• Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

502 Very Good

About KingGTF

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

6,105 profile views
  1. Citizens Advice would probably be able to help. Not having a written contract doesn't mean she doesn't have the same rights, the fact that both parties have agreed to a schedule of work (the rota) is sufficient and he is obliged by law to pay her minimum wage for those hours worked.
  2. Swan Lake or Nutcracker?
  3. Romania is part of the EU
  4. No given that it was reported at the time as a six-figure salary
  5. You completely miss the point. The market is deciding pay, yes, but when that level of pay is paid for by coercive means, such that the BBC doesn't necessarily have to consider value in its pay decisions, then that infringes on people's freedoms and they have every right to question that. Gary Lineker does not add 7x value to MOTD compared to if Mark Chapman presented it. Or compare what Gary Neville offers and he was reportedly offered 1.5m by Sky on his return. It's debatable whether the market even sets wages at the BBC, Jonathan Ross supposedly took a huge pay cut when he moved to itv and I'd be amazed if any competitor paid John Humphreys as much as he earns right now.
  6. It is a subsidy of wages in that respect yes. I just presumed, given it's the often-used argument, you were saying it's subsidising employers in the sense they pay lower wages because they know tax credits will make the wage up to be a better wage. So the point is, actually the free market produces a good outcome because it doesn't create an oversupply which forces wages down. Tax credits was the state intervening to correct state intervention and now you think we need state intervention to correct the failures of the state intervening to correct the failure of state intervention
  7. What about the smartphone or computer you used to make your posts?....Okay point taken
  8. So the problem is state intervention lowering the reservation wage (tax credits don't really subsidise wages) and the solution is more state intervention to correct the state's intervention.
  9. Do the baby doll challenge thing tonight. Fully expect Olivia to go ape and throw it in the pool because the doll prefers Chris to her
  10. Interesting...
  11. The problem is, does Gary Lineker add that much extra value to the BBC's coverage than say Mark Chapman who is paid say 1.5m less than him? And because the BBC is guaranteed revenue through coercion the answer is no, he probably provides no extra value because the programmes he works on aren't sold across the world, they don't really create revenue. I don't really have a problem with the levels of pay, though I don't understand the amounts some of the Eastenders actors are paid. But really, I don't believe these figures should be published nor do I believe it's in anyone's interests.
  12. All of the girls are insufferable but Olivia is abhorrent, wish someone would clothesline her and Chris bin her off
  13. Would gravity not decrease because there is less mass between you and the core as you fall through, therefore given momentum and assuming no air resistance, you'd just carry on through? Surely you end up with a pendulum effect.
  14. It's not really too dissimilar to UBI. So with an NIT, you set a level of income that you deem to be the minimum sufficient amount that a person would need to live on. For simplicity, we'll say 10k. You then set a negative tax rate for earnings below that, say 50%. If I'm earning 0 a year, my I have, for tax return purposes, a negative income of 10k a year. So -50% of -10k is 5k, so the state gives my 5k every year. If I am working and earn 5k, then I have a negative income of 5k and -50% of -5k is 2.5k, so I receive a payment of 2.5k to supplement my 5k from working. Now admittedly, this does mean that the basic income given to you is less than what might be required to live. Now the NIT might not actually be optimal but it should be better than the bureaucratic welfare system, which has all sorts of problems, that it replaces. For a start, whilst an effective marginal tax rate of 50% seems high (For every £1 earned, the subsidy decreases by 50p) it is lower than the EMTR that exists with welfare now. There's a piece that shows a single mother working 30 hours a week would have an EMTR of 93% and with UC, it is expected the average will be 75%. I acknowledge the UBI as an alternative solution but it would have higher disincentives to work, and it seems highly inefficient to give high earners an amount of money to just tax it back off them with the endowment effect possibly coming into play(I believe this is also creates demoralisation costs). NIT has many of the benefits of UBI but it's a part subsidy rather than a full payment I suppose.
  15. I like anyone that treats Ian Stringer with such contempt