Work For Your Dole
- Thread starter The Fear
- Start date
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Oh goody, I'll sink my teeth into those posts later both.
You might be surprised Fred, that I actually agree with a fair bit of what I've just skim read.
But back later.
You might be surprised Fred, that I actually agree with a fair bit of what I've just skim read.
But back later.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Sorry Griz, you're falling for the old the tabloids actually ethically report facts argument again.
They knew the truth about the Syria vote, but still peddled Labour's bullshit that it never led to a second vote on taking action, and it meant if the first vote went through the UK were committed to taking action as quickly as humanly possible.
They knew the truth about the student uni fees, ie it's actually a better deal that was currently in place for students, it was fairer to the electorate and still means the vast majority will never pay it all back.
That didn't stop them spinning based on their editorial and political bias.
If you're going to make up your mind politically on policy based on what you read in the red tops alone, and thesedays, such is the state of things, even the bloody broadsheets - then with no disrespect meant - you need to consider yourself ill informed now.
If you really want to know what's going on, what a policy is, you need to find something you're interested in via the rags, then read political blogs so you get both sides of the spin and so on, and then find the truth in the middle devoid of the bullshit or as best you can.
You can't come at it from an angle, whether personal or fed as best you can, and by no means am I saying I should be held up as a bastion here, but you clearly have your focus as does Fred as anti Tory and nothing seems to sway you from that, however sensible the comment dude.
Let's take Bob as the PR company would call him, the seemingly 24 year old PS4 addicted scrounger. I would argue even most of the tabloids, unless doing a very anti youth piece, focus more on breaking the the self entitlement he probably feels because of the two generations you quote ahead of him.
That won't be achieved by only getting him into work, it is achieved by showing daddy and granddaddy the altruistic benefits of finding work themselves whatever it may be.
That's not a Tory fairy tale however, that has been a long held view by the red tops - other than the likes of the Sun who pander to that demographic outside of white van man - and existed long before the Tories came to power.
And it is an issue, I know people who live on the dole as a career. They have no intention of working, and they live better than I do, and short of an hour maybe a day, I spend my life online doing the various things I do. they also live better than most of the people who work a real 9-5 job that I know, in terms of having holidays, and mod cons.
Is anybody really stupid enough to believe everybody on the dole acts like that? If they are that's not political, that's personal. They are a small subset but they exist.
Should we not target them? Should they not have to do their fair share?
Should we ignore them because they tiny 1% overall (I don't know the figure I'm using 1% to prove a point).
No, we should absolutely go after them, and frankly I'd make them sell what they don't need to live in lue of benefits until they are left with what benefits are meant to pay for. A roof, and food to live. Clothing can be optional depending on how good looking they are, but obviously the children should at least have onesies and the bloke have pants.
The argument shouldn't be about whether we are right to target them, which it seems to be - and I assume your passion and anger has taken over and you haven't explained properly - your angle here, but how we target them, whilst not overly unfairly treating those who categorically don't fall into that category.
But if you are going to fall for the media outlook on this, a media obsessed with the Tory party over Leveson, you are never going to get the source of what they are doing, or ever argue sensibly what they are doing wrong, because you are arguing a pre existing hatred of everything they do.
But categorically no, an individual has choices and their upbringing is not an excuse for laziness or anti socialness. So no, they shouldn't be pitied if they fall into that trap, they should be further ostracised, ignored until they grow a pair and deal with life properly. That's the job of their right thinking members of family and friends to bring them round, not me as a taxpayer, or you as a taxpayer.
Maybe less coddling wouldn't have created this scenario anyway, so to pity them now and coddle them further, so they grow the poor me victim attitude.
Sorry, no dice with me.
You draw on your experiences of this and all credit to you, but I'll draw on mine, and many are free, many are in luxury and unless they get whipped they will never change as pity and coddling will just see them develop further 'health problems' that can't be proved, but curiously, can't be disproved yet in science.
But you assume those like that must be spiritually and mentally dead anyway. They aren't. In your walk of life mate, you meet a type who on some level want to improve otherwise they wouldn't see you. You won't see those perfectly happy with their lot, putting no effort in, thinking they are entitled on a large enough basis for it to counter your view, because you meet those who want to turn things around and they are in the majority - but that doesn't mean there isn't a minority.
And again not a dig or anything of the sort mate, but doing that job, I doubt you live on a street where many if any are unemployed either. I could be wrong, but your writing style on the frontpage, what you've said about your job, I doubt very much you live in a council dominated street for example.
The rest of the first post is just anti capitalism bullshit dude, sorry. Not everyone at the top had a silver spoon. I know it doesn't relate to the UK but I'm sure I read that thesedays in America well over 50% of the current top 5% were actually self made in their lifetime, not given a leg up by sucking daddy's bank account.
We lag behind America usually, so there is a lot to be said for striving, even though I agree it just sounds wrong coming from those with trust funds who aren't self made millionnaires - especially when the cock suckers then want to charge us for their gardening - not mentioning any names Mr Cameron. Weed your own fucking garden, I'd never expect an employer to pay for my gardening because I don't work in my fucking garden!
Again the Anti Tory crap comes out in the final paragraph that serves no purpose. They lost money this that and the other in the crash, but they're fine. Do we not have a guarantee to savers in this country who exist at all our expenses to protect those with the most minimal of savings anyway?
But again it's a bank bash, based on the red tops dude, not based on the current standings of reality.
The press berated Barclays the other year for paying bonuses given the banks had to be bailed out. Erm Barcalys weren't.
TSB group have repaid their bail out, it doesn't get much coverage.
HBoS, RBoS which ever fucking boss who took the cash as well as part of TSB (sorry late, and can't be arsed to check) have equally paid back the bail out and all are in credit now owing to bonus tax, and dividends and everything else.
Everything else in terms of loan underwriting is under written and will come back also, if not, we wouldn't be looking to float shares again.
The only one we lost out on, was Northern Fucked from what I can tell, because that went to Branson for less than we paid to begin with.
As for second post.
Again we're talking about clients who don't fall into the pocket of the scum, so they don't count. You are equating what you read in the press, to them, and not those who don't give a shit.
I also know the problems of CAB and the work and referals they do when they are capable of spending more than 30 seconds with you, given their own help sheets now basically say fill in an I&E form, don't say you drink, and try and pay £1 a month.
Well they don't, that's how it seems.
But don't you realise also that in saying a number of young families sstruggle are at a higher level than ever, but then not factor in what about the rest of the family? The parents?
Socially, this country is buggered by the nuclear family. Nothing more, nothing less if you want to put it down to one thing. We don't have extended families anymore picking up the slack, providing advice, help, support and where necessary financial leeway.
I'm lucky enough, I have that and always have done.
But too many now rely on the State for everything including what their family should give them.
And no my point about banks isn't ridiculous. You volunteer in your sphere, I taught myself consumer law, and in my height volunteered many hours a night on four DIY forums helping complete strangers, for nothing back, claim bank charges, PPI, deal with SOGAS issues, handle complaints with their council and a whole host of other things.
We will win from bailing out the banks ultimately, it's illogical we won't, given they have already paid the precept back, and we've taken more since, even including additional bonus tax, let alone tax and we still hold shares.
The argument shouldn't be that, the argument should be 'what will the Treasury do with the windfall it receives.'
And if you want to keep digging, I think you need to look at our deficit pre bank bail out, the level of our borrowing under Labour, and then consider what effect really the bail outs had in the grand scheme of things.
And yes I do hate chats like this, because it turns me into somebody defending the bankers.
As for the rest mate, sorry, I'd like you to quote where I said social funds weren't cut like libraries. Because you can't. So don't spin my words to suit your argument. Debate what I said, not what you think you wanted me to say.
But you don't care about party politics....hmmmm.
Not you're not interested in fairy tales...then don't read what you want to read, or in some cases, don't read - find out.
Because I'm pretty sure Pilgrims more than account for over 5% that the rich were gifted back (despite 50% not bringing in as much as 45%) and Pilgrims aren't sponsored by the Capitalist Party.
Wurzel has a fantastic point. Who forgets (and yes it's spin also) the media studies courses where students watched Coronation Street a number of years ago?
When I did media studies we were taught the English language, a musical sounddesk, video operation and editing, lighting rigs and so on.
Why wasn't I allowed to watch porn - obviously I wouldn't have watched Coronation Street - as an education of filming, lighting an sound techniques?
Every degree is a good degree...it's like Starship Troopers - every good bug is a dead bug.
Forgetting important degrees help the country grow and are a bit more than just a certificate (unlike other qualifications) and bugs are needed for a healthy eco system.
But that is the problem with blind equality....it ignores the fact some people are destined to ask whether you'd like fries with that.
They knew the truth about the Syria vote, but still peddled Labour's bullshit that it never led to a second vote on taking action, and it meant if the first vote went through the UK were committed to taking action as quickly as humanly possible.
They knew the truth about the student uni fees, ie it's actually a better deal that was currently in place for students, it was fairer to the electorate and still means the vast majority will never pay it all back.
That didn't stop them spinning based on their editorial and political bias.
If you're going to make up your mind politically on policy based on what you read in the red tops alone, and thesedays, such is the state of things, even the bloody broadsheets - then with no disrespect meant - you need to consider yourself ill informed now.
If you really want to know what's going on, what a policy is, you need to find something you're interested in via the rags, then read political blogs so you get both sides of the spin and so on, and then find the truth in the middle devoid of the bullshit or as best you can.
You can't come at it from an angle, whether personal or fed as best you can, and by no means am I saying I should be held up as a bastion here, but you clearly have your focus as does Fred as anti Tory and nothing seems to sway you from that, however sensible the comment dude.
Let's take Bob as the PR company would call him, the seemingly 24 year old PS4 addicted scrounger. I would argue even most of the tabloids, unless doing a very anti youth piece, focus more on breaking the the self entitlement he probably feels because of the two generations you quote ahead of him.
That won't be achieved by only getting him into work, it is achieved by showing daddy and granddaddy the altruistic benefits of finding work themselves whatever it may be.
That's not a Tory fairy tale however, that has been a long held view by the red tops - other than the likes of the Sun who pander to that demographic outside of white van man - and existed long before the Tories came to power.
And it is an issue, I know people who live on the dole as a career. They have no intention of working, and they live better than I do, and short of an hour maybe a day, I spend my life online doing the various things I do. they also live better than most of the people who work a real 9-5 job that I know, in terms of having holidays, and mod cons.
Is anybody really stupid enough to believe everybody on the dole acts like that? If they are that's not political, that's personal. They are a small subset but they exist.
Should we not target them? Should they not have to do their fair share?
Should we ignore them because they tiny 1% overall (I don't know the figure I'm using 1% to prove a point).
No, we should absolutely go after them, and frankly I'd make them sell what they don't need to live in lue of benefits until they are left with what benefits are meant to pay for. A roof, and food to live. Clothing can be optional depending on how good looking they are, but obviously the children should at least have onesies and the bloke have pants.
The argument shouldn't be about whether we are right to target them, which it seems to be - and I assume your passion and anger has taken over and you haven't explained properly - your angle here, but how we target them, whilst not overly unfairly treating those who categorically don't fall into that category.
But if you are going to fall for the media outlook on this, a media obsessed with the Tory party over Leveson, you are never going to get the source of what they are doing, or ever argue sensibly what they are doing wrong, because you are arguing a pre existing hatred of everything they do.
But categorically no, an individual has choices and their upbringing is not an excuse for laziness or anti socialness. So no, they shouldn't be pitied if they fall into that trap, they should be further ostracised, ignored until they grow a pair and deal with life properly. That's the job of their right thinking members of family and friends to bring them round, not me as a taxpayer, or you as a taxpayer.
Maybe less coddling wouldn't have created this scenario anyway, so to pity them now and coddle them further, so they grow the poor me victim attitude.
Sorry, no dice with me.
You draw on your experiences of this and all credit to you, but I'll draw on mine, and many are free, many are in luxury and unless they get whipped they will never change as pity and coddling will just see them develop further 'health problems' that can't be proved, but curiously, can't be disproved yet in science.
But you assume those like that must be spiritually and mentally dead anyway. They aren't. In your walk of life mate, you meet a type who on some level want to improve otherwise they wouldn't see you. You won't see those perfectly happy with their lot, putting no effort in, thinking they are entitled on a large enough basis for it to counter your view, because you meet those who want to turn things around and they are in the majority - but that doesn't mean there isn't a minority.
And again not a dig or anything of the sort mate, but doing that job, I doubt you live on a street where many if any are unemployed either. I could be wrong, but your writing style on the frontpage, what you've said about your job, I doubt very much you live in a council dominated street for example.
The rest of the first post is just anti capitalism bullshit dude, sorry. Not everyone at the top had a silver spoon. I know it doesn't relate to the UK but I'm sure I read that thesedays in America well over 50% of the current top 5% were actually self made in their lifetime, not given a leg up by sucking daddy's bank account.
We lag behind America usually, so there is a lot to be said for striving, even though I agree it just sounds wrong coming from those with trust funds who aren't self made millionnaires - especially when the cock suckers then want to charge us for their gardening - not mentioning any names Mr Cameron. Weed your own fucking garden, I'd never expect an employer to pay for my gardening because I don't work in my fucking garden!
Again the Anti Tory crap comes out in the final paragraph that serves no purpose. They lost money this that and the other in the crash, but they're fine. Do we not have a guarantee to savers in this country who exist at all our expenses to protect those with the most minimal of savings anyway?
But again it's a bank bash, based on the red tops dude, not based on the current standings of reality.
The press berated Barclays the other year for paying bonuses given the banks had to be bailed out. Erm Barcalys weren't.
TSB group have repaid their bail out, it doesn't get much coverage.
HBoS, RBoS which ever fucking boss who took the cash as well as part of TSB (sorry late, and can't be arsed to check) have equally paid back the bail out and all are in credit now owing to bonus tax, and dividends and everything else.
Everything else in terms of loan underwriting is under written and will come back also, if not, we wouldn't be looking to float shares again.
The only one we lost out on, was Northern Fucked from what I can tell, because that went to Branson for less than we paid to begin with.
As for second post.
Again we're talking about clients who don't fall into the pocket of the scum, so they don't count. You are equating what you read in the press, to them, and not those who don't give a shit.
I also know the problems of CAB and the work and referals they do when they are capable of spending more than 30 seconds with you, given their own help sheets now basically say fill in an I&E form, don't say you drink, and try and pay £1 a month.
Well they don't, that's how it seems.
But don't you realise also that in saying a number of young families sstruggle are at a higher level than ever, but then not factor in what about the rest of the family? The parents?
Socially, this country is buggered by the nuclear family. Nothing more, nothing less if you want to put it down to one thing. We don't have extended families anymore picking up the slack, providing advice, help, support and where necessary financial leeway.
I'm lucky enough, I have that and always have done.
But too many now rely on the State for everything including what their family should give them.
And no my point about banks isn't ridiculous. You volunteer in your sphere, I taught myself consumer law, and in my height volunteered many hours a night on four DIY forums helping complete strangers, for nothing back, claim bank charges, PPI, deal with SOGAS issues, handle complaints with their council and a whole host of other things.
We will win from bailing out the banks ultimately, it's illogical we won't, given they have already paid the precept back, and we've taken more since, even including additional bonus tax, let alone tax and we still hold shares.
The argument shouldn't be that, the argument should be 'what will the Treasury do with the windfall it receives.'
And if you want to keep digging, I think you need to look at our deficit pre bank bail out, the level of our borrowing under Labour, and then consider what effect really the bail outs had in the grand scheme of things.
And yes I do hate chats like this, because it turns me into somebody defending the bankers.
As for the rest mate, sorry, I'd like you to quote where I said social funds weren't cut like libraries. Because you can't. So don't spin my words to suit your argument. Debate what I said, not what you think you wanted me to say.
But you don't care about party politics....hmmmm.
Not you're not interested in fairy tales...then don't read what you want to read, or in some cases, don't read - find out.
Because I'm pretty sure Pilgrims more than account for over 5% that the rich were gifted back (despite 50% not bringing in as much as 45%) and Pilgrims aren't sponsored by the Capitalist Party.
Wurzel has a fantastic point. Who forgets (and yes it's spin also) the media studies courses where students watched Coronation Street a number of years ago?
When I did media studies we were taught the English language, a musical sounddesk, video operation and editing, lighting rigs and so on.
Why wasn't I allowed to watch porn - obviously I wouldn't have watched Coronation Street - as an education of filming, lighting an sound techniques?
Every degree is a good degree...it's like Starship Troopers - every good bug is a dead bug.
Forgetting important degrees help the country grow and are a bit more than just a certificate (unlike other qualifications) and bugs are needed for a healthy eco system.
But that is the problem with blind equality....it ignores the fact some people are destined to ask whether you'd like fries with that.
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
I assure you I am not into party politics Mike. You have a political readings of a situation based on your own internal script as we all do. Mine is just different. Neither do I read red tops. I get my news from everywhere from Al Jazeera England to The New Statesman but I would not read a red top if you paid me. I was quite fond of the Times once and broadsheet Sunday.
My position that hierarchical pyramid social constructs are essential self serving and sociopathic is more philosophic and psychological than it is political. We are under the sway of an unspoken 1% dictatorship, never more evident than in the economic collapse and bank bail out and the crippling austerity budget that has followed.
My position that hierarchical pyramid social constructs are essential self serving and sociopathic is more philosophic and psychological than it is political. We are under the sway of an unspoken 1% dictatorship, never more evident than in the economic collapse and bank bail out and the crippling austerity budget that has followed.
Villa_Grizzly
Vital Squad Member
I assure you Mike, I am not posh. I grew up in a council house with patches on my trousers. I am rich in spirit and mind rather than wallet, which is at best a life choice born out of idealism. I blame my Anglican upbringing for that.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Fred.
Again not quoting, so hope this is easy to follow.
Never said Mr Wisteria could take credit for current working conditions and I don't think anybody did. And yes he should make it easier. Good workers unfairly treated have legal recourse than in more cases than not last time I looked favoured the worker.
But it is way too difficult to sack workers who - especially union backed - don't do their jobs. Look at teachers on long term sick for example, doesn't take long on google.
It's not just EU regulations stopping him, it's the fact that it's not a vote winner because there are more employees and than employees.
The debate shouldn't be about whether it should be easy to sack somebody who doesn't perform, and it shouldn't be able protecting somebody who does but their face doesn't fit.
The debate should what is the fair middle ground. And that's a debate never held.
As for **** I agree. I still see no reason why we can't have managed coal mining industry in this country instead of importing coal. We had a thread on it a few months ago, and we are more than viable, and it would cost less and recreate industry, especially in the North that wasn't able to grasp onto the service industry replacement, and it would even be cheaper. We could even lead the way on more 'green' mining than abroad, but for some reason no party will address that.
It's as touchy a subject as when it comes to Hillborough and you ask what would've happened had those at the back not pushed forward.
Triple agreed, from what I can tell we were close, but close is a lingerie shop without a front window. Unless you grope the mannequin you haven't got the first poly base.
Work shy - that's the press though. Can't blame any party when it comes to misinformation from the press, an intelligent proletariat should know the difference. :-)
You almost had me on Libraries. Because facts are they don't, mobile libraries aren't only more useful, more appropriate and more cost effective, but in the days of google and charity shops en mass, they no longer serve the purpose they did even 10 years ago, let alone 20+ years ago.
However, being a social commodity, libraries and other social use places should be combined. Rent, rates and all the rest should be abolished and they shouldn't have been shut, but they shouldn't be expected to be open 6 days a week.
Twice a week is enough, once midday during the natural local area lunchtime, and once around 8pm for those who work outside of the area who still wish to use them. Any other opening hour should revolve around private party bookings to use other space or a book club and so on, even if cost subsidised and not profit.
The world has moved on, the last four times I was in my local library for my daughter, we out numbered the staff.
So no it's not a middle class nonsense, it's real life.
Re banks you might have the figures right collecting interest payments on top when it comes to everything the banks were offered, but you aren't figuring in the precept coming back. Natural tax, extra tax on banking bonuses as part of the bailout, not the fact we hold shares. They have paid back the precept and we will make a profit.
I suspect on that fee you are also including lending coverage that is indemnified that can't be counted as part of the bail out, because they are also covered under their own provisions and aren't in fact, cost related to the bail out.
You are also certainly also including guaranteed lending funds to banks that weren't bailed out, and for this debate, they don't count.
We are back in profit and most certainly will be, when we sell our shares. Everything else will follow in natural taxation and the terms of the additional funding, ease of cash creation etc.
Again, I find it a daft debate because I think we should've truly nationalised Northern Fuck and ran it as low for profit.
But I am true, they have repaid the loan.
The country also had every choice and it had nothing to do with suffering. Capitalism, which Labour isn't interested in, is about success and failure.
The cream of the crop would've been snared by other banks not in trouble, and smaller banks would've grown to take the market share - even maybe offering to cover some individual savers - not shareholders - losses.
It's not just economists who claimed they should be allowed to fail. It was everybody but a retarded panicky, wants an after dinner speech routine Government often funded by the banks who disagreed.
No the mention of labour and how they used everybodies cash to prop up certain industries in certain areas to suit certain members of the party is not irrelevant. Politicians don't create recession, they don't create boom they don't create bust. That is a natural feature of capitalism and it's as natural and uncontrollable as waking up on Monday with an erection, but wishing you had one on Tuesday.
Government interventions during time of crises affect recovery or further dips, but prior to them (if you count a time prior to a depression not beginning at the very point of boom) is nonsense.
Your next comment following my crack about Mr bust and boom and banks is just spurious. A decade of austerity depending on which thinktank you read and believe has got sweet half pennies to do with whether the bail outs caused, created, extended the fact that the much praised Labour party in this thread, spent more than a child at Christmas for no gain other than their own votes.
Who thinks this will be over overnight...the bank collapse was the final global straw but other countries managed their booms better than we did as they didn't spunk it up the wall. Labour did, and that's why we are struggling. Take the banks out of the equasion and we'd still be struggling.
As a final point on that comment, yes bank bashing is easy. I do it regularly when I can't be arsed to be fair.
If saying the civil service is overbloated is a bit of Tory speak, then give me a reference and I'll see if they'll pay me.
But you seem confused between public sector and service sector. The public sector is Government appointed civil servants whether they be Malcolm's in Whitehall or Dwaynes picking up the bins.
The Tertiary sector dealing with people's feelings, even people like me, providing a service by writing articles about a common love, are completely different.
I won't take the piss as I assume you mistyped dude.
But the service sector does have nothing to do with the public sector, so your response I don't see has any bearing in terms of the Tory speak you accused me of.
I also disagree self interest should be the only reason to vote. I believe people are more empathetic than that.
I earn less than my father, but I think child benefit for example should be capped at 25K (household not individual), he believes it should remain universal.
Each to their own.
Next bit, not it's not Tory mantra because I've never voted Tory.
It's a fact, Labour spend ridiculously and not always on things needed, and Tory's have to come in and dealt with the fall out.
We aren't debating whether they do it well are we, we are dealing with the fact they need to.
Do I think they did it well. You're talking to somebody who has nothing against Thatcher personally, but I'd rather she was cremated as she deserved to burn.
But I'm also somebody who knows that Bliar stiffs us as ex PM for in excess of £11 million a year (both security fees plus the business opportunities he now has based on his previous position) and this was the **** who caused the problems we are now in.
Your stats are also shit, sorry dude, but you think GDP in the 90's, 20's wasn't remarkably higher than in the post war years?
You like a stat, you admitted it, do you get stats can tell you what you want because you aren't even factoring in bloody inflation.
And before I get to the bit I really agreed with you on, ie tax. I'm still waiting for your point of view, not a regurgitation of texts books or quick google searches Fred.
What do you believe?
Here we go, the rich can relocate, the poor can go on benefits lol
That aside, I agree, HMRC are a bunch of fucking jokes. When it comes to tax court shouldn't be an issue, there shouldn't be arbitration, it's simply for the likes of vodaphone, pay your bill or we cull your service. Same as Starbucks, the banks and everyone.
But then again hasn't a head of HMRC resigned in the past month or so after being caught on camera taking instruction on how to avoid bloody tax?
I disagree a company operates in this country, they can't relocate unless they want to lose our market, therefore they pay our tax. Have your head office in Luxembourg, Ireland, bollocks to you, you have an office in this country, you pay our tax and you don't move assets around or handle transactions elsewhere - it's contributory, you have an office, shop here, done - I don't care where you funnel the money, you pay our tax.
It's not difficult. But like the banks and the FSA/FOS I assume some at HMRC are looking forward to their promotion at the very companies they don't slam.
That might be libellous.
It's also fair comment.
As for the rich though, no I don't agree. I'm meant to be the Tory apparently, and you are the Marxist/Labour/Liberal whatever.
Scaled tax revenues aren't fair in my mind. I don't care if you earn a grand a week or a hundred grand a week. 10% of that is fair, and those who earn more, pay more.
No economic and labour laws haven't changed in their favour, work shy employees now have the power, just like players in football and not the club.
10%, 15%, 20% - I favour 15% regardless given the numbers I've just presented myself with lol
I don't get it, why should those who work hard enough to earn fabulous amounts of money automatically pay more in %? They pay more by the fact they earn more. Why should they be penalised greater because they can do, have been lucky enough, to earn more than me and you?
It's a nonsense.
You're next point is ridiculous also because you're not factoring in minimum wage, the fact that even if you do more than two jobs, you get the difference in tax back and still earn....and contrary to popular belief unless you look at public arseholes, most people CEO's of major companies work massive hours - the idea they don't and just enjoy dinners is a joke - and they also rarely take home more than 5% of a companies overall profit.
Yes you have a point about shareholders, and I think personally, the whole shareholder market that exists should be banned because it's anti competitive, retarded, useless and we only have to look at utility companies to realise how the public are stiffed because a listed company's main obligation is in maximising shareholder return NOT actually doing the job they are tasked with, giving competitive prices to customers.
And yes, Right Said Fred, Ask Jim, Talk To Twat and all the other things she who should be burned introduced are to blame for that. Aspiration was never buying into success, aspiration was in creating our own and now we have shareholders knowing full well that shares can go up and down, bitch that their pensions are worth less.
Tough shit, you haven't done anything to aide the company, it's your own fucking fault. Deal with it and don't bug me.
But your previous political barb of deal with public pensions...an 80 year old, who paid every tax going, raised a family, raised their children's family and so on shouldn't be helped whilst we give people who have never contributed to society get all the help possible....sorry Fred that really is where you lost me.
Again not quoting, so hope this is easy to follow.
Never said Mr Wisteria could take credit for current working conditions and I don't think anybody did. And yes he should make it easier. Good workers unfairly treated have legal recourse than in more cases than not last time I looked favoured the worker.
But it is way too difficult to sack workers who - especially union backed - don't do their jobs. Look at teachers on long term sick for example, doesn't take long on google.
It's not just EU regulations stopping him, it's the fact that it's not a vote winner because there are more employees and than employees.
The debate shouldn't be about whether it should be easy to sack somebody who doesn't perform, and it shouldn't be able protecting somebody who does but their face doesn't fit.
The debate should what is the fair middle ground. And that's a debate never held.
As for **** I agree. I still see no reason why we can't have managed coal mining industry in this country instead of importing coal. We had a thread on it a few months ago, and we are more than viable, and it would cost less and recreate industry, especially in the North that wasn't able to grasp onto the service industry replacement, and it would even be cheaper. We could even lead the way on more 'green' mining than abroad, but for some reason no party will address that.
It's as touchy a subject as when it comes to Hillborough and you ask what would've happened had those at the back not pushed forward.
Triple agreed, from what I can tell we were close, but close is a lingerie shop without a front window. Unless you grope the mannequin you haven't got the first poly base.
Work shy - that's the press though. Can't blame any party when it comes to misinformation from the press, an intelligent proletariat should know the difference. :-)
You almost had me on Libraries. Because facts are they don't, mobile libraries aren't only more useful, more appropriate and more cost effective, but in the days of google and charity shops en mass, they no longer serve the purpose they did even 10 years ago, let alone 20+ years ago.
However, being a social commodity, libraries and other social use places should be combined. Rent, rates and all the rest should be abolished and they shouldn't have been shut, but they shouldn't be expected to be open 6 days a week.
Twice a week is enough, once midday during the natural local area lunchtime, and once around 8pm for those who work outside of the area who still wish to use them. Any other opening hour should revolve around private party bookings to use other space or a book club and so on, even if cost subsidised and not profit.
The world has moved on, the last four times I was in my local library for my daughter, we out numbered the staff.
So no it's not a middle class nonsense, it's real life.
Re banks you might have the figures right collecting interest payments on top when it comes to everything the banks were offered, but you aren't figuring in the precept coming back. Natural tax, extra tax on banking bonuses as part of the bailout, not the fact we hold shares. They have paid back the precept and we will make a profit.
I suspect on that fee you are also including lending coverage that is indemnified that can't be counted as part of the bail out, because they are also covered under their own provisions and aren't in fact, cost related to the bail out.
You are also certainly also including guaranteed lending funds to banks that weren't bailed out, and for this debate, they don't count.
We are back in profit and most certainly will be, when we sell our shares. Everything else will follow in natural taxation and the terms of the additional funding, ease of cash creation etc.
Again, I find it a daft debate because I think we should've truly nationalised Northern Fuck and ran it as low for profit.
But I am true, they have repaid the loan.
The country also had every choice and it had nothing to do with suffering. Capitalism, which Labour isn't interested in, is about success and failure.
The cream of the crop would've been snared by other banks not in trouble, and smaller banks would've grown to take the market share - even maybe offering to cover some individual savers - not shareholders - losses.
It's not just economists who claimed they should be allowed to fail. It was everybody but a retarded panicky, wants an after dinner speech routine Government often funded by the banks who disagreed.
No the mention of labour and how they used everybodies cash to prop up certain industries in certain areas to suit certain members of the party is not irrelevant. Politicians don't create recession, they don't create boom they don't create bust. That is a natural feature of capitalism and it's as natural and uncontrollable as waking up on Monday with an erection, but wishing you had one on Tuesday.
Government interventions during time of crises affect recovery or further dips, but prior to them (if you count a time prior to a depression not beginning at the very point of boom) is nonsense.
Your next comment following my crack about Mr bust and boom and banks is just spurious. A decade of austerity depending on which thinktank you read and believe has got sweet half pennies to do with whether the bail outs caused, created, extended the fact that the much praised Labour party in this thread, spent more than a child at Christmas for no gain other than their own votes.
Who thinks this will be over overnight...the bank collapse was the final global straw but other countries managed their booms better than we did as they didn't spunk it up the wall. Labour did, and that's why we are struggling. Take the banks out of the equasion and we'd still be struggling.
As a final point on that comment, yes bank bashing is easy. I do it regularly when I can't be arsed to be fair.
If saying the civil service is overbloated is a bit of Tory speak, then give me a reference and I'll see if they'll pay me.
But you seem confused between public sector and service sector. The public sector is Government appointed civil servants whether they be Malcolm's in Whitehall or Dwaynes picking up the bins.
The Tertiary sector dealing with people's feelings, even people like me, providing a service by writing articles about a common love, are completely different.
I won't take the piss as I assume you mistyped dude.
But the service sector does have nothing to do with the public sector, so your response I don't see has any bearing in terms of the Tory speak you accused me of.
I also disagree self interest should be the only reason to vote. I believe people are more empathetic than that.
I earn less than my father, but I think child benefit for example should be capped at 25K (household not individual), he believes it should remain universal.
Each to their own.
Next bit, not it's not Tory mantra because I've never voted Tory.
It's a fact, Labour spend ridiculously and not always on things needed, and Tory's have to come in and dealt with the fall out.
We aren't debating whether they do it well are we, we are dealing with the fact they need to.
Do I think they did it well. You're talking to somebody who has nothing against Thatcher personally, but I'd rather she was cremated as she deserved to burn.
But I'm also somebody who knows that Bliar stiffs us as ex PM for in excess of £11 million a year (both security fees plus the business opportunities he now has based on his previous position) and this was the **** who caused the problems we are now in.
Your stats are also shit, sorry dude, but you think GDP in the 90's, 20's wasn't remarkably higher than in the post war years?
You like a stat, you admitted it, do you get stats can tell you what you want because you aren't even factoring in bloody inflation.
And before I get to the bit I really agreed with you on, ie tax. I'm still waiting for your point of view, not a regurgitation of texts books or quick google searches Fred.
What do you believe?
Here we go, the rich can relocate, the poor can go on benefits lol
That aside, I agree, HMRC are a bunch of fucking jokes. When it comes to tax court shouldn't be an issue, there shouldn't be arbitration, it's simply for the likes of vodaphone, pay your bill or we cull your service. Same as Starbucks, the banks and everyone.
But then again hasn't a head of HMRC resigned in the past month or so after being caught on camera taking instruction on how to avoid bloody tax?
I disagree a company operates in this country, they can't relocate unless they want to lose our market, therefore they pay our tax. Have your head office in Luxembourg, Ireland, bollocks to you, you have an office in this country, you pay our tax and you don't move assets around or handle transactions elsewhere - it's contributory, you have an office, shop here, done - I don't care where you funnel the money, you pay our tax.
It's not difficult. But like the banks and the FSA/FOS I assume some at HMRC are looking forward to their promotion at the very companies they don't slam.
That might be libellous.
It's also fair comment.
As for the rich though, no I don't agree. I'm meant to be the Tory apparently, and you are the Marxist/Labour/Liberal whatever.
Scaled tax revenues aren't fair in my mind. I don't care if you earn a grand a week or a hundred grand a week. 10% of that is fair, and those who earn more, pay more.
No economic and labour laws haven't changed in their favour, work shy employees now have the power, just like players in football and not the club.
10%, 15%, 20% - I favour 15% regardless given the numbers I've just presented myself with lol
I don't get it, why should those who work hard enough to earn fabulous amounts of money automatically pay more in %? They pay more by the fact they earn more. Why should they be penalised greater because they can do, have been lucky enough, to earn more than me and you?
It's a nonsense.
You're next point is ridiculous also because you're not factoring in minimum wage, the fact that even if you do more than two jobs, you get the difference in tax back and still earn....and contrary to popular belief unless you look at public arseholes, most people CEO's of major companies work massive hours - the idea they don't and just enjoy dinners is a joke - and they also rarely take home more than 5% of a companies overall profit.
Yes you have a point about shareholders, and I think personally, the whole shareholder market that exists should be banned because it's anti competitive, retarded, useless and we only have to look at utility companies to realise how the public are stiffed because a listed company's main obligation is in maximising shareholder return NOT actually doing the job they are tasked with, giving competitive prices to customers.
And yes, Right Said Fred, Ask Jim, Talk To Twat and all the other things she who should be burned introduced are to blame for that. Aspiration was never buying into success, aspiration was in creating our own and now we have shareholders knowing full well that shares can go up and down, bitch that their pensions are worth less.
Tough shit, you haven't done anything to aide the company, it's your own fucking fault. Deal with it and don't bug me.
But your previous political barb of deal with public pensions...an 80 year old, who paid every tax going, raised a family, raised their children's family and so on shouldn't be helped whilst we give people who have never contributed to society get all the help possible....sorry Fred that really is where you lost me.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
I ended with that Fred, because you ignored my previous comment.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
NI you're exactly what's wrong with this country.
No stamina, no concentration....you should feel sorry for yourself.
And if you got that far, you've shown improvement PMSL
Griz.
Agree, as said I'm not a bastion of neutrality. I know the harm Thatcher did to my family. I also know the joke that was Labour and how that affected my family.
But you can't take one report and base your opinion on that, because it's never true. Read eight from different sources and you at least get close is my point.
I have the freedom living on line, when I ain't got anything to do that I do, I fill the time with current affairs so I read wildly contradictory articles depending on who kicks them out.
And the middle ground is truer than what I first read.
But what you are admitting is you take your views from what you see and I wouldn't call AlJezeebies or the Voyeur reliable sources either....take in more mate, and it often takes biased blogs because they don't discuss the headline they discuss the meat because their readership, whilst biased, wants the detail not the fluff.
I disagree we are under the sway of 1% though. Clearly the Tories say yes sir to their paymasters who are the 1%, but you can't accuse Labour and their backing of being 1%. Those in charge, probably are when you look at the Union leaders but between them that at least makes 2% lol
But again the bank bailout wasn't the problem, it was how the country was run...we were unsustainable long before the bak who likes to say yes said bail me out.
And I never talked about your upbringing, I talked about the now dude. Growing up in a council house in terms of now not living in one and how that affects your outlook on life, with similar neighbours of that aspiration and work ethic are totally different.
To put it in perspective incase you think I'm just being personal, I'm not, I'm talking perspective and current experience not life experience - I never lived in a council house until my mum stopped washing my undies or housed me.
But you're definitely posh, a commoner doesn't write match reports like you unless they have some education mate lol
And as for patches on your trousers, give over. We all do that when younger...as we get older it's called recycling.
No stamina, no concentration....you should feel sorry for yourself.
And if you got that far, you've shown improvement PMSL
Griz.
Agree, as said I'm not a bastion of neutrality. I know the harm Thatcher did to my family. I also know the joke that was Labour and how that affected my family.
But you can't take one report and base your opinion on that, because it's never true. Read eight from different sources and you at least get close is my point.
I have the freedom living on line, when I ain't got anything to do that I do, I fill the time with current affairs so I read wildly contradictory articles depending on who kicks them out.
And the middle ground is truer than what I first read.
But what you are admitting is you take your views from what you see and I wouldn't call AlJezeebies or the Voyeur reliable sources either....take in more mate, and it often takes biased blogs because they don't discuss the headline they discuss the meat because their readership, whilst biased, wants the detail not the fluff.
I disagree we are under the sway of 1% though. Clearly the Tories say yes sir to their paymasters who are the 1%, but you can't accuse Labour and their backing of being 1%. Those in charge, probably are when you look at the Union leaders but between them that at least makes 2% lol
But again the bank bailout wasn't the problem, it was how the country was run...we were unsustainable long before the bak who likes to say yes said bail me out.
And I never talked about your upbringing, I talked about the now dude. Growing up in a council house in terms of now not living in one and how that affects your outlook on life, with similar neighbours of that aspiration and work ethic are totally different.
To put it in perspective incase you think I'm just being personal, I'm not, I'm talking perspective and current experience not life experience - I never lived in a council house until my mum stopped washing my undies or housed me.
But you're definitely posh, a commoner doesn't write match reports like you unless they have some education mate lol
And as for patches on your trousers, give over. We all do that when younger...as we get older it's called recycling.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Sorry missed this last night, and agree completely and you've probably just explained it better than I managed in numerous previous posts.
Or course you have to make allowances for quality of work, age, and impairment but if 4 workers get through 20 jobs a day you should as an employer be able to seriously the question the worker who only gets through 10 jobs a day.
You can't currently, especially if they are Union backed because of job specifications and then if you try and raise job spec and demand more, the Unions are equally up in arms.
The hard working suffer, based on those who drag their feet and take it easy.
And whilst I don't agree this should be an issue for big companies, but even small owners have trouble sacking a worker now because the laws are unbalanced.
Having a clash of personalities in a massive company where you have line managers isn't an issue - it happens. But what about the self employed dude who simply cannot get on with the attitude of the bloke he took on. Should quality of work always apply? The employer in that case takes the risk that his replacement won't be as good and the company suffers (his company), but he'll enjoy a better working day.
Shouldn't you have that freedom as a small employer?
OnMeHeadFred
Vital Reserves Team
It would seem that the government have decided that the under-25s are a particularly intractable problem, and that the consequences of missing out on the experiences and disciplines of work are very damaging to their life chances.
If they have reached this conclusion wouldn't it be a good idea to scrap the minimum-wage for under-25s to increase employment opportunities for young people?
It would surely give them a substantial advantage in trying to compete with older more experienced workers in the labour market.
If they have reached this conclusion wouldn't it be a good idea to scrap the minimum-wage for under-25s to increase employment opportunities for young people?
It would surely give them a substantial advantage in trying to compete with older more experienced workers in the labour market.
blackwood_villa
Vital Squad Member
I dont buy this whole idea that if someones parents were on the dole then its ok for them to be as thats all they've known. Everyone who is out of work (through no fault of their own) and who is able to work should be made to give someone back to society. I don't care if it "exploits" them , they exploit the majority of the popultion who are hard working honest living people.
