Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: You have misunderstood the way the tax bands work.
The tax free allowance was put up from £11,00 to £11,500. After that you pay 20% on everything you earn up to £32,000. You then pay 40% until you hit £150,000 when it goes up to 45%.
The 40% band went up from about £43k to £45k at the same time though.
So you pay nothing on the first £11,500, then 20% on the next £34k, then 40% on the next £105k, and then hide the rest in stocks, pension and dividends.
It's been a massive boost to anyone paying tax, and presumably makes more of a lifestyle difference to those that were earning between the thresholds, going from some tax to no tax. But it also benefited those in the 40% (and I assume the 45% band, I think they lose some allowance but I don't really know how they work since I only know 1 person to be in that band and that was only after dumping a careers worth of stock allowance).
Plus wasn't the tax threshold increase a Lib Dem thing?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/17 06:45:27
Plus wasn't the tax threshold increase a Lib Dem thing?
Debatable. They backed it in the 2010-2015 coalition, but the Tories also had no trouble with pushing a slight further increase and maintained those rises even after Cameron won the next election and the Lib Dems were ejected. Then the minute May got in, she actually jacked up plans for the allowance beyond what Osborne had envisioned.
Personally, I think it was originally a mixture of economics and voter strategy for Cameron and Osborne. They hoped to stimulate further spending at the base of the economy to aid with recovery, it gave them an effective verbal comeback on the floor to people saying they didn't care about the poor, and let them shout about how it 'paid to work' whilst squeezing the disabled and those on benefits.
May and Hammond though, I think, actually jacked it up slightly further out of a sense of deliberate 'help the poor and squeezed middle' policy as opposed to for political and economic gains; neither come from well off backgrounds.Why do I think that? Firstly, because there was no political/economic imperative to even do what they've done so far, they could have stuck to Osborne's plans. And secondly, they also went ahead and tied further increases after that to inflation instead of to minimum wage as Osborne imagined. It'll help to keep the living standards for the poorest more in line with living costs as opposed to what the government of the day feels like allocating them.
To help reinforce that, here's what they're doing about the top bracket.
All taxpayers with income of £123,000 or above in 2017 to 2018 have their personal allowance tapered to zero. Therefore they derive no benefit from the personal allowance increase.
In other words, if you're not earning in line with the middle or lower classes, your tax actually goes up, as you no longer get a personal allowance. The rich are actually being stung (albeit exceedingly lightly) to fund part of this tax break for the poor.
I know that for those who are well educated and don't have to worry about money, they wonder why May is still so appealing to those often in poverty, but here's the answer why. At the end of the day, those struggling by know that since the Tories came to power, they have an extra chunk of change in their pocket at the end of the week, and it keeps getting larger. When you're barely living from paycheque to paycheque, that commands a sense of loyalty above abstract meanderings about Brexit, NHS cuts, or a concern about what those in the upper tax brackets are getting. It's the same reason why you rarely actually get the working poor on protests, they're too busy trying to make ends meet to concern themselves with other politics. That sort of thing is for people with time, education, and spare money.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2017/04/17 10:28:24
The council elections are in a few weeks time, and I've got some reading to do, because of that damn STV voting system! Grrrrr!
I like to think I've got some idea how it works, but trying to explain it to other people is a right 'mare!
Please tell me if I'm going wrong. Example:
Ward X 4 candidates and 4 seats up for grabs. 100 votes cast (I'm using 100 votes for simplicity)
Candidate A: 51 votes
Candidate B : 30 votes
Candidate C: 10 votes
Candidate D: 9 votes.
For simplicity' sakes, I rank A,B,C,D 1,2,3,4, with A obviously being my first choice.
Because A got 51 votes, that's a simple majority, so A gets a seat. And the rest of the votes got to B,C,D under STV right? Because technically, your 1 vote goes further?
Where it gets hard to explain is what happens if I only choose C and D and number them 1 and 2...
I need an idiot's guide, or a layman's explanation.
Any hints or tips from people? This is why FPTP and even proportional representation, is so much better.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Compel wrote: So in other words, not really a big deal for anyone. Except for those where it really,really is.
Just to put that in quantifiable figures, in 2010, the personal allowance was £6,475. This year, it's hit £11,500 (and been confirmed it will hit £12,500 by end of this Parliament). The Basic Tax Rate is 20%. Minimum wage, meanwhile, has gone up from £5.93 to £7.50. In other words, someone earning full time minimum wage has gotten a substantial boost to their pay packet.
In 2010, working a 37.5 hour week, your wage would be £11,563.50 per year, and the government would squeeze you for £1017.70 in direct tax, leaving you £10,545.80.
In 2017, working a 37.5 hour week, your wage is £14,625 per year, and the government takes £625.00 in tax, leaving you with precisely £14,000 per annum.
Ignoring national insurance (which has only increased by 1%), that's an increase in the pay packet of the average minimum wage worker of no less than £3,500. That's a huge increase, and it's estimated to have cost the exchequer several billion in lost tax revenue.
Now if you were determined to try and pick holes and claim people are still worse off somehow, doubtless you'd waffle something about increases in living costs or greater strain on the NHS; yet it remains the case that even with extraneous factors the working poorest of this country are far better off in terms of direct finances right now than they were in 2010.
That all sounds wonderful, if you ignore indirect taxation.
The Govt is not losing billions in lost tax revenue, it's making people think they're better off by cutting their direct tax burden, then taking it off them elsewhere in all sorts of sneaky ways to make the Govt look like it's adhering to its ideology of low taxation and more choice.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Any hints or tips from people? This is why FPTP and even proportional representation, is so much better.
No, FPTP is preferred by most people because it is very easy to understand and therefore "feels" fairer. STV voting is not complicated - children can grasp the concept easily. It's the mechanics behind it that feel unfair due to a lack of understanding, similar to how statistics are mistrusted. This is the result of a lack of education on the matter and deliberate obfuscation by parties that have a vested interest (and that includes those who pretend that it is difficult). "Oh, those poor, simple proles. They'll never understand something so mind blowingly complicated!"
If over two thirds of a population are actively opposed to one party, then how the hell is it fair for that one party to win an election just because those two thirds votes are split among multiple other parties? FPTP is only better if by better you mean more simple. As a measure of fairness FPTP is awful.
As the Norn Irish have recently done, it's probably worthwhile to #Votetilyouboak - i.e. if there's one candidate who you can't stand, rank absolutely everyone on the list with them last. This ensures that you have someone who isn't them for your vote to transfer to at every stage, rather than your vote ceasing to have any weight after the candidates you want have been elected/eliminated because you didn't vote for anyone else.
So hold your nose and vote for candidates in order from "Awesome person" to "Vile lunatic" with no gaps.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Any hints or tips from people? This is why FPTP and even proportional representation, is so much better.
No, FPTP is preferred by most people because it is very easy to understand and therefore "feels" fairer. STV voting is not complicated - children can grasp the concept easily. It's the mechanics behind it that feel unfair due to a lack of understanding, similar to how statistics are mistrusted. This is the result of a lack of education on the matter and deliberate obfuscation by parties that have a vested interest (and that includes those who pretend that it is difficult). "Oh, those poor, simple proles. They'll never understand something so mind blowingly complicated!"
If over two thirds of a population are actively opposed to one party, then how the hell is it fair for that one party to win an election just because those two thirds votes are split among multiple other parties? FPTP is only better if by better you mean more simple. As a measure of fairness FPTP is awful.
Thanks for the link
As for your other point, I think the public's suspicion of STV stems from the fact that Nick Clegg is a big fan of STV
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Graphite wrote: As the Norn Irish have recently done, it's probably worthwhile to #Votetilyouboak - i.e. if there's one candidate who you can't stand, rank absolutely everyone on the list with them last. This ensures that you have someone who isn't them for your vote to transfer to at every stage, rather than your vote ceasing to have any weight after the candidates you want have been elected/eliminated because you didn't vote for anyone else.
So hold your nose and vote for candidates in order from "Awesome person" to "Vile lunatic" with no gaps.
Normally, that's what I do. I've got the basics nailed down for myself, but explaining how it works to other people is a 'mare.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/17 11:47:29
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The Govt is not losing billions in lost tax revenue, it's making people think they're better off by cutting their direct tax burden, then taking it off them elsewhere in all sorts of sneaky ways to make the Govt look like it's adhering to its ideology of low taxation and more choice.
Looking at your article and its sources in turn, I think we're all aware VAT exists. It went up by 2.5% since 2011, but it doesn't really account for all that extra cash in the pocket and is mostly borne by the businesses themselves. Supermarkets don't tend to be keen to pass those things on because it makes them less competitive. Council tax rises have been worse, but that depends on where and how you live, and in no way sucks up another three grand per annum. The article in general is also working on the basis of someone being on the average wage, instead of minimum wage.
It remains the case that for your average full time employed minimum wage employee, they are directly financially better off at the moment since the Tories came in. You can try and fool yourself into thinking it's a fudge if you like, but it doesn't make it less true. If you want to attack the Tories, there are far, far better grounds to do it on elsewhere (anyone remember ATOS?).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/17 12:27:17
It remains the case that for your average full time employed minimum wage employee, they are directly financially better off at the moment since the Tories came in. You can try and fool yourself into thinking it's a fudge if you like, but it doesn't make it less true. If you want to attack the Tories, there are far, far better grounds to do it on elsewhere (anyone remember ATOS?).
Whilst a full time minimum wage employee may be better off, how many of them even exist any more? With the rise in use of "flexible" contracts (of which zero hours contracts are the most extreme example) it is possible that whilst people working full time would be better off, there are now way less of them so the people actually working minimum wage jobs are not actually getting any benefit as they are not being given the hours required to approach that higher threshold.
A Town Called Malus wrote: [
Whilst a full time minimum wage employee may be better off, how many of them even exist any more? With the rise in use of "flexible" contracts (of which zero hours contracts are the most extreme example) it is possible that whilst people working full time would be better off, there are now way less of them so the people actually working minimum wage jobs are not actually getting any benefit as they are not being given the hours required to approach that higher threshold.
Errrr... minimum wage rises apply to part-time work also? You'd receive less of a noticeable benefit if you were earning only £6,000 a year since 2010, but the only adults who do that are either on benefits, tax dodging, or teenagers (because no independent working age adult can really live on six grand a year).
So in answer to your question, the zero hours contract is pretty irrelevant to the point being discussed unless you're changing the discussion to now being about 'What the Tories did to poor people on benefits'. Which is a worthy discussion in its own right, but does nothing to detract from 'What the Tories did for those working adults who live off a minimum wage income'.
It remains the case that for your average full time employed minimum wage employee, they are directly financially better off at the moment since the Tories came in. You can try and fool yourself into thinking it's a fudge if you like, but it doesn't make it less true. If you want to attack the Tories, there are far, far better grounds to do it on elsewhere (anyone remember ATOS?).
Whilst a full time minimum wage employee may be better off, how many of them even exist any more? With the rise in use of "flexible" contracts (of which zero hours contracts are the most extreme example) it is possible that whilst people working full time would be better off, there are now way less of them so the people actually working minimum wage jobs are not actually getting any benefit as they are not being given the hours required to approach that higher threshold.
Exactly. Have an exalt.
It's all very well for the government to say that employment is rising and unemployment is falling, but if you're on zero hours, or working for spivs and speculators like Uber, then it's a harsh reality compared to the steady jobs our parents and grand-parents had back in the 1950s/60s/70s.
And when are the government going to stop subsidising business with tax credits and parasite landlords with housing benefit?
There is working Britain the myth and working Britain the harsh reality and never the twain shall meet.
It remains the case that for your average full time employed minimum wage employee, they are directly financially better off at the moment since the Tories came in. You can try and fool yourself into thinking it's a fudge if you like, but it doesn't make it less true. If you want to attack the Tories, there are far, far better grounds to do it on elsewhere (anyone remember ATOS?).
Whilst a full time minimum wage employee may be better off, how many of them even exist any more? With the rise in use of "flexible" contracts (of which zero hours contracts are the most extreme example) it is possible that whilst people working full time would be better off, there are now way less of them so the people actually working minimum wage jobs are not actually getting any benefit as they are not being given the hours required to approach that higher threshold.
Quite a lot actually in manufacturing and warehousing, though in my experience they're mostly agencies so the job security is poor. 2/3 of the jobs I've had have been full time (40hr) minimum wage jobs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/17 13:03:31
The Govt is not losing billions in lost tax revenue, it's making people think they're better off by cutting their direct tax burden, then taking it off them elsewhere in all sorts of sneaky ways to make the Govt look like it's adhering to its ideology of low taxation and more choice.
Looking at your article and its sources in turn, I think we're all aware VAT exists. It went up by 2.5% since 2011, but it doesn't really account for all that extra cash in the pocket and is mostly borne by the businesses themselves. Supermarkets don't tend to be keen to pass those things on because it makes them less competitive. Council tax rises have been worse, but that depends on where and how you live, and in no way sucks up another three grand per annum. The article in general is also working on the basis of someone being on the average wage, instead of minimum wage.
It remains the case that for your average full time employed minimum wage employee, they are directly financially better off at the moment since the Tories came in. You can try and fool yourself into thinking it's a fudge if you like, but it doesn't make it less true. If you want to attack the Tories, there are far, far better grounds to do it on elsewhere (anyone remember ATOS?).
We're not "fooling ourselves" in to thinking it's a fudge, it is a fudge. If every full time, minimum wage employee was wandering about with an extra £3500 in their pockets, as you claim, there would be parties in the streets, but instead we have food banks.
I'm afraid that indirect taxation takes up the vast majority of any extra that we may get through the reduction in direct taxation.
In fact a short Google of Govt tax receipts shows that there has been an increase in tax receipts received by the Treasury over the last few years.
Business rate rises, council tax increases, pension tax relief cuts, apprenticeship levy, rises in VAT, increases in insurance premium tax, higher levels of stamp duty, all these costs will, with a few exceptions, be eventually passed onto the average citizen, regardless of their income. It equates to lots of smaller, varied, harder to track increases in tax that arent as obvious as direct income tax increases.
I think you're allowing the improvement in your own personal circumstances to cloud your analysis of the situation.
As far as I'm concerned there are 6 'evils' that are blighting Britain, holding this nation back, and need to be tackled efficiently and quickly if the nation is to progress.
I doubt if anything will be done about them in my lifetime, but one day, if we're lucky, we might get a government with the guts to tackle them.
The 'evils' are:
1) Taxpayers subsidising business through tax credits to make up for gak poor wages.
2) Parasite landlords making millions from housing benefit and thus contributing to the major housing crisis we have in this nation
3) Spivs and speculators who have ran this country into the ground with taxpayer bailouts and kamikaze banking practices.
4) London. Not the city itself or the people there, but the sheer concentration of wealth and power has created this black hole of London that sucks the rest of the UK into it.
5) Tax evasion, tax avoidance by the rich, the multi-nationals. It's likely to get worse because of Brexit.
6) The gradual erosion of law and order which has left us with incompetent police forces unable to carry out their primary duty, and a prison system at breaking point.
Until these problems are tackled with verve and determination, I see nothing but a bleak future for this nation...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ketara wrote: .... At the end of the day, those struggling by know that since the Tories came to power, they have an extra chunk of change in their pocket at the end of the week, and it keeps getting larger. When you're barely living from paycheque to paycheque, that commands a sense of loyalty above abstract meanderings about Brexit, NHS cuts, or a concern about what those in the upper tax brackets are getting. It's the same reason why you rarely actually get the working poor on protests, they're too busy trying to make ends meet to concern themselves with other politics. That sort of thing is for people with time, education, and spare money.
That's pure patronising conjecture, with no evidence. What about industrial action? Those are working poor people participating in legal, sometimes political public demonstration. I could say that the working poor are too busy to vote too, so loyalty to the party is meaningless, but that doesn't make it true.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/17 13:47:15
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
So it looks like the European Banking Authority and the European Medical Agency will begin the process of withdrawal from London in the next few weeks, probably knowing their new home by June. That'll be an interesting development to see where they end up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/17 14:07:48
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
It remains the case that for your average full time employed minimum wage employee, they are directly financially better off at the moment since the Tories came in. You can try and fool yourself into thinking it's a fudge if you like, but it doesn't make it less true. If you want to attack the Tories, there are far, far better grounds to do it on elsewhere (anyone remember ATOS?).
Whilst a full time minimum wage employee may be better off, how many of them even exist any more? With the rise in use of "flexible" contracts (of which zero hours contracts are the most extreme example) it is possible that whilst people working full time would be better off, there are now way less of them so the people actually working minimum wage jobs are not actually getting any benefit as they are not being given the hours required to approach that higher threshold.
Quite a lot actually in manufacturing and warehousing, though in my experience they're mostly agencies so the job security is poor. 2/3 of the jobs I've had have been full time (40hr) minimum wage jobs.
Agency workers maybe doing 40 hours a week, but they're not full time employees. Having done agency work in the past, you are generally not guaranteed any work at all, and can only work whatever is offered to you. They could be also subject to a zero hours contract with their agency, so it's not really analgous to say that 40 hours work a week equals a full time job. Its a miserable existence being an agency worker, unless it suits you, but there are very few people who choose to be Agency workers through anything other than need. No holiday or sick pay, and an expectation that you'll jump through whatever hoops are flung your way, and they take a cut of your wages. I once worked for a dairy as an agency worker, tied in for 6 months, working six days a week from 1am for £160 a week, and I was doing in excess of 60 hours a week!
Never again.
That categorically does not apply to any of the jobs I have worked. All of my jobs whether agency or direct employment have had guaranteed hours, and all but one have been full time Mon-Fri. You are fully employed until the day you get fired. I wouldn't have accepted the jobs otherwise, and have told the job centre that I'm unwilling to take unreliable ad hoc work with no guaranteed hours, which they respected.
(I do however have the advantage of a fantastic JCP work coach. I've never experienced the typical horror stories you hear from jobcentres).
I do get holiday pay once I accrue it through time worked. I actually checked with my agency last week and they confirmed that I'm getting paid for this Easter bank holiday because I've been employed for 5 weeks and have accrued enough holiday pay.
I only get statutory sick pay which kicks in after 5 days. I was off sick last week for two days (Karate injury).
I once worked for a dairy as an agency worker, tied in for 6 months, working six days a week from 1am for £160 a week, and I was doing in excess of 60 hours a week! Never again.
When? In the last decade? Or it was this 2 decades ago or longer? I'd say that reflects more on that particular agency and that particular industry, then agencies in general. Agencies suck, but they're not all as bad as this.
My problems with Agencies have typically been less to do with the contracts, and more to do with the staff themselves, some of them are more than willing to deceive and mislead you.
I went to register with Castl.e Vie.w, who offered me a "guaranteed interview" with a specific company for a specific role on condition that I attended a 5 day training course (health and safety, lean manufacturing etc). That was 3 months ago...I still haven't had that interview and I'm in employment with a different agency now. Turned out they'd lied to me, C.V. wasn't the agency responsible for hiring for the role, they were just handling the training and then passing our CV's to other agencies who were hiring for the role.
The paperwork had EU "social fund" logos emblazoned on everything, so my guess is it was a scam to claim government funding. Get lots of people in (it was a class of 15+ people) based on false promises ("you'll get an interview at the end of the week"), shove them through a course that you literally cannot fail (the Tutor told us so) and which costs barely nothing to run, claim Government/EU funding and then cut them all loose.
Don't touch CV with a 10 foot barge pole, they're awful.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/17 14:43:52
Quite a lot actually in manufacturing and warehousing, though in my experience they're mostly agencies so the job security is poor. 2/3 of the jobs I've had have been full time (40hr) minimum wage jobs.
The figures are actually there for anyone who wants to view them. There are 31.42 million people in employment in this country, and 8.43 million of them are part-timers. The unemployment register has about 924,000 people on it.
r_squared wrote:We're not "fooling ourselves" in to thinking it's a fudge, it is a fudge. If every full time, minimum wage employee was wandering about with an extra £3500 in their pockets, as you claim, there would be parties in the streets, but instead we have food banks.
That's because other sectors (like disability benefits) have suffered under the Tories, as opposed to the working poor. If you're just going to conflate the issues of every different group, you might as well throw the rich in there as well for all the sense it makes to the specific group I'm discussing.
In fact a short Google of Govt tax receipts shows....
You also keep conflating every area tax is raised in, essentially, and saying that it all ultimately rebounds on this specific group of poor people in some undefined way that completely cancels out all benefits from the changes made to minimum wage and tax-free allowance.
If you want to rabbit on the Tories so badly, you're more than welcome to do so, but on this specific point, namely the financial situation of the full time employed on minimum wage, they have been financially better off under theTory Government. I've provided the figures, and (to a less detailed extent) accounted for changes in VAT, National insurance, and council tax. Waving vaguely at the fact that taxation and food banks exist disproves me in no way.
There are plenty of other groups that have been less fortunate than the full time employed minimum wage group of this country. But trying to lump them all in together and declare 'The Tories have never helped anyone badly off ever!!!!!' just comes across as the sort of overexaggerated broad brush political partisanship you get over the Big Wet. Life and politics have more shades than black and white.
That's pure patronising conjecture, with no evidence. What about industrial action? Those are working poor people participating in legal, sometimes political public demonstration. I could say that the working poor are too busy to vote too, so loyalty to the party is meaningless, but that doesn't make it true.
Find me someone working a sixty hour minimum wage week with kids who isn't facing an immediate severe crisis of some kind that has loads of spare time to go assorted political rallies, and I'll show you someone very much in the minority.
The bottom end of society who are in full time employment and don't possess much of an education (note the specific group being referred to) are usually only brought out into active political protest by issues immediately and pressingly relevant to themselves. They don't usually parade around protesting Donald Trump, for example. People only have so much energy after a week's work.
Agency workers maybe doing 40 hours a week, but they're not full time employees. Having done agency work in the past, you are generally not guaranteed any work at all, and can only work whatever is offered to you. They could be also subject to a zero hours contract with their agency, so it's not really analgous to say that 40 hours work a week equals a full time job. Its a miserable existence being an agency worker, unless it suits you, but there are very few people who choose to be Agency workers through anything other than need.
I worked for G4S as an agency worker back when I was an undergrad. Let me work more or less full time in the hols, and nothing in term time. I got a sheet every month with what was available, and I signed up or didn't as appropriate. One of my friends right now is technically an agency worker for Historic Palaces. He's working full time, and loving it (he just started, and gets full period costume).
There are plenty of gak agency jobs, and you wouldn't want to be trapped in one. I think it concerning that they are on the rise also. I despise the Uber system of employment. Nonetheless, there is a place for them, I think.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/17 14:36:32
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As far as I'm concerned there are 6 'evils' that are blighting Britain, holding this nation back, and need to be tackled efficiently and quickly if the nation is to progress.
I doubt if anything will be done about them in my lifetime, but one day, if we're lucky, we might get a government with the guts to tackle them.
The 'evils' are:
1) Taxpayers subsidising business through tax credits to make up for gak poor wages.
I agree, although the payment of the minimum wage should be taking care of this, if it isn't, why is that? Is it because the minimum wage isn't enough, or that the cost of living is too high? However, paying tax credits keeps business costs down, which keeps them competitive domestically and internationally.
2) Parasite landlords making millions from housing benefit and thus contributing to the major housing crisis we have in this nation
This I agree with wholeheartedly. Its bonkers that we have a situition where we are paying more to private landlords for a sometimes lower quality service than we would do if we had kept social housing.
3) Spivs and speculators who have ran this country into the ground with taxpayer bailouts and kamikaze banking practices.
I have often wondered about the too big to fail argument. Why the Govt chose a handful of privately owned banking business to save, whilst letting other business let the market decide their viability. Nothing regulates a banking sector like the threat of bankruptcy and mass unemployment. All we did is basically tell the speculators and spivs that we were prepared to underwrite their failure, no matter the cost, as long as it continued to make us rich. It'll happen again, of that I have absolutely no doubt.
4) London. Not the city itself or the people there, but the sheer concentration of wealth and power has created this black hole of London that sucks the rest of the UK into it.
I was visiting family at the weekend back down South, and got chatting to a few people in my dad's local. There is a genuine, all encompassing belief that there is absolutely no work north of Watford, and that the rest of the UK lives off benefits and the fat of the South. As long as the belief remains that the rest of the UK has nothing to offer, this will not change.
6) The gradual erosion of law and order which has left us with incompetent police forces unable to carry out their primary duty, and a prison system at breaking point.
Im not sure I agree that there has been a gradual erosion of law and order, maybe an increase in our awareness of criminal activity thanks to media exposure? We also need to rethink what prison is actually for, rehabilitation, punishment or protection of society or all of the above? Is it appropriate for prison to be a sanction for all the offences committed today? Its not just prisons that need reform, but our attitude to crime and it's solution.
Until these problems are tackled with verve and determination, I see nothing but a bleak future for this nation...
Not exactly helped by the fact that on top of your list, we now have Brexit and a hideously divided and angry population. Mostly down to the actions of a particular political party currently being strenuously defended by Ketara.
Our country is facing enormous and diverse challenges, almost every facet of public life could do with improvement. I don't think our current Govt is upto the task, as our political structure simply does not lend itself to long term, sound political decisions. As long as FPTP exists, and politics is driven by political parties, there will be pretty much no solutions to the problems you've outlined.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Not exactly helped by the fact that on top of your list, we now have Brexit and a hideously divided and angry population. Mostly down to the actions of a particular political party currently being strenuously defended by Ketara.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: That categorically does not apply to any of the jobs I have worked. All of my jobs whether agency or direct employment have had guaranteed hours, and all but one have been full time Mon-Fri. You are fully employed until the day you get fired. I wouldn't have accepted the jobs otherwise, and have told the job centre that I'm unwilling to take unreliable ad hoc work with no guaranteed hours, which they respected.
(I do however have the advantage of a fantastic JCP work coach. I've never experienced the typical horror stories you hear from jobcentres).
I do get holiday pay once I accrue it through time worked. I actually checked with my agency last week and they confirmed that I'm getting paid for this Easter bank holiday because I've been employed for 5 weeks and have accrued enough holiday pay.
I only get statutory sick pay which kicks in after 5 days. I was off sick last week for two days (Karate injury).
I once worked for a dairy as an agency worker, tied in for 6 months, working six days a week from 1am for £160 a week, and I was doing in excess of 60 hours a week!
Never again.
When? In the last decade? Or it was this 2 decades ago or longer? I'd say that reflects more on that particular agency and that particular industry, then agencies in general. Agencies suck, but they're not all as bad as this.
My problems with Agencies have typically been less to do with the contracts, and more to do with the staff themselves, some of them are more than willing to deceive and mislead you.
I went to register with Castl.e Vie.w, who offered me a "guaranteed interview" with a specific company for a specific role on condition that I attended a 5 day training course (health and safety, lean manufacturing etc). That was 3 months ago...I still haven't had that interview and I'm in employment with a different agency now. Turned out they'd lied to me, C.V. wasn't the agency responsible for hiring for the role, they were just handling the training and then passing our CV's to other agencies who were hiring for the role.
The paperwork had EU "social fund" logos emblazoned on everything, so my guess is it was a scam to claim government funding. Get lots of people in (it was a class of 15+ people) based on false promises ("you'll get an interview at the end of the week"), shove them through a course that you literally cannot fail (the Tutor told us so) and which costs barely nothing to run, claim Government/EU funding and then cut them all loose.
Don't touch CV with a 10 foot barge pole, they're awful.
It was in fact about 20 years ago, when I was in a pretty desperate situation living on a friends sofa having lost my previous job and flat. I was desperate for work, and that was all there was about at the time, but it made me particularly determined to never get myself into that position ever again. So you could say that in one way it was a positive experience.
I am not surprised that there are still disreputable agencies out there, but it's good to hear that agencies can be positive too.
I doubt I would ever go and work for one ever again though, I'd rather work for myself.
Not exactly helped by the fact that on top of your list, we now have Brexit and a hideously divided and angry population. Mostly down to the actions of a particular political party currently being strenuously defended by Ketara.
The world must be much simpler in monochrome.
I'm sorry, is there another political party responsible for Brexit? Must have missed that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/17 15:11:36
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
It's a bold plan : enact Brexit but then simply refuse to acknowledge any changes that we don't like.
... I guess it'd be kinda nitpicky to point out that these departments leaving would indeed be one of the affects of brexit was kinda pointed out a wee while ago...
Excl: Home Office looking at 'barista visas’ to ensure coffee shops and pubs are still fully staffed after Brexit;
Barista visas.
uh huh.
We'll add those to the list which thus far reads something like : care home visas, nurse visas, teacher visas, retail visas, fruit picking visas, dentist visas.
So far.
..Oh, I vaguely recall something about construction work related visas too.
.. so the only people we appear to be losing are from EU agencies which the Govt. apparently wants to keep and/or various people who've lived here quite happily and peacefully for a good while and people don't want to see deported.
... and Davis is apparently the smart one of the 3 Brexiteers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/17 15:57:37
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
r_squared wrote: It was in fact about 20 years ago, when I was in a pretty desperate situation living on a friends sofa having lost my previous job and flat. I was desperate for work, and that was all there was about at the time, but it made me particularly determined to never get myself into that position ever again. So you could say that in one way it was a positive experience.
I am not surprised that there are still disreputable agencies out there, but it's good to hear that agencies can be positive too.
I doubt I would ever go and work for one ever again though, I'd rather work for myself.
Well there you go then. Your experience is out of date. Bad agencies no doubt still exist, but I doubt they can get away with what you experienced today, employment laws would have changed drastically.
r_squared wrote:We're not "fooling ourselves" in to thinking it's a fudge, it is a fudge. If every full time, minimum wage employee was wandering about with an extra £3500 in their pockets, as you claim, there would be parties in the streets, but instead we have food banks.
That's because other sectors (like disability benefits) have suffered under the Tories, as opposed to the working poor. If you're just going to conflate the issues of every different group, you might as well throw the rich in there as well for all the sense it makes to the specific group I'm discussing.
Because the working poor will be paying for all these things as well even though they've had a direct "tax cut". They won't be any better off at all because they're still going to be paying the same amount of tax, just indirectly. It's not rocket science, but you seem to be having a hard time grasping the idea. I'll just give up flogging this particular dead horse.
In fact a short Google of Govt tax receipts shows....
You also keep conflating every area tax is raised in, essentially, and saying that it all ultimately rebounds on this specific group of poor people in some undefined way that completely cancels out all benefits from the changes made to minimum wage and tax-free allowance.
If you want to rabbit on the Tories so badly, you're more than welcome to do so, but on this specific point, namely the financial situation of the full time employed on minimum wage, they have been financially better off under theTory Government. I've provided the figures, and (to a less detailed extent) accounted for changes in VAT, National insurance, and council tax. Waving vaguely at the fact that taxation and food banks exist disproves me in no way.
There are plenty of other groups that have been less fortunate than the full time employed minimum wage group of this country. But trying to lump them all in together and declare 'The Tories have never helped anyone badly off ever!!!!!' just comes across as the sort of overexaggerated broad brush political partisanship you get over the Big Wet. Life and politics have more shades than black and white.
See above, they're only superficially better off if you completely ignore every other method of taxation being levied. That extra pound in their pocket will make its way back to the treasury one way or another, it just looks like they're better off. Better to be monochrome than one dimensional.
That's pure patronising conjecture, with no evidence. What about industrial action? Those are working poor people participating in legal, sometimes political public demonstration. I could say that the working poor are too busy to vote too, so loyalty to the party is meaningless, but that doesn't make it true.
Find me someone working a sixty hour minimum wage week with kids who isn't facing an immediate severe crisis of some kind that has loads of spare time to go assorted political rallies, and I'll show you someone very much in the minority.
The bottom end of society who are in full time employment and don't possess much of an education (note the specific group being referred to) are usually only brought out into active political protest by issues immediately and pressingly relevant to themselves. They don't usually parade around protesting Donald Trump, for example. People only have so much energy after a week's work.
I've not been to an anti Trump rally, so I haven't asked what the financial status of those involved was, but clearly you have access to more information than me. Did you find a poll that backs up your claim, or did you conflate it from the images in your head of dreadlocked hippies in kaftans? However, at least you recognise that the working poor can sometimes gather the energy to give a gak about more than putting about crust on the table. However, to say that they will be bothered to go and vote for a party, but not take part in any other political activity because they're "too tired" is patronising bollocks.
Agency workers maybe doing 40 hours a week, but they're not full time employees. Having done agency work in the past, you are generally not guaranteed any work at all, and can only work whatever is offered to you. They could be also subject to a zero hours contract with their agency, so it's not really analgous to say that 40 hours work a week equals a full time job. Its a miserable existence being an agency worker, unless it suits you, but there are very few people who choose to be Agency workers through anything other than need.
I worked for G4S as an agency worker back when I was an undergrad. Let me work more or less full time in the hols, and nothing in term time. I got a sheet every month with what was available, and I signed up or didn't as appropriate. One of my friends right now is technically an agency worker for Historic Palaces. He's working full time, and loving it (he just started, and gets full period costume).
There are plenty of gak agency jobs, and you wouldn't want to be trapped in one. I think it concerning that they are on the rise also. I despise the Uber system of employment. Nonetheless, there is a place for them, I think.
I do agree that there is a place for flexible working, that's common sense, but theres a big difference between the situation you were in, which obviously worked well for you, and having to rely on agency work to live, permanently. But as mentioned before, there are some good agencies, and it appears that it works for some people to work like that.
As it happens I also worked for a motorcycle courier company back in the 90s who used the "self-employed" scam that Uber tried. It's been going for years. However, that time it worked for me, as I was able to claim back about £600 in tax that year thanks to my wife sorting out my tax returns. But, just as Uber have been caught doing, I was an "employee", unable to go and freelance at any other company, but had to be available for Diamond couriers Mon to Saturday from 7am to 7pm for whatever work came up. They of course didn't have to pay any NI or PAYE, but that was obviously just a fringe benefit.
Everyone should have couple of gak hard graft jobs under their belt to give them some perspective, and motivation.
Excl: Home Office looking at 'barista visas’ to ensure coffee shops and pubs are still fully staffed after Brexit;
Barista visas.
uh huh.
We'll add those to the list which thus far reads something like : care home visas, nurse visas, teacher visas, retail visas, fruit picking visas, dentist visas.
So far.
..Oh, I vaguely recall something about construction work related visas too.
.. so the only people we appear to be losing are from EU agencies which the Govt. apparently wants to keep and/or various people who've lived here quite happily and peacefully for a good while and people don't want to see deported.
... and Davis is apparently the smart one of the 3 Brexiteers.
Visas for skilled workers definitely, visas for unskilled labour? Only if we can't fill it ourselves, I think we're going to need the employment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/17 15:50:24
I'm sorry, is there another political party responsible for Brexit? Must have missed that.
You're rolling Brexit into it now as well? Blimey, come one, come all. You want to include global warming and our foreign policy towards China into a discussion about a very specific policy impact?
Because the working poor will be paying for all these things...
...paying for what things? Just to recount this specific line of back and forth:-
-I note that you could waffle on about various other points to try and reduce the impact of what I'm saying, but it wouldn't amount for the full total of extra cash.
-You say that food banks exist so it doesn't count.
-I point out that that issue (food banks) doesn't tend to apply particularly to the full time employed minimum wage employees, but another group of people.
-You say that the working poor pay for these things.
What things? Food banks? You're conflating your lines of argument.
See above, they're only superficially better off if you completely ignore every other method of taxation being levied. That extra pound in their pocket will make its way back to the treasury one way or another, it just looks like they're better off. Better to be monochrome than one dimensional.
Errr....I've accounted for income tax, national insurance, council tax, VAT, and so on. Your argument appears to be 'taxations is being increased somewhere somehow and that means that money must be drained from this specific group of people to pay for it cancelling out any other benefits'. Repeating a vague generalisation with no figures or chain of causation doesn't make it any more substantial, y'know....?
I've not been to an anti Trump rally, so I haven't asked what the financial status of those involved was, but clearly you have access to more information than me. Did you find a poll that backs up your claim, or did you conflate it from the images in your head of dreadlocked hippies in kaftans? However, at least you recognise that the working poor can sometimes gather the energy to give a gak about more than putting about crust on the table. However, to say that they will be bothered to go and vote for a party, but not take part in any other political activity because they're "too tired" is patronising bollocks.
I'm working purely off empirical data here. I've held down bog standard jobs on minimum wage for a chunky period of my life, and you talk to a lot of coworkers. Sometimes, you even talk about politics. And I'm not that far gone either, I was doing it up until two years ago. Spread across three jobs with probably somewhere in sample region of around forty coworkers this sort of thing came up with, the average white english minimum wage worker I encountered who voted Tory cited views along the lines of those I've given. I'm perfectly happy to concede to any sort of statistical evidence to the contrary if you can produce it though...?
r_squared wrote: I do agree that there is a place for flexible working, that's common sense, but theres a big difference between the situation you were in, which obviously worked well for you, and having to rely on agency work to live, permanently. But as mentioned before, there are some good agencies, and it appears that it works for some people to work like that.
I don't think you'll find anyone who quarrels with that.
If you want the data, sift my posts in this thread. I provided an extensive statistical breakdown based on financial expenditure earlier in the thread. I'm not doing it again.
And as the data shows Labour were fully in control of the finances up to the financial crash (and had better debt control than the Tories). Once we hit the financial crash options were rather constrained and we don't know whether any other path would have been worse or better. There's a judgement here being made that Labour made bad decisions but we simply don't know that because the situation had never occurred before. The Tories could have been in power and not bailed out the banks starved the poorest of money and things could be a whole lot worse. Conversely it could have all turned out roses. The simple case is no one really had any idea what to do because there was no past references to make a judgement on. Hence a guess was made. Whether that was the right or wrong guess we will have to wait until we have been a hundred or so similar crashes so we can have better analysis. No one knew what the best option was...
I find it somewhat strange that you seem to believe the only two possible motivations for anyone ever doing anything in politics are either screwing or saving the poor. There's a million and one reasons for adopting a policy that can result in either occurring, but which have nothing directly to do with them.
No I can think of other reasons like:-
They are idiots and generally incompetent?
They are evil?
They just don't give a damn and action what they hell they want?
They are really led by the Emperor and Darth Vader in disguise?
They are being paid to sell the country to the US/China/Russia/Kenya?
They want to ruin the economy?
They are on drugs?
They are all round just generally nasty?
See lots of reasons I can come up with
Then you've missed my point. I'm not saying the wealthy shouldn't pay and the poor should, or even the opposite. I'm saying that taxing the rich isn't the solution, because it won't raise enough. Instead, the people who will need to pay are the middle classes (eg the general population) because that's the only way you'll raise sufficient capital to cover the deficit. That means whacking pensions and general income tax for the money.
Ah well you see that's what I mean by the 'rich'. Compared to someone who is earning less than £11,000 they have plenty of money and can afford 80% of things relatively comfortably (excluding central London). Yes there are sacrifices to be made but then that's for the better if it maintains the public services for everyone.
And I reiterate my point this class got 'double' the benefits from changes in the tax systems. They gained from both the increased zero rate tax allowance and the change to when the higher rate kicks in. Hence my complaint that the Tories only favour the rich (i.e. >40kish). What should happen is the poorest get the breaks to help them raise their living standards, but the rich shouldn't be given the same boon because they can already afford most of the things they want. What is a more social way of running things is to give the tax breaks to the poorest whilst offsetting that against the an increase in the tax on the rich £40K+ crowd (so either increasing the element slightly or dropping when the threshold kicks in). That way you can reduce the burden by providing the money on the public sector rather than running it into the ground for the benefit of the rich group. In fact all you do by giving the rich group is make the poorest even poorer relatively and drive a larger gap between the rich and the poor (as the tax breaks can drive a higher inflation than the poor can withstand).
But that's death by voter suicide, so the Tories won't do that. Instead we get Hunt trying to slip by savings by reducing what doctors get with a new contract, attempts to shift the burden of tax gathering onto local councils so the Tories don't look like they're raising taxes, and so on. The Tories aren't trying to hurt the poor and enrich the rich, it's more that they know whacking the rich won't raise much and hitting the middle classes costs votes. So instead we get a million ways of slipping through sly cuts as a way of trying to fix the deficit without breaking the system.
Those cuts may well end up killing the patient instead, but it isn't the deliberate end goal/motivation.
It's just the same, turning a blind eye is not an excuse! But you are still justifying what I said all along that the Tories are in it for themselves and have no interest in improving the lives of the poorest.
We'll add those to the list which thus far reads something like : care home visas, nurse visas, teacher visas, retail visas, fruit picking visas, dentist visas.
So far.
..Oh, I vaguely recall something about construction work related visas too.
They would be better off making a list for those that won't be allowed in for work purposes, it would be a much shorter list, which currently stands at, erh um, well there doesn't appear to be any...perhaps they should go back to free movement after all it's going to cost a fortune to manage all these visa groups.
It's a bold plan : enact Brexit but then simply refuse to acknowledge any changes that we don't like.
It's the Theresa May way, didn't you listen to her statement on Easter Sunday...
I've always stated that I thought DD was an idiot and this just adds more evidence to the pile. Still maybe there will be bargain basement offices to let in Canary Wharf in the near future, so all is good...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/17 19:42:26
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
