'I'm only not paying my bills because employers aren't paying me'

[Lanark2]

Am I being unreasonable to think 'why should I pay my bills to you, the employers of the world, when you aren't paying the employees of the world enough to pay their bills?

Its gets me so annoyed..the ONLY reason I am not paying my bills is because I don't have enough money. The reason I don't have enough money is I'm not paid enough, the reason I'm not paid enough is because we all used to borrow.. BECAUSE WE WERENT PAID ENOUGH .. And the only reasons employers could pay not enough was because we have been trained not to argue, with them, then borrow... Now it's all not working (again) why should I pay my bills...

Can't I just forward them to my crappy employers??

But BoffinMum wouldn't it be nicer if people didn't starve to death and didn't fight over potable water without someone becoming a millionaire off the back of it? Why have we become so constrained in our thinking that the only way we can see to solve the many many problems, including the problem of people actually dying due to unequal distribution and control of resources, to lie in yet more of the global captialism that is causing this to happen?

Cruikshank

Good luck with unpicking that millenium-long complexity.
In the meantime it would be nice if we managed to share the food around properly.
Then we can have a go at the totality of work peace.

This is basically saying shoplifting is okay, if you can't afford to buy something then don't buy it, whether it be clothes, utilities or anything else. We all have to live within our means and one person stealing means the price goes up for the other, law abiding, citizens. Budgeting and being careful is the answer, not theft.

I want to see more women on boards and influencing things, and less barrack-room socialism that is simplistic and meaningless.

If you really care about socialism then get a public life and start fixing things.

And, indeed, ignored BoffinMum's similar suggestion;

or set up the new John Lewis or something. And change it.

well quite
put your time and money where your mouth is

Ok boffinmum! I'm in! Can you pay my living expenses whilst I do that, or my campaign expenses, party fees and constituency fees? .. Perhaps your DH can pay?

Which point? The cooperative point?.. I didn't ignore it, I just didn't address it. Perhaps.. But one way to have the money to choose co-op businesses is not to pay the others..

In this past when people didn't earn enough they collectively demonstrated their opposition to low wages and this way gained resnable renumeration for their work, increased workers rights and gained better working conditions.....

[Looks forward to boffinmum putting her money where her mouth is]

You have a point Op.

Tesco just got told off because they decided not to pay their suppliers until they had worked out how to balance their chequebook. They got told off but no meaningful sanction applied.

UK private debt is massive at the moment so I think most people are going down the more circuitous route of leaving the tab with the banks which the government will keep on bailing out.

I'm not paying my bills at the minute because my employers quite literally aren't paying me...new payroll system and I'm waiting on £800 which was meant to be in today!

Thanks:) some light!

Actually if 'the rules' are set up so playing be them gets you no favour or reward, or even food then of course breaking them becomes imperative, its how wealth causes crime.

You say you have 3 jobs. I assume all are close to NMW. I also assume one is full time?

You say about this 50 pound value for the Starbucks workers and how the council tax, utilities and supermarket all want that 50 pounds. But people don't only work one day. So you get 50 for every day of work and from that you need to allocate each day/week's income to pay for certain things.

That's life, Sunshine.

Sigh... Its a metaphor.. And you are confusing two examples.. The Starbucks thing was how a £500 gain position for workers is a £15,000 loss position for the employers, yet we let that equation be undermined by blaming each individual, then let Starbucks off with the spare cash at the top end. We do it because of the arguments many of you make here, but we don't have to, do we?

If you really care about socialism then get a public life and start fixing things

*Ok boffinmum! I'm in! Can you pay my living expenses whilst I do that, or my campaign expenses, party fees and constituency fees^

Crowdfunding is very now and a lot of people would support your cause, I might even do so myself, so why not try it?

Actually I did raise some money for a disadvantaged area..so there..

Boffinmum, I don't think it's all that complex. What is complex about saying 'this isn't working, let's try something else'? NOthing. The only thing that complicates it is that there are people with powerful vested interests who don't want us to do that, and they benefit from all of the cultural/moral associations that they have given us to believe, in order that the system that benefits them is perpetuated. But actually, there are more of us than there are of them, so if a change was to come it would actually be quite straightforward, especially as the benefits would be felt almost immediately.

That's life, Sunshine.

No that isn't life. That is capitalism. It isn't intrinsic to humanity.

But the £15k Starbucks takings isn't all profit though.

As well as the £500 staff wages, they also have to pay for rent, rates, electricity, food and drink, equipment, and despite what everyone says about Starbucks, things like VAT, Employer's National Insurance and a whole host of other things I have forgotten.

How much do you think a day's rent and rates in a prime location is? Or buying/leasing and maintaining one of those fancy espresso machines.

I really am no fan of Huge global corporations and would be happy with a simple life myself, but many people wouldn't and expect to have the products Starbucks/Apple/Coca Cola etc and would be miserable without them.

I really feel for people who've got into debt by way of paying for essentials, desperately trying to live within their means, being sensible and not quite managing it. I guess the OP is thinking of people like that rather than feckless types who go into debt for consoles and catalogues etc.

No the point is that in that negotiation Starbuck's position is even weaker because of those considerations. They don't care about our considerations, but 'need' to understand theirs??

If Starbucks starts to lose £100,000 a week and its depreciation models and lease contracts lose even more money because it won't spend £2,000 a week more fool it..the penatly clause on a 20year lease is greater than that..

Also boffinmum, why don't you just choose to be on a board and then promote other women onto boards instead of moaning on here?