I heard today of this idea and here it is:

The idea is simple, your employer pays the employee x amount for an income, however the government would now top off the employees x amount with a small x amount of money that can increase or decrease depending if the national GDP trends.

So as long as the national GDP increase each year the x amount the employees receive from the Government will continuously increase.

Good idea or Bad idea?

Is this like a sort of negative income tax that applies to everybody?

Pantheon wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:45pm:

I heard today of this idea and here it is: The idea is simple, your employer pays the employee x amount for an income, however the government would now top off the employees x amount with a small x amount of money that can increase or decrease depending if the national GDP trends. So as long as the national GDP increase each year the x amount the employees receive from the Government will continuously increase. Good idea or Bad idea?

Very bad.

Especially when the unemployed are STILL languishing on below-subsistence-level payments.

It's THEIR TURN, for smack's sake.

Hell I think some people would be happy going to the bay and catching some fish and selling them to a fish market or just going to a construction site and shoveling some concrete for a wage.

But no, need a license, ABN, legals to worry about, health and food safety audits, blue cards, qualifications, regulations, restrictions and the whole shebang.

I keep forgetting though it's for our safety!

---

Pantheon wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:45pm:

I heard today of this idea and here it is: The idea is simple, your employer pays the employee x amount for an income, however the government would now top off the employees x amount with a small x amount of money that can increase or decrease depending if the national GDP trends. So as long as the national GDP increase each year the x amount the employees receive from the Government will continuously increase. Good idea or Bad idea?

Well, it's a idea that doesn't seem like a good fit, with pure unadulterated Capitalism!

And notwithstanding that it's probably not a good fit with Capitalism & that it's already been tried before, I don't think it's a goer, going forward!

Pantheon wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:45pm:

I heard today of this idea and here it is: The idea is simple, your employer pays the employee x amount for an income, however the government would now top off the employees x amount with a small x amount of money that can increase or decrease depending if the national GDP trends. So as long as the national GDP increase each year the x amount the employees receive from the Government will continuously increase. Good idea or Bad idea?

How about something like this(now that I can post links, here's my first, Yay!)
Rather than savage cuts, Switzerland considers “Star Trek” economics
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/11/rather_than_savage_cuts_switzerland_considers_star_trek_economics/

edit:
There's also the idea of a "Basic Income Guarantee"
http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2013/07/09/how-big-is-big-enough-would-the-basic-income-guarantee-satisfy-the-unemployed/

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/11/rather_than_savage_cuts_switzerland_considers_st...

I don't have a problem paying the level of tax I do for the services that are provided.

The rates are tiny compared to even a decade ago - let alone a couple of decades.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:15pm:

Hell I think some people would be happy going to the bay and catching some fish and selling them to a fish market or just going to a construction site and shoveling some concrete for a wage. But no, need a license, ABN, legals to worry about, health and food safety audits, blue cards, qualifications, regulations, restrictions and the whole shebang. I keep forgetting though it's for our safety!

A VERY good point.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:15pm:

Hell I think some people would be happy going to the bay and catching some fish and selling them to a fish market or just going to a construction site and shoveling some concrete for a wage. But no, need a license, ABN, legals to worry about, health and food safety audits, blue cards, qualifications, regulations, restrictions and the whole shebang. I keep forgetting though it's for our safety!

Actually it is for everyone else's safety, society is sick of picking up the tab for shonky operators causing havoc in the workplace.


Great way to tell if someone is shonky and shouldn't be on your worksite, see how much they complain about safety.

BigOl64 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 6:10am:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 8:15pm: Hell I think some people would be happy going to the bay and catching some fish and selling them to a fish market or just going to a construction site and shoveling some concrete for a wage. But no, need a license, ABN, legals to worry about, health and food safety audits, blue cards, qualifications, regulations, restrictions and the whole shebang. I keep forgetting though it's for our safety! Actually it is for everyone else's safety, society is sick of picking up the tab for shonky operators causing havoc in the workplace. Great way to tell if someone is shonky and shouldn't be on your worksite, see how much they complain about safety.

Most OH&S is plain common-sense. Most OH&S legislation is anything but.

The idea of preventing any accident up to and including hitting your thumb with a hammer, by legislation, IS plain stupid and offensive.

Hard-hats while working in paddocks. Tickets needed before you can use a screwdriver etc. Hi-viz clothing everywhere..

Utter tripe!

Kat wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 6:24am:

BigOl64 wrote on Nov 1st, 2013 at 6:10am: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 8:15pm: Hell I think some people would be happy going to the bay and catching some fish and selling them to a fish market or just going to a construction site and shoveling some concrete for a wage. But no, need a license, ABN, legals to worry about, health and food safety audits, blue cards, qualifications, regulations, restrictions and the whole shebang. I keep forgetting though it's for our safety! Actually it is for everyone else's safety, society is sick of picking up the tab for shonky operators causing havoc in the workplace. Great way to tell if someone is shonky and shouldn't be on your worksite, see how much they complain about safety. Most OH&S is plain common-sense. Most OH&S legislation is anything but. The idea of preventing any accident up to and including hitting your thumb with a hammer, by legislation, IS plain stupid and offensive. Hard-hats while working in paddocks. Tickets needed before you can use a screwdriver etc. Hi-viz clothing everywhere.. Utter tripe!

Yeah, not what Im talking about, but thanks anyway

BigOl64 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 6:38am:

Kat wrote on Nov 1st, 2013 at 6:24am: BigOl64 wrote on Nov 1st, 2013 at 6:10am: Vuk11 wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 8:15pm: Hell I think some people would be happy going to the bay and catching some fish and selling them to a fish market or just going to a construction site and shoveling some concrete for a wage. But no, need a license, ABN, legals to worry about, health and food safety audits, blue cards, qualifications, regulations, restrictions and the whole shebang. I keep forgetting though it's for our safety! Actually it is for everyone else's safety, society is sick of picking up the tab for shonky operators causing havoc in the workplace. Great way to tell if someone is shonky and shouldn't be on your worksite, see how much they complain about safety. Most OH&S is plain common-sense. Most OH&S legislation is anything but. The idea of preventing any accident up to and including hitting your thumb with a hammer, by legislation, IS plain stupid and offensive. Hard-hats while working in paddocks. Tickets needed before you can use a screwdriver etc. Hi-viz clothing everywhere.. Utter tripe! Yeah, not what Im talking about, but thanks anyway

The comments highlighted in red do tend to suggest otherwise.  ;)

And I do agree that the cost of compliance with a lot of this idiocy costs more jobs than most would believe.

Kat wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 6:46am:

The comments highlighted in red do tend to suggest otherwise.  ;) And I do agree that the cost of compliance with a lot of this idiocy costs more jobs than most would believe.

Then you would be wrong to suggest that wouldn't you.


A lot more idiocy cost lives than it does jobs, but I see where you are coming form with your comments. The pink bats fiasco, very little ohs control but lots of jobs, only four dead, no biggie right? Where was the common sense working there?


You may want to stop, the subject matter is a lot more complex that you are capable of understanding