- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
and help to keep the site free for all
The budget
- Thread starter POAH
- Start date
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
So you, not we.
- Messages
- 1,036
- Name
- Gerard
- Edit My Images
- No
My wife and I.
And of course that'll be 3 budgets this year, the one in April, this so called emergency budget, and of course we'll get one in the autumn too
Your point is what exactly?
Wrong, it is not based on pollution....Pollution is a flat rate, value of the car makes it more expensive
Car tax is based on emissions.
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, those zero hour contracts really help people wanting a secure job...
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Amazing. especially considering there were only 2.5 million people out of work in 2010 !
You may be surprised to find that rather a lot of people left schools over those 5 years, and then there's the immigrants. They also needed jobs.
Bit surprised by the weakness of your comment.
Yep, all 2 million were zero hours contracts, lol
I've not seen a single service get cut that has not been without good reason. Example, housing benefit no longer paid to households earning over £30k a year (I guess that was helping the rich).
There was a huge cafuffle over the cuts in the fire service, but the reason for it was, see if you can guess? ........... Less fires! Not less budget as the unions would have us believe.
Llamaman
Proud Addick
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, most of the libraries near me are going to close, and it's not because they're not getting used. Same for the parks, SureStart centres etc.
But we can afford a 1bn tax cut for the richest 5% so Britain must be rich, right?
But we can afford a 1bn tax cut for the richest 5% so Britain must be rich, right?
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Have you read the budget, and noted that the surcharge is not based on emissions but on list price value
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's more to do with local governments making cuts in the wrong places just so they can continue to waste the money elsewhere within, looking after themselves.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Fully agree, I see this time and time again. Especially by labour run councils and blaming central government for it. There isn't a policy to do that, those are local level choices.
I'd rather see the size of government be reduced and many of those services being centralised.
- Messages
- 1,036
- Name
- Gerard
- Edit My Images
- No
No because I can't think of a single service I use that is going to be cut.
I voted Conservative in 2010 too despite knowing it would remove child benefit as my wife and I were both above the threshold.
So by all means people here can chuck the evil Tory/class warfare rhetoric around but I actually voted for a party knowing I would be worse off. Most people who vote Labour do so to make anyone but themselves worse off.
Could not agree more.
Every time a union has been offered the choice of smaller wages / more staff or less staff / bigger wages, they always go for the bigger wages. It is a fantasy to believe the "working classes" stick together.
Of the many things Labour supporters seem unable to grasp is that they cannot understand when there is no more money. They seem to think it's a bottomless pit. Run out? Just print some more! And that's the stupidity that got us in this mess in the first place.
Quote your sources for these supposed facts you keep turning up with? I don't mean Russia Today, I mean somewhere a little more credible.
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, but the majority are, and it's not really a laughing matter.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/05/jobseekers-zero-hours-contracts
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm on a zero hours contract, have been for many years. I like it like that. No obligation from either side, perfect for flexibility. Hasn't caused any issue in reality.
But if you don't want a zero hours contract then don't take one. If the employers can't get employees they'll have to change their proposal. As long as they can get enough takers for their conditions then why change them.
All this stuff is really easy and simple, no need to over complicate matter or have government interference in such things.
But if you don't want a zero hours contract then don't take one. If the employers can't get employees they'll have to change their proposal. As long as they can get enough takers for their conditions then why change them.
All this stuff is really easy and simple, no need to over complicate matter or have government interference in such things.
Llamaman
Proud Addick
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The 1bn figure comes from the Treasury - it's the rise in IHT receipts over recent years, largely due to the increase in property in estates subject to IHT.
The 5% is the percentage of death estates which are subject to IHT. Again, from the Treasury and also the OBR.
But if you want a direct link, here's one you'll like - it's a parliamentary research briefing that states when this was first mooted in 2008/09 the cost was estimated to be £3.1bn and only benefit 1.5% of estates. Since then the % of estates affected will have risen, but so too will the cost.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00093/SN00093.pdf
I look forward to reading your fully-sourced counter-argument.
I'm not sure what your reference to Russia Today was about. If you are inferring Russia is still a communist state there's nothing, I, nor anyone else, can do to reverse your lobotomy.
Llamaman
Proud Addick
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But the government already interferes, by forcing those on welfare to take jobs or risk losing their welfare payments. This creates no incentive for employers to improve their job offers - until there is full employment, there will always be a ready supply of workers who are forced to accept whatever contract the employer puts in front of them.
Oh I see. You basically want to stuff the rich regardless. They have already been taxed on the same money many, many times, but that's just not enough for you.
I remember the last time the Labour party went for the rich. We had the worst brain-drain the country had ever seen as those who create our wealth were driven overseas by 98% high rate tax.
Oh really? The majority? As you appear to have missed the point, again, I was laughing at your failure to make sense, not those in need of full time employment.
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
But you do accept the facts that you disputed are correct?
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
A simple argument, but it gets lost on many....
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you've got it the wrong way around. The government interferes by competing with employers versus welfare payments. And not just that by taking earnings away to then give it back.
Yes they interfere with the free market and manipulate choice.
However, it is personal responsibility of the individual as well. You need to make yourself marketable and valuable if you want to improve your conditions. If you want to compete with others that are willing to take those less desirable terms than you need to have a very compelling reason to employ you over someone else.
It's is 2015 and we have low productivity as a country. We must change our ways and live a little.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I had understood that if one repeatedly turned down offers of work, then one's benefits maybe cut. Leaving one with a Hobson's choice as to accept or not. When zero hours contracts are used well they're great - it's when the expect people on standby, with no promise of work they fail. Just MHO
Last edited:
Llamaman
Proud Addick
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You continually make assumptions about my own political affiliations, and you keep getting them wrong. I am not a Labour party supporter or voter and I've never been a member of a trade union.
I was merely making the point that - at a time when we are repeatedly told the country is broke (due to Labour, obviously) and must cut spending, they've somehow found at least £1bn to reduce tax on the richest families. Not only that, but they've done it in such a way as to further drive up house prices, thus making it even harder for those not lucky enough to inherit a home, to be able to buy one.
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Did you fail Maths at school? In what reality isn't 1.4 million out of 2 million a majority?
Do you understand the concept of minorities and majorities?
Looking at your recent posts, are you on some sort of Scrivens/ST4 trolling windup?
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Fully agree, I mean if all wouldn't accept those terms than employers would have to improve those offer. But as long as they can get the staff and are willing and happy with the consequences then why not?
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, and? Make a choice and deal with the concequences.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Sure, but that is the choice someone has got. If they don't want to work for whatever reason then one should take the consequences.
Besides it is much easier to get a job when you are in a job. It is what most of us deal with, plenty of times I don't like certain aspects. I'm an adult and will have to deal with it. And sometimes that is just a case of shut up and get on with it.
An alternative open to everyone is to setup up their business and do it that way.
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So how does a jobseeker make that choice? They take a zero hour contract which gives them a few hours work a week or get sanctioned, how does someone live on £20-£30 a week?
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why shouldn't a government force people to take jobs? There is no reason for able bodied people remaining a drain on the countries economy. Perhaps some employers are unable to make better offers, after all they still have to compete with others and sometimes it's cheaper abroad. When I started work for my employer 36yrs ago, they employed around 50,000, over 40,000 of those at just one location in the UK, the workforce now stands at around 10% of that in the whole country and most of it is down to cheaper costs including wages in other countries.