@Stephen - Look at it this way... Imagine you run a large chain of stores and some employment minister comes to you and wants you to hire people so that they get work experience and can then get a job somewhere else. Your first reaction will be, "No. Sorry. I don't need inexperienced people. I already have people working, and they're doing fine. Good luck finding another sucker." There's no reason for you to hire anyone, and especially people who aren't readily employable. So, the minister says, "Ok. But how about if you only need to pay them 1/4 what you pay others?" Then... All of a sudden you can probably afford to have these unemployable people doing "something" for you, even if it's just menial upkeep and extra stuff like cleaning signs or scraping gum off the parking lot pavement. At that rate, they can add some value for you, but not at a full rate.
So, the low wages do make sense in a way. (Don't crap on me for this - I'm not agreeing with it, but just explaining a bit of logic for it.)
But none of any of that work program/welfare/blah blah/whatever addresses any of the root causes of the problems that they purport to solve. If anything, they make it worse.
Here's a quick & dirty example based on some actual figures...
Say you can get back 1,200 pounds of taxes that you are already paying, but then you need to shell out 300 pounds to pay for some things yourself, e.g. garbage removal, etc. Would you do it? You'd have an extra 900 pounds in your pocket every year, or 75 pounds a month. While not the exact scenario I outlined, the 25% figure comes from
Sandy Springs when they outsourced most city services. They got more services for much less.
Poverty is only increased by taxes, and property taxes are an existential tax that force you to pay merely to exist, merely to be, merely to occupy space. In fact, there's a special word for people that don't pay property taxes:
HOMELESS.
Taxes on things like petrol asymmetrically, adversely affect those with lower incomes. Same goes for most other taxes. e.g. A and B both drive 10 km a day, but B's income is 100x A's income. A ends up being affected by prices swings and tax increases on petrol much more than B.
Here's another example...
Imagine a magic genie pops out of a bottle and says, "I can give you 4~6 months of your income every year, but that's all I can do." Would that 4~6 months of additional income make a difference in your life? Would you be willing to give up anything for it? Would you be willing to forgo some things, and pay for others that you had to give up but still wanted? Could you put up with a few minor inconveniences? Because 4~6 months of your life is what governments take from you in taxes.
People with money can spend money.
When people spend money, businesses hire more people.
When businesses hire more people, there is less unemployment.
Less unemployment means higher production and better allocation of resources.
Better allocation of resources makes room for greater innovation and competition.
Innovation and competition raise the quality of people's lives.
The state creates artificially high unemployment by taxing people into subsistence-level existences, which reduces the velocity of money which drags on the overall economy.
Taxes destroy wealth and create poverty. Just look at the current state of the UK and what's been happening for the last few decades. If taxes and Keynesian economic and monetary policies actually worked, the UK would be crazy, awesome paradise. They don't work. The UK is flushing it's people to drown in the sewers.
Recent Posts
From an email I received (emphasis mine): 
(kidding)
-40hz (November 15, 2014, 08:27 AM)
