enough for that work and that's why they're entitled to benefits as well as their earned incomes.

[Beef Oven!]

They get paid benefits because their work does not pay them enough. Supply and demand has little to do with it. The badly-paid jobs that so many people do are at least as important as many well-paid jobs. What do we need more, toilet cleaners or hedge fund consultants, for example? (And, as an aside, one might ask what kind of demand is it that supplies someone like IDS?) But let's not descend into sophistry. This no-benefits-after-two-children idea is clearly a piece of class warfare which saves nothing significant while spreading more misery around.

Precisely, they get paid benefits because they don't earn enough, so they get topped up with money that has not been earned; because earnings are set by supply and demand. Believe me, you'll get more money if you know how to fit a pace-maker than a combi boiler. You'll enjoy more earnings as a black-cab taxi driver than a school teacher, and so on.

What do we need more, A&E doctors or Wayne Rooneys?

Class warfare? Can we keep the discussion a bit more contemporary, please?

[MrGongGong]

because earnings are set by supply and demand.

Really ?

Are you suggesting that those who earn the most do so because they have special skills that are in demand?

Irvine Arditti vs IBS (sic)

No contest IMV

[Beef Oven!]

Yes - subject to your view as to whether IDS et al actually earn what they're paid for working. Those people who receive no benefits and derive an income from working earn all of that income from working; those who are, as RB points out, on benefits as well as deriving an income from working aren't being paid enough for that work and that's why they're entitled to benefits as well as their earned incomes.

You want earnings to be decided differently from S&D? Tell us a bit more how that would work.

[teamsaint]

Precisely, they get paid benefits because they don't earn enough, so they get topped up with money that has not been earned; because earnings are set by supply and demand. Believe me, you'll get more money if you know how to fit a pace-maker than a combi boiler. You'll enjoy more earnings as a black-cab taxi driver than a school teacher, and so on.

What do we need more, A&E doctors or Wayne Rooneys?

Class warfare? Can we keep the discussion a bit more contemporary, please?

but markets of all sorts,including, (especially?) the labour market are hugely distorted by government policies, so the balance of supply and demand in all sorts of markets, (oil is a good current example) is thoroughly artificial.

[Beef Oven!]

Really ?

Are you suggesting that those who earn the most do so because they have special skills that are in demand?

Irvine Arditti vs IBS (sic)

No contest IMV

Not special skills that are in demand. Just skills or labour that's in demand.

And I'm not suggesting, it's how it is.

[Beef Oven!]

but markets of all sorts,including, (especially?) the labour market are hugely distorted by government policies.

We need less government. More free-market. We seem to agree.

[MrGongGong]

Not special skills that are in demand. Just skills or labour that's in demand.

And I'm not suggesting, it's how it is.

Is it?
I don't think so

[teamsaint]

We need less government. More free-market. We seem to agree.

I do agree with you that in general, if we must have markets, that the less distorted they are the better.
and yes, as a principle (if not always in practice) less government,and lower tax.

[Beef Oven!]

Is it?
I don't think so

I can't argue with ignorance ;-)