To be confused by 'high earners' complaining about taxes?

If people on benefits should be made to "volunteer" for their benefits in the low paid jobs, then what happens to the people that are currently in those low paid jobs? Do they get fired, then taken on again as super cheap labour?
A poster said that that people could be traffic wardens for their benefits. That is a paid role, and one that sometimes attracts assault. A young female traffic warden where I live had a pot of paint thrown over her.

Yes, agree about the archeological evidence being relatives caring. I put that in more as a counter to the idea there weren't any old/Ill people around in pre-feudal times. There were, though their survival was very dependent on the goodwill and abilities of those immediately around them. Otherwise you died.

Because they sell a lot? I don't know what you mean by this at all.

Yes, but there was an expectation that the church was supposed to provide even if reality didn't match it. How well that worked in famine years is, as you said, dubious. There was also a differentiation between deserving poor (elderly and infirm, crippled, single mothers) and the undeserving. And famines tended to lead to social panic about large numbers of poor moving across local borders (from parish to parish). Especially young men (who should in their have been able to provide for themselves but couldn't because there weren't sufficient jobs/food).

It was only in 1602, with the first poor laws that it was basically illegal to let people starve to death - that's when the legal obligation was on Parishes who raised money through rates.

And in Victorian times you got a resurgence of the idea that not allowing people to starve to death was mollycoddling (plus rich people resented not being able to keep all their money) and the rise of Trevelyan and about a million people died and a further million people were forced out of their homes in Ireland.

So certainly a mixed history but in the UK at least there has been a legal obligation to help the vulnerable keep body and soul together since 1602.

People weren't necessarily supported in "feudal times". Mass starvation was common in famine years.

Archaeological evidence of caring for the elderly and disabled is different - these would have been relatives.

There is archeological evidence of people with old.injuries.(broken legs, no teeth) being looked after.well.past the point they could have survived on their own. Also a very heartbreaking case of a disabled child found in a cave. I think archeologists theorised she was kept alive for years by her family but at some point something must have happened to them out getting food and they never returned and she starved to death.

But yes,.on the whole life was tough. Either you depended on your family/social structures to support you or you died. Thank goodness we don't live like that now.

I’m confused about why you think 12 quid an hour is a slave wage but 13 quid is qualitatively different. After taxes, the increase is very little.

It’s not a question of fault, either on the part of the public or businesses. Economics is the reality of how we exchange goods and services, and how the government regulates the economy will have some positive and some negative consequences.

By the way, you keep referring to slave wages. Employment at any particular job is voluntary. You can quit and seek a different one at any time. Equating it to chattel slavery diminishes the true evil of slavery.

Honestly, you can’t stop with the straw man arguments can you. Should I even bother asking where the comments are stating people are not accepting taxes? Assuming they’re with the ones stating that that Muslims are to blame for taxes and that taxes are all Marxist?

If you want to argue against things nobody said, can’t you just do it in your head?

Before feudal times you probably wouldn't live to BE old and infirm, that would be a rarity, youd likely die first.

exactly,

And in feudal times those people were supported by the church (paid for through tithes etc). From early modern times onwards those people were supported by the local parish through the raising of parish rates (taxes). In Victorian times huge economic change broke the old system and it was replaced by slums, workhouses, prostitution and "providential calamaties" (This still cost the rich something but ideally they paid as little as possible.) After WW2 we had the welfare state paid for by taxes and here we are.

Before Feudal times I guess the old and infirm were encouraged to jump of cliffs. So unless we go back to that I think we have to accept that taxes and benefits will be a thing one way or the other.

but this is the puzzlement Unemployment exists yes, but why then do people or some people think companies should be able to pay slave wages, just to make profts ? surley thats why we got rid of slavery.

and people moan about people on benefits, but then we need to alter the system because if businesses cannot make profits because of eg costs of staff etc then how is that the publics fault

The difference between the two wage rates is much smaller than I expected. An increase to the slightly higher living wage wouldn’t have a large effect on employment.

Unemployment exists in all economic systems. There will always be people who retire, are between jobs, in training, etc. it’s not a defining feature of modern capitalism.

As of early 2026, the UK's mandatory minimum wage system (known as the National Living Wage for adults) is £12.21 per hour for those aged 21 and over, set to rise to £12.71 on April 1, 2026.

The "real living wage" (an independent, voluntary rate) is higher, at £13.45 per hour across the UK and £14.80 per hour in London (as of October 2025/May 2026).

as for the unemployment then it proves the modern version of capitalism / whatever you want to call it., is not suited for modern society

What’s the question? And what are all my jabs at mental illness?

Brilliant, why didn’t you just come out with this at the beginning and save me wasting my time discussing this with you? So rude.

You didn't answer the question, and inserted yet another jab at people with mental illnesses. Do better.

What is the NMW currently (I’m an American and honestly have no idea) and what would a living wage be per hour?

And what would you do about the surge in unemployment that would result from a dramatic increase in the minimum wage?

well based on businesses now, they are doing a grand job, wanting cheap labour etc and yes a centrally planned economy would be better in one sense but then it would prove like covid you only need so many workers for the system to run

Maybe shut all the businesses and have commerce centrally controlled eh comrade? Our publicly ran businesses are the height of efficiency after all.

So you’ve got an issue with mass unskilled immigration keeping wages low now? Well if you want that to end then the tax burden has to come down to give businesses more headroom and people need to stop being paid to do nothing because they feel ‘anxious’ about doing low skilled jobs.

alljobs should pay the living wage or higher, and if they cannot then there business models cannot survive without cheap labour and yes even at nmw most jobs should be paid higher

Do you consider NMW to be a cheap, slave labor wage? If so, how high would it need to go to make it acceptable?

The trade-off for higher minimum wages is lower employment. Society can decide that it's worth it, but there is a negative impact. Those who get the higher minimum wage do better; those who lose their jobs do not.

bottom line modern business models are not suited for modern times

then thats the fault of business wanting cheap labour