howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#2
You can tell it was bad, Barry isn't talking about it
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#3
I'm sure he is, David. Just not on here.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
You're right there Peter. Barry is now the chief recruiting sergeant for UKIP on Facebook.
Getting back to the subject matter Charlie obviously fed Dave on the 25% bit in Dover but forgot to mention those working for less than the living wage and P & O staff facing drastic pay cuts.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/mp-in-clash-over-wage-28031/Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#5
This 'living wage' thing is not a concept of great beauty. While a minimum wage can be expressed as £x per hour, surely a 'living wage' ought to be £x per week. Working 60 hours a week at the minimum wage produces much more income than 35 hours at the 'living wage'. Working 60 hours a week is no hardship, I don't know a small business owner who does less than that. Forcing employers to pay more than the economic value of their employees' labour just costs jobs.
Surely the way round this and the zero-hours controversy is to express the living wage as a weekly sum (£240, perhaps) and force zero-hours employers to either pay it or free their employees to work for more than one employer.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#6
peter,a 40 hour minimum contract with a decent wage would be nice.with a decent hourly rate of pay that cuts out tax credits would be also good.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#7
Yes Brian, that would be lovely. So would free beer and fags. But we are talking about reality, not Shangri-la.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#8
peter,you are allfull but I like you.
did you say free fags and beer between 2 and 4.if so I will be down later.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
I am not talking anywhere much these days, work has taken over....... I am and will get the odd blog in though here and there.
It was a clever budget with Osborne playing a blinder with a limited hand. Lots of positive things about it.
I have always said from his very first budget he should have cut faster and more deeply and the truth of that is demonstrated in the continuing defecit.
Those of you who have been against cuts should not complain about the deficit or borrowing as it would be many times worse than it is now if you had your way.... chances are we would have had a sterling crisis and another financial collapse.
David - As I have said before you and UKIP can say whatever you like as you are not likely get the responsibility of governing, unless it is propping up a Miliband government. As I said before, in the unlikely event of UKIP being in that position your support will fade like a morning mist when the reality of governing bites.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#10
The over supply of labour compresses wages, its the most basic rule of economics. All the while we have people coming here willing to work for low pay nothing will change.
Successive govts have got this dreadfully wrong and show no signs of either understanding or solving the problem.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#11
Clever budget electorally but not for the country as a whole, there is talk of even deeper cuts to public services in spite of increased borrowing and an ever larger debt.
Something doesn't add up.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#12
Barry, you say Osborne was clever which is tory speak for: he told plausible lies.
Whichever way you dress it up, conservative support has dropped enormously over the last 3 decades and is continuing to do so. Until you address the reasons why you will have nothing to offer except alternating between abusing Labour and UKIP.
Considering the tories haven't won a General Election since 1992 you might want a rethink of your approach.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#13
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
David, lies..... political speak and UKIP are no better or worse than anyone else.
Howard - of course it is good for the whole country. Public spending remains excessive and if the IFS is right and if it gets brought down as a percentage of GDP not seen since the 30's then that means a more stable economic background. A high tax burden to pay for excessive public spending damages our ability to sustainably fund health and pensions along with other essentails. Unsustainably high public spending as a percentage of the economy is the primary cause of our economic problems. We have to get the burden down relative to GDP and link public spending more to a successful economy.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#15
Who is paying for it all Barry?
Wages down in real terms £1600 on average per person.
Public sector wages frozen.
Benefits Frozen.
A million people using food banks.
Public services cut to the bone.
The office of budget responsibility says that we are not even halfway with public spending cuts.
Bob Whysman
- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,948
#16
You ask 'who is paying for it all' Howard.........
A lot of borrowing is part of the answer and according to the recent document I received from HMRC a lot of pensioners, like myself, who pay income tax on their pensions. (According to the breakdown part of my tax bill even funds some of my own 'state' pension which I paid in for when I was working)!
Also low rates of interest on savings reduce the value of our savings and help fund cheaper mortgages for many too! I don't use a bus pass but part of my tax also pays for bus passes......need I go on?
Each political party say that they have the remedy for all our problems but have yet to prove it! Election manifesto's turn out to be nothing more than flawed job applications engineered to join the 'gravy train.'
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#17
The government tax breakdown never included income tax paying interest on government bonds ,so the banks and politicians can have free money ,or private sector debt being moved on to the taxpayers,
Or asset striping the public to give taxpayers assets to there Tory rich friends.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#18
We all have to pay for services through taxation that we don't actually use ourselves Bob.
Never used Fire and rescue, Social services, Probation service and as I have never been arrested I have had no need of Judges, cour tclerks or magistrates.
Nice to know they are there for me though.
PS I think Keith is referring to the selling off of the successful East Coast main line.
Bob Whysman- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,948
#19
Silly me!!?
No, I understand what you say Howard, but I was referring to Income Tax only. This tax is taken from many who planned their finances for the future whilst others who did not, benefit from their thrift.
The HRMC breakdown of individual income tax 'contributions' is probably another unnecessary expense but, for those eligible and interested, throws up food for thought.
It may, or may not, contribute to the pot that funds many of the services you quoted but the fact remains the taxation system favours some sections of society more than others.
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#20
or the great Eurotunnel sell off.