• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The Four Day Week

Now the socialist back slapping is out of the way, ON TOPIC!!! :p :p

I wouldn't mind a four day week. I regularly worked an extra hour during my shift in my last two jobs, it was paid but I would be more inclined to take it as an extra day off. I would rather have the time free to travel to theme parks instead of rushing about after work!

I can envisage a problem in places like the retail sector, which, in my own personal experience, tends to cover the longest stretch of time with the minimum number of staff. In office based jobs, it would work fine because those jobs don't tend to be very time critical.
 
How are you meant to respond seriously to someone who believes that all taxation is stealing...? You might as well be trying to have a sincere policy debate with someone from the Monster Raving Loony Party...
 
Dar said:
[TheMan-style disclaimer: I am neither for nor against this. I am just thinking about the other side of the coin. I am am sat firmly on the fence.[/TheMan-style disclaimer :p ]
Click to expand...

Oh mate, I haven't finished catching up with this topic, some great posts but I got to this point and cannot get past it to take it seriously for a bit.

Tea nearly went over the screen moment there, brilliant, simply brilliant ;D - Oh I so hope that disclaimer takes off - in bits here.

Let it not be said TheMan cannot take a good joke! :twirly:
 
Guys, can we stay on topic please?

You can use the PM system if you want to make personal points to each other.
 
Ok, hopefully the children have gone to bed by now so we can start to be serious.

Firstly Meat Pie I love your idea that everybody gets paid the same and we all live happy but it is preposterous.
How exactly could it work? Say my house is bigger than yours then would it be fair that my larger bills are paid by the government as well?, and then what about energy conservation? Where would be the insentive to save money on energy.
So by this I'm also assuming we're not going to be allowed to own our own homes and that they will be dished out according to need, so I take it I'm moving out of my 5 bedroom house as I don't need that many rooms to allow for some feckless mother of 4 to move in even though she hasn't worked a day in her life!

Also most of the entrepreneurs I talked about started with nothing, do you think Alan Sugar would have bothered building his company in the alternate reality you propose.
And its not scaremongering to suggest most big companies would up sticks, they would but obviously not Macci D's as their business model requires them to have restaurants physically in the country.

The only way what you say could work is if it was a minimum wage, if that's what you mean then that's possible, but I have to be a little bit pollitically incorrect and say in my view some people are not worth that much.

Now as for the four day week, I say yes great if you can do your hours in 4 days then good luck to you but it should be in no way forced on anybody.
If I want to work 7 days so I can retire early and provide a wealth for my family should I be penalised for that?
 
BigT said:
So by this I'm also assuming we're not going to be allowed to own our own homes and that they will be dished out according to need, so I take it I'm moving out of my 5 bedroom house as I don't need that many rooms!
Click to expand...
Pretty sure he never said anything like that. Giving everyone a basic income is simply that. If you've done well enough to afford a large house that's a good thing and of course you should keep it. Although if I was the government I'd create incentives to rent out extra rooms. There is no link between citizen's wage and people being kicked out of their houses for having a spare bedroom.

(Although if he did say that (I haven't read all his last post), then I apologise. I however certainly do not advocate moving people out of their homes in the vision of citizen's wage that I have been advocating.)

BigT said:
to allow for some feckless mother of 4 to move in even though she hasn't worked a day in her life.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but that's a vile propaganda shout on so many levels.
 
Blaze said:
BigT said:
So by this I'm also assuming we're not going to be allowed to own our own homes and that they will be dished out according to need, so I take it I'm moving out of my 5 bedroom house as I don't need that many rooms!
Click to expand...
Pretty sure he never said anything like that. Giving everyone a basic income is simply that. If you've done well enough to afford a large house that's a good thing and of course you should keep it. Although if I was the government I'd create incentives to rent out extra rooms. There is no link between citizen's wage and people being kicked out of their houses for having a spare bedroom.

(Although if he did say that (I haven't read all his last post), then I apologise. I however certainly do not advocate moving people out of their homes in the vision of citizen's wage that I have been advocating.)

BigT said:
to allow for some feckless mother of 4 to move in even though she hasn't worked a day in her life.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but that's a vile propaganda shout on so many levels.
Click to expand...

Ok maybe I'm being a bit thick here but isn't what your proposing just a minimum wage by a different name?
If not I need more details because what your saying doesn't make any sence.
 
Gonna continue with this numbered format as I feel it's quite effective in dividing up a post.

1) If your house is so much bigger that it costs significantly more to live there, then that's really your choice as to whether you meet the rest of the bill so you can continue with the luxury of space, or move. A Citizen's income provides people with a comfortable enough life that not working won't leave you destitute, it does not offer the life of kings.

2) I care deeply about energy conservation, but I don't really see what connection it has to this issue? People still won't want to flitter their money away, wasting it on electricity, whether or not the source of their money comes from the Citizen's income or earned income. Are you suggesting that the only way we will ever succeed in energy conservation is to promote widespread poverty where every penny spent is vital? I don't think that enforcing poverty is an ethical solution, nor would it deter anyone still making copious amounts of money to conserve energy. If you want to deal with wasting energy, you need to deal with it as a social responsibility issue and better yet, transfer our energy sources over to viable renewable forms of power. Of course that is heading to a whole different area of discussion.

3) I don't and never would support someone being forced from their homes. If you need to house a family of five, you get them social housing, built to the needs of the family. Again, not sure this is very relevant.

4) Do I think Alan Sugar would still go into business if he could still get rich but be taxed in proportion to his earnings....? Yes. These people who will be taxed will still be wealthy, only they would now be expected to pay their fair share, which isn't happening now. There's no way Alan Sugar would choose to be on £15,000 a year rather than earn stacks of money just because progressive tax takes it's slice of the pie to redistribute where needed.

5) Tell me which companies would be better off leaving the UK, rather than staying in a country where they would still be turning over a profit, only the profit they take home has been proportionally taxed? If companies are still making money, they will stay. Why on earth would they leave the profit behind? As a tantrum? Out of spite? Seems unlikely to me. It's all a bogus ransom. 'Let us do whatever we want or we will leave!' Yeah right. ::)

6) It doesn't need to be at minimum wage, it works the way it's been proposed. It may seem on the face of it to be giving non-workers money for nothing, but what it does is raise aspiration since the money they earn from work has a bigger impact on their quality of life. Citizen Income makes work pay, it forces the quality of jobs and employers to improve and combats poverty.

7) Should my mum have to work 7 days a week to just about afford basic standards of living? Should she be economically penalised if she decides that this isn't acceptable, so leaves her job so that she can demand better from employers? Doesn't seem fair.
 
Essentially what is being proposed in a slight diversion away from the original post - which was actually about time/family - is having a minimum living standard for everyone in the country. Wealth/money is invented by people who want more of it, and wish to exert control of others, by keeping them within a means... even those who may perceive themselves as "rich", compared to a few, are vagabonds.

There should be no argument, as to every human being having the right to at least a comfortable living condition. Maggie was all for unemployment as she believed a good bit was good for the economy - surprised the more right leaning, whom often deride those in unfortunate circumstances ( I believe few choose to be bought up in that mindset, and indeed when taken out, many can succeed - not arguable, have worked with organisations that do it with great success), seem to forget this.

Regardless, and to add a wee bit more spice to this debate (not read all the replies yet however apologies - time constraints!), the top 1000 people in this Country, own a combined £414bn of wealth. That is equal to near enough £7,000 for each and every person in the UK.

That tells me, people are earning an un-balanced income, and that more can easily be done to help those at grass roots level.

Remember that is only the UK ONLY and equal to over a third of the debt... now imagine how those figures grow in a global capacity? What recession. It is just all the money is in one place!
 
Like I said I'm still a little confused, so you don't get your bills paid by the government then? That is the point on energy conservation.
If the government pays your electric bill then there would be no insentive to conserve it, ie leave all lights on as government is paying!

So from what I can gather everyone gets £15000 per year for doing nothing and if you work you get to keep this is in addition to your 15k minus taxes obviously.
Then the government pays for everything right so thats council tax, gas, electric, tv licence, sky tv, water bills etc.

If I've got the right end of the stick there I'd say you would need a corporation tax of 95% and a top rate of tax at similar levels to pay for it.
Hardly an incentive for companies or wealthy people to stay!
 
BigT said:
Hardly an incentive for companies or wealthy people to stay!
Click to expand...

I know some pretty wealthy individuals (who have stayed grounded) who think this is a total fallacy.

I was surprised they agreed with my points, they only reason they are wealthy in the first place, is through having a lot of other peoples money which, as soon as it comes to make things a bit fairer - do a runner, hide their money etc.

I am exceptionally entrepreneurial, I do not understand why this cannot go hand in hand with strong social responsibility, after all, it makes the place we all reside in far nicer, which will exponentially improve the UK as a whole.

That takes looking a little further forward though than the present system and realising it needs a complete overhaul - the wealth is there to do it, the wish to do it however is not.



Especially those who made their fortunes in this country in the first place!
 
I just want to live in hobbiton. Smoke pipe weed all day, drink mead and ale and eat many meals.

Problem solved.
 
Fredward said:
I just want to live in hobbiton. Smoke pipe weed all day, drink mead and ale and eat many meals.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

... and get £15,000 for doing so, woohoo - sounds good to me!! Pass the pipe.
 
Just a few things which I haven't seen covered by people who are for the £15,000 idea.

1) At what age would people get this amount? 16 years of age? 18?
2) What would be the eligibility for the amount? Would you have to be living away from home? Would you get it if you lived with parents?
3) Say there's a single mother with 5 children, the £15, 000 amount wouldn't cover her providing a standard living for her children, she would in fact be worse off than anyone else. What happens then?

I'm on the fence with this one, but I pose the above questions to those that are for the idea, as I'm rather interested. You could argue with the single mother one that it's her fault and that the £15,000 would prevent so many single mothers giving birth to loads of children - although with the way the current system works changing it over to a new one would cause a lot of problems for families that are already like this.
 
James said:
Just a few things which I haven't seen covered by people who are for the £15,000 idea.
Click to expand...

They were good points (no point quoting as above). Just to reaffirm, my point originally was reworking an existing system, to create more family time etc to those who would like it. It could be argued, that if you have a family, you shouldn't be working 7 days a week. That to me is also an irresponsible choice, without balance.

Why people do this is the question that almost leads to this path again.

Money. Bigger car, bigger house, more, more, more. Now I have said before I am very hard working in difficult circumstances that I wont go into here, and very ambitious and entrepreneurial. However it is the spirit of the idea that I would like to see debated.

15k nowadays, is enough for you to eat sensible, enjoy the occasional family day, and pay the bills. Why do we allow so much astronomical wealth to land in the hands of the few, and then resort to very fashionable stereotypes (which I confess, some of you have surprised me with, I gave you more credit than that intelligence wise - put the "news"papers down), to criticise those in all likelihood simply don't know any different/better.

I find it interesting that, the ludicrous wealth and greed is going unmentioned, yet just about everyone else who may find themselves in difficult circumstances has. Why?

I have personally witnessed many people turn their lives around with encouragement, and opportunity - not all, some don't want it, fine, but far more DO than don't believe me.

I really would rather that ignorant comments towards sections of society are kept to a minimum in this debate, and now that is have moved on, take on board these points please sensibly and respectfully with each other:

1. Why is OK for people to amass these levels of extraordinary wealth, keep it locked away, whilst many suffer in poverty?

2. Why is there still such an assumption that those out of work, or born into less fortunate circumstances, given equitable opportunity, would remain happy to live on a wage that means they are simply not in poverty?

3. Why are so many people taken in by stereotypes, created by the media to purposefully stir emotions, and create divisions that ultimately guess what? Sell papers/win votes.

4. Why are there so many people against the idea, and realisation, that there is enough wealth for everyone to not live in poverty, but that this theoretical idea would result in higher standards for everyone, and still leave doors of opportunity open for others to better themselves and earn much more should they choose?

People are better, when they are happier. There is less ill health, less crime (both proven numerous times over).

So a happier, healthier (cheaper!) nation to run - where no one lives in poverty, no one is capable of amassing such wealth so that workers get crappy pay whilst others are disgustingly greedy.

Even as a "businessman" these ideals make sense to me. The wealth is there, the intelligence is there. So why is the desire to lift everyone from poverty, into a happier life, from which great things can be created - not there?

But please, no more insulting stereotypes in any direction. I am a social entrepreneur, therefore I embrace both sides of this coin - that none shall live in poverty, and that all shall be given fair opportunity to shine.
 
Before I add my views, I would also like to add a Question 4 to James's questions:

4) Do immigrants get entitled to this money? And if so, is this from date of entry or do they have to live here on benefits first in a house given to them by the state?


Ok, my personal views on this are as follows - I worked very very hard, spending just under 10 years in University, and worked my way up in my job to where I am now. I have a comfortable life, a very good wage, a nice car, a nice house etc etc.

However, I worked hard for all these things, and it took me a long time to get here. I see a HUGE chunk of tax going out of my wages each month.

I dont class myself as rich, or poor, just comfortable.

I think everyone in life should work and achieve what they have in life. If someone wants to live in a shabby house with no future, no career and have no desire to get on, then thats up to them, and i'll be dammed if I am going to pay for them to have a nice cushy life, no matter how happy it may make them. Thats their choice they have made in life, I didnt make it for them.

We all make choices in life, and I think most people choose to try and get on in life and make a decent living, be it through hard work, education etc, but ultimately if you do this you will end up in a good job with a good wage.

I'm sorry but there are way too many lazy people in this country, who dont bother in school because they know that when they leave, they will get more money from benefits than they would if they get a job. You really think that giving people even more guaranteed income will make them want to work even harder to get on in life???

If you want a successful workforce, with good wages, a country which is full of successful businesses, inventors, scientists etc, and job satisfaction, then there is one answer to this, and that is to invest the money in people in terms of giving them an Education and promote the benefits a decent education will get people, rather than encouraging them to continue to just be lazy and look forward to getting their guaranteed income every month.

Whuile there are a lot of people out there who could use the money, I agree, there are also a lot out there who cant be bothered to work for it. If you give the people who want to get on in life the chance, by giving them the skills and qualifications to progress in a career, or change career, then these people would do so.

I'm sorry, but I really dont feel comfortable with the idea of giving people with no drive, motivation, or desire to get on in life, even more money, particularly when you see the amount of money given out already in benefits, and those entering the country for such benefits (not to mention free healthcare) but dont get me started on that debate!

I'm all for people living a comfortable life, but I do think that you get out of life what you put into it. The only difference I would say thesedays is that unfortunately, education has become excessively expensive, and I would rather see my money going into giving people, particulary in deprived areas, money to actually get a good education, so when they qualify and get a good job, they actually give something back to the community and the country in terms of not just their skills, but also the taxes they will then pay.

Finally, as for taxing the super rich even more - do this and they will leave, simple as, it happened before when Labour tried to do it. They actually found the country lost more money form these people leaving the country than they would if they had stuck with the current tax levels. You seem to forget that many of these people, despite being rich, bring a stupid amount of investment and tax money into this country through their businesses, and many (such as James Dyson) nearly lost everything in the process of getting to where they are now. They worked damn hard to get where they are now, I think they already contribute a lot, and we should be encouraging these people to stay in the UK rather than battering them even more with more taxes!
 
Re: Re: The Four Day Week

GaryH said:
Fredward said:
I just want to live in hobbiton. Smoke pipe weed all day, drink mead and ale and eat many meals.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

... and get £15,000 for doing so, woohoo - sounds good to me!! Pass the pipe.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse paid to us by British citizens that we don't even know!! I had my doubts at first but taking money from other people so I can live like a hobbit is a brilliant idea! I'm glad this system works!
 
Iv got too say, im quite baffled by half the claims here. A free £15k a year too devote your time too charity work..?? wow .. I swear that tips just over how much i earn in a year. This countries on its arse for obvious reasons, one of which being the fact we give so much too people that simply dont deserve it. Im not bothered about those 'JSA bums' since they get a pittance every fortnight anyway and live a poor standard of life. Dont get me wrong, theres jobs out there for everyone but wouldnt we all like too do something we want to do ??!!

Secondly, mums that ' have never worked a day in there life'. Come on now!! Being a parent is not only a job but a responsibility. And a 24/7 one at that.

But ye, im all for the four day week lol :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top