"Hamish Macbeth" wrote in message
...

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:49:50 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
.

It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that a society needs
to subsidize the production of basic necessities for survival.


Society has to provide for the poor.

No it doesn't. Many societies make very little provision for the poor.
e.g. though the US is significantly wealthier than the UK, its poor are
significantly poorer. Though even the US is an example of a society that
makes provision for its own poor, and those of other countries, e.g. though
its government agencies such as USAID, and its contributions to
international programmes. Many countries make zero contribution, even
during the good years, to helping the poor of even their nearest
neighbours.

This can be done by either a
minimum wage that is liveable in a free market,
social payments or subsidise in the basics.

A minimum wage is about as sure a way of destroying a genuinely free market
as any I can think of.


Each have their own problems. If minimum wages are pushed up to the
minimum for someone living in London then it will be hard to create jobs
that can employ at this level throughout the country.

Subsidise have their own problems of losing touch with their purpose and
encouraging a plutocracy that costs a disproportionate amount.

Subsidies almost never exist without very clear constraints, e.g. UK dairy
farmers have a very clear limit on production and any over production ends
up being at their expense. The quotas however do ensure that the quanity
of milk that the government wishes to see produced is maintained and
production is shared amongst a decent number of producers rather than the
most effecient eventually gaining the entire market and a near monopoly.


The continueing underlying problem is that in Britain the minimum
amount
needed to survive is nearly
the same as average income. This results in nearly half the population
getting both social payments and paying tax.

Until minimum wages exceed minimum cost of living then a set of
distorting
welfare and subsidiese payments are inevitable.


The minimum cost of living is nothing like as high as it seems. Just
compare the living costs of a pensioner with a working adult. The cost of
being employed is now very high, e.g. transport and meals taken away from
home may now be something of the order of £5,000 per year for many adults.
For those who need to add child care costs, then being employed becomes an
expensive luxury.

Michael Saunby