Jump to content

economic situation is dire


Recommended Posts

...so when I work an extra 40 hours a week for my 2nd job I have to give 40% of it away...

You contribute that money in order to pay for roads, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, emergency services, bombing foreigners, the expenses of former PMs, opportunities for many 'private sector' businesses and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Labour Party has become embroiled in a race row after a prospective female councillor was told she was 'too white and Jewish' to be selected.

Mrs Cohen had applied to stand as a Labour councillor for the Birmingham ward of East Handsworth and Lozells

Oh come on now Tony, poor effort. You could have put a tabloid spin on that to mislead people into believing all labour supporters are racist and anti-semitic based on an isolated case

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
...so when I work an extra 40 hours a week for my 2nd job I have to give 40% of it away...

You contribute that money in order to pay for roads, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, emergency services, bombing foreigners, the expenses of former PMs, opportunities for many 'private sector' businesses and so on.

and lots of people who cant be bothered to work's Sky TV....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
scrapping London waiting

London's such a busy place. How would you go about doing that? :winkold: :lol:

I was hoping they would validate their comment as was sort of interested to see where they would go with it....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
I hate this mentallity of taking money of the few who managed to make themselves serious wealth. Thats theirs and they earn't it.
Mostly they didn't actually earn it - they were paid it, but mostly didn't merit it. They effectively, many of them, made themselves seriously wealthy through things like Luck, exploitation, borderline illegality, avoidance of taxes, and climbing all over other people. Not all of them, but many.

That's quite a big generalisation there Pete. Lots of people have made big money by selling products/services that people like/need, and doing it either before or better than anybody else. Of course there are examples of the people you describe, but then there are also lots of people who have made money by taking a chance, employing people and increasing the wealth of the ecnomy as a whole.

Yes, I agree. I tried, while generalising to make clear it's not "all rich folk", but nevertheless, many rich folk are rich as much through ,er, fortune as owt else. Whether it be born to rich families, born in the right place, so they can benefit from better education, or having a skilled potential workforce in their area - many many of the things that even your archetypal "hard working self made man" utilise are down to luck as much as their own hard work. And then there's the real people I was talking about and mentioned who are rewarded way beyond a level of merit, fairness, or justification from their efforts.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
I hate this mentallity of taking money of the few who managed to make themselves serious wealth. Thats theirs and they earn't it.
Mostly they didn't actually earn it - they were paid it, but mostly didn't merit it. They effectively, many of them, made themselves seriously wealthy through things like Luck, exploitation, borderline illegality, avoidance of taxes, and climbing all over other people. Not all of them, but many.

That's quite a big generalisation there Pete. Lots of people have made big money by selling products/services that people like/need, and doing it either before or better than anybody else. Of course there are examples of the people you describe, but then there are also lots of people who have made money by taking a chance, employing people and increasing the wealth of the ecnomy as a whole.

Yes, I agree. I tried, while generalising to make clear it's not "all rich folk", but nevertheless, many rich folk are rich as much through ,er, fortune as owt else. Whether it be born to rich families, born in the right place, so they can benefit from better education, or having a skilled potential workforce in their area - many many of the things that even your archetypal "hard working self made man" utilise are down to luck as much as their own hard work. And then there's the real people I was talking about and mentioned who are rewarded way beyond a level of merit, fairness, or justification from their efforts.

Question is, where is the bar set, how do you set it? When is it too much?

How do you state what somebody is worth? If someone earns 15K a year but makes a loss of to the company of 15K. i.e. they are of no value or someone who gets paid a million but can quantify a profit to the company and the economy of multiple millions. Also if they dont earn the money here, they can earn it somewhere else on the global market. If thats the case then its a global problem (which it is). How do you go about solving that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Investment bankers and foreign exchange dealers, futures........they make money by moving money from one commodity to another, they can make millions in 10 minutes, its not their money they use, its risk free (the government bails out it time of real need). The most important thing is where is any value added? nothing is produced, just profit for profits sake. It upsets (IMO) the whole foundation of capitalism.

London weighting......market forces should increase wages, they should not be artificially maintained. If its to expensive for people to live in London then business should move out to cheaper area's. All imho.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote="Michelsen"]

What exactly is the big difference between trade Unions...? Are you being serious...? The point that your suggesting there is little difference between trade Union and Banks is comedy gold it really is...! I will give you a clue. One organisation has helped ruin the global economy which has caused mass record levels of unemployment, University fee increases, Pension increases, closures of youth clubs and libraries ect ect. The other helps defend you in your work place and fights for better working rights for million in the country.

Which ONE organisation are you talking about? Could you perhaps attempt to consider the good that the banking industry has done? Trade unions do many good things as well - perhaps more good than the banking industry. I won't make myself judge of that. Trade unions still only represent a little over 20 per cent of Britain's working population, though. And sometimes, just sometimes, trade unions can be a little uncooperative, placing their own agendas over the welfare of the nation - as is their wont. The point being, neither of whom should have that level of influence over political decisions. The original point, however, was that political influence, be it from bankers or trade unions, does not equate ownership or total control.

Could I consider the goods that banks do...?! Is that a joke...! The banks are motivated by one thing and one thing only – Greed. don’t even pretend that they are some saints that have been hard done by, Do not play that card. The banks have gambled with people’s life savings and as a result millions of people have suffered. While the fat cats at the top have got away Scott free where is the justice in that.

One of the best policies introduced to this country as voted by the public was the minimum wages. This was not introduced by the banks, the trade unions fought for this right for a long time.

The point I was trying to make is these cuts are partly Ideological. Irrespective of the time difference debt is debt.

How much were we in debt after the war and when did Britain introduce the NHS....?

Some cuts may be ideological. That does not mean that some cuts aren't still necessary.

Debt is certainly debt, but debt is not defecit. Debt is a possible outcome of deficit. So the question remains: how long can you continue to run a (massive) budget defecit? Until your debt is so big you can no longer service it? And you cannot ignore the time difference, because we are talking about deficit not debt. You can run a (big) deficit and put yourself in (a lot of) debt when there is plenty of room for revenue increase. The potential for revenue increase in post war Britain was gigantic and practically limitless. I would not bet my savings (granting opportunity for jokes about the banking industry doing that for me) that the same is true for Britain's economic future today.

Wrong – There are two basic ways in which to reduce the deficit that has been deliberately hyped by this current government...?

One – cuts

Two – increase income.

When there are billions and billions of pounds outstanding from tax evasion and 100 billion pounds being spent on Trident. Then maybe our income revenue streams should be re analysed. Have you thought about why this current governments has Barely mentioned going after the missing billions through Tax evasion. Is it really worth paying 100 billion pounds (this is money I can’t even complement the value of) on something we have never ever ever ever used....?!!!

How much were we debt with after the second world war and when did we finish paying that off...?

When did I say that. All I want is fairness and equality for the masses and not the minority.

Of course you do...!

To what extent and what are you going to about it? That is an honest question. I am very open to ideas of how fairness and equality can be achieved. I'm all for it, you see (depening on the definitions of fairness of equality, obviously).

See previous answer.

Would you want the following figures to be higher lower or stay the same “ 70% of the worlds wealth to be owned by 1% of the worlds population.

I don't disagree with you at all. What should we do about it and are those numbers relevant for Britain? That's not me being nationalistic (why should I be nationalistic on behalf of Britain anyway?), I'm just trying to limit the scope of the discussion.

The point it there is to much wealth at the top which is shared by two fewer people so it does not matter mainly about figures.

Out of interest where do you stand politically...? Left, Right, centre or not at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
Question is, where is the bar set, how do you set it? When is it too much?

How do you state what somebody is worth? If someone earns 15K a year but makes a loss of to the company of 15K. i.e. they are of no value or someone who gets paid a million but can quantify a profit to the company and the economy of multiple millions. Also if they dont earn the money here, they can earn it somewhere else on the global market. If thats the case then its a global problem (which it is). How do you go about solving that?

Oh I don't have the solution, I doubt there is a practical one, but I do think it's widely recognised that there is an inbuilt unfairness or call it what you will in our Society (and others). I like the idea of a ratio - where the highest paid person in a co can "only" earn a set multiple of the lowest paid person's wages. Be it 20 times or some other figure. I mean if you own a cleaning company, paying people 10 grand a year to clean rooms or toilets or whatever, then 200 grand a year seems fairer for the highest paid - the efforts of all the 10 K a year cleaners will be the thing bringing in the wealth as much as whoever started the company.

I think shareholders should vote on remuneration and the vote should be binding, not advisory, as it is now. This doesn't solve the issue - what about actors who are self employed, or footballers with a short career or many other examples, but TBH those kinds of people are exceptions to the mass of directors, board members, financial traders, council heads, and all kinds who get wages in excess of any kind of natural value.

The system we have is broken. I'm not against Tonyh or Risso making good money from some hypothetical or real career - good luck to them, genuinely. Once you get into millions per year, there's almost no one who really either justifies that kid of money, or who needs it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you get into millions per year, there's almost no one who really either justifies that kid of money, or who needs it.

oh i agree the the people being paid millions is immoral ..the problem is £100k + sees you being taxed at 50% and that is where a lot of company directors / owners fall into and I just can't agree that this makes them so wealthy that they should by taxed at that sort of rate ..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

It's perhaps easy for me to say, as I don't earn that kind of money, but paying 50% on earnings over 100 grand a year seems fair enough to me, given where we are, economically, against much of the alternatives. They don't pay the 50% on all the earnings. I think most people should be able to struggle along on 8 grand a month at the 22/40% rate then anything extra taxed at 50%, surely

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you get into millions per year, there's almost no one who really either justifies that kid of money, or who needs it.

oh i agree the the people being paid millions is immoral ..the problem is £100k + sees you being taxed at 50% and that is where a lot of company directors / owners fall into and I just can't agree that this makes them so wealthy that they should by taxed at that sort of rate ..

How many of them actually pay 50% of their total earnings in tax?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you get into millions per year, there's almost no one who really either justifies that kid of money, or who needs it.

oh i agree the the people being paid millions is immoral ..the problem is £100k + sees you being taxed at 50% and that is where a lot of company directors / owners fall into and I just can't agree that this makes them so wealthy that they should by taxed at that sort of rate ..

I think that peple who earn less than this, which is the vast vast majority of people, would ALL gladly pay 50% tax if they could earn that amount, in fact it would be a dream come true for them. The only people who would winge about it are, surprise surprise, the people who are the incredibly lucky tiny minority living in comparitive absolute luxary to 95% (probably more, I dont know the stats) of the world population that actually 'earn' that amount.

The only quibble i would have with paying that amount myself is how the government piss it away on beurocracy blowing up nations of small brown people and bailing out super rich bankers. hmmmm, maybe I do agree afterall :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Agree with everything but the final part. Pensions have to change as people are living longer than when the current retirement age was set. Its painful but with an ageing population we need to work longer".

If we can spend 40 million a day in Libiya setting fire to it.

Terrible example. Think what you will of the military operation in Libya but it is a one off cost. Pensions are a long term budget commitment.

Theres no money left remember we cant afford any thing " We are in it together" we have to cut cut cut....?! We are being told this hype on a daily basis. Weather it be 20 million or 50 million, this is still a lot of money

How could you afford to take an expensive holiday if you owe a lot of money and are spending lots and lots on interest per day.

In a place where we don't even need to be why should we be spending millions per day setting fire to the place - this is about morals and ethics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you get into millions per year, there's almost no one who really either justifies that kid of money, or who needs it.

oh i agree the the people being paid millions is immoral ..the problem is £100k + sees you being taxed at 50% and that is where a lot of company directors / owners fall into and I just can't agree that this makes them so wealthy that they should by taxed at that sort of rate ..

Are you sure you are taxed 50 % of your 100k.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you get into millions per year, there's almost no one who really either justifies that kid of money, or who needs it.

oh i agree the the people being paid millions is immoral ..the problem is £100k + sees you being taxed at 50% and that is where a lot of company directors / owners fall into and I just can't agree that this makes them so wealthy that they should by taxed at that sort of rate ..

Are you sure you are taxed 50 % of your 100k.

Are you saying that if you earned 150 000 per year you would be taxed £75 000 and not 30 000..?

You might want to check you calculations sun beam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Could I consider the goods that banks do...?! Is that a joke...! The banks are motivated by one thing and one thing only – Greed. don’t even pretend that they are some saints that have been hard done by, Do not play that card. The banks have gambled with people’s life savings and as a result millions of people have suffered. While the fat cats at the top have got away Scott free where is the justice in that.

One of the best policies introduced to this country as voted by the public was the minimum wages. This was not introduced by the banks, the trade unions fought for this right for a long time.

And fair play to the trade unions for that! I have never, ever suggested that the trade unions don't do a great deal of good. I have also never suggested that banks are saints who have been hard done by. I do not think that at all. But banks do provide a function in our society that is as necessary as trade unions which is something it might be wise to appreciate. All of this is obviously entirely beside the point. Both banks and trade unions are, essentially, agents with inavoidably biased agendas who principally have the same right to influence politcal decisions. Who is more worth listening to for advice as a different question all together. I'd say both sides are worth listening to.

Wrong – There are two basic ways in which to reduce the deficit that has been deliberately hyped by this current government...?

One – cuts

Two – increase income.

That is exactly what I just said.

When there are billions and billions of pounds outstanding from tax evasion and 100 billion pounds being spent on Trident. Then maybe our income revenue streams should be re analysed. Have you thought about why this current governments has Barely mentioned going after the missing billions through Tax evasion. Is it really worth paying 100 billion pounds (this is money I can’t even complement the value of) on something we have never ever ever ever used....?!!!

I have no desire to defend the current government. I absolutely detest tax avoidance so I agree with you that this should be looked into very closely indeed. But I can only speculate that filling tax loopholes is not enough to balance the budget. As usualy I believe it's a very good idea to look at both sides and make compromises. I won't take side in the Trident debate but just as your example with the military operation in Libya Trident is not strictly a long term budget commitment.

How much were we debt with after the second world war and when did we finish paying that off...?

That's just not relevant! Debt isn't the big problem!

See previous answer.

In which the solutions presented require no systemic change at all.

The point it there is to much wealth at the top which is shared by two fewer people so it does not matter mainly about figures.

Of course it matters about the figures. I would agree that the top 1 per cent owning 70 per cent is too much but I'm not necessarily in favour of a perfectly even distribution either.

Out of interest where do you stand politically...? Left, Right, centre or not at all.

That depends on the issue, the situation and the context. I'm often left, occasionally slightly to the right but predominantly I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't support any specific political party though with the possible exception of a strong preference for the Democratic party (as the much lesser of two evils) in the US. I am generally sceptical of partisan politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
Theres no money left remember we cant afford any thing " We are in it together" we have to cut cut cut....?! We are being told this hype on a daily basis. Weather it be 20 million or 50 million, this is still a lot of money

How could you afford to take an expensive holiday if you owe a lot of money and are spending lots and lots on interest per day.

In a place where we don't even need to be why should we be spending millions per day setting fire to the place - this is about morals and ethics.

You miss the point, mate. Being in debt is not the big issue here. It is running long term, giant deficits that will eventually break your neck financially. These deficits are overwhelmingly a result of long term budget commitments that are too expensive. One offs like Libya disappear in next year's budget. Long term budget commitments that are too expensive will just become a bigger and bigger problem until you actually deal with them or end up not being able to deal with them at all.

To make my analogy a little more precise: Let's say I have been spending more money than I've earned and I try to cut down my everyday spending to avoid ending up in unservicable debt and eventual personal bankruptcy. Then I learn that my brother needs two thousand pounds for something that is aboslutely vital for him. It is okay for me to put a small dent in my own finances to help out my brother. It is after all not a long term commitment. I can not, on the other hand, continue my everyday spending. Furthermore, if I had decided not to spend the money on my brother it would not have meant I would have avoided cutting two thousand pounds off my annual personal expenditure. If I continue commiting to that over spending the problem would still be there next year and the year after and so on and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â