First question is; suppose abysmal minimum wages (man that just sounds bad...) costs 35k to upgrade, and low minimum wages costs 70k -- what kind of sense does it make for a government to have to pay the full price of 'low', if they've already implemented 'abysmal'. Wouldn't it always make sense to just bite the bullet and choose the higher option - otherwise you're just wasting a considerable amount of money? Surely it's got to be a programming error that these costs aren't scaled, with consideration for the level you're currently at.
Second, suppose I want to drop/cancel the whole program. Why should it cost just as much to remove, as it does to implement? Along those lines, suppose I just want to 'cut back' a little bit, why should that cost me some hefty amount, just as if I'm upgrading?
Heck it would almost make the most sense to just tell the people, "hey now, be patient... we're saving up to 340,000 ...so we can go ahead and get the best healthcare. Just hang in there for a few decades. No sweat. Just don't get sick in the next 30 years. Once we get there I'll tax you less, thanks to all the money we'll have saved in the mean time! I promise!" Yeah, I somehow doubt that kind of political platform would find much success...
You have to admit this doesn't really make sense. Personally I think I've got a bunch of corrupt politicians beneath me, and they're embezzling funds by cooking the books behind the scenes, and falsifying the REAL costs. I didn't become king without being able to spot some fishy financial activities...
THEN, the second question is; which is better - the work day, the wages, or the pensions? I've got to choose from those three. I.e., which is ticking off the lower class the most, if it's still on the 'none' setting? I can see what it will change if implemented, but I can't see the effect that the current 'none' level is having. I.e., I'm looking for the most bang for my buck (GBP).
Second, suppose I want to drop/cancel the whole program. Why should it cost just as much to remove, as it does to implement? Along those lines, suppose I just want to 'cut back' a little bit, why should that cost me some hefty amount, just as if I'm upgrading?
Heck it would almost make the most sense to just tell the people, "hey now, be patient... we're saving up to 340,000 ...so we can go ahead and get the best healthcare. Just hang in there for a few decades. No sweat. Just don't get sick in the next 30 years. Once we get there I'll tax you less, thanks to all the money we'll have saved in the mean time! I promise!" Yeah, I somehow doubt that kind of political platform would find much success...
You have to admit this doesn't really make sense. Personally I think I've got a bunch of corrupt politicians beneath me, and they're embezzling funds by cooking the books behind the scenes, and falsifying the REAL costs. I didn't become king without being able to spot some fishy financial activities...
THEN, the second question is; which is better - the work day, the wages, or the pensions? I've got to choose from those three. I.e., which is ticking off the lower class the most, if it's still on the 'none' setting? I can see what it will change if implemented, but I can't see the effect that the current 'none' level is having. I.e., I'm looking for the most bang for my buck (GBP).
