View Full Version : Government Cuts
rob murray
20-Oct-10, 17:45
Well its in the open now, without going into the details, how will planned cuts hit Caithness ? Public sector cuts = job losses..everyone agrees on this, those affected in theory are expected to pick up private sector jobs or pseudo private /public jobs...Caithness has a narrow private sector..can the Caithness private sector pick up the slack ? Or put pointedly, peripheral areas ( most of the Highlands out with the inner moray Firth ) have always survived because of the public sector sector : can these areas absorb public sector job losses ? Just starting off what will be, I would imagine, a long and interesting thread !
I doubt if Caithness will be hit too hard to be honest.
None of the defence cuts will affect us directly, and as for public sector jobs, outside schools and the NHS how many are there in the county?
I thought the good old highland council had done its best to get the jobs out of Caithness and into Golspie/Inverness already?
Here is a Link to the Spending Review published today by the Government in PDF Format. If you had to pay for this it would cost you £45.00.
http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2010_completereport.pdf
And this one as well
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hmtreasury/sets/72157625203358900/show/
.
The closure of Vulcan which I mention on another post will hit skilled engineers- and their families should Mr O decide it should go. But just think how many jobs could be shed if the swimming pools and libraries go?
But hey- haven't the Woolies shops been taken over? Friend of husband does the refit on the factory shop premises. Fine as long as we don't all decide to copy mr O and insist on bare essentials only- esp with VAT going up for the first time in January
The closure of Vulcan which I mention on another post will hit skilled engineers- and their families should Mr O decide it should go. But just think how many jobs could be shed if the swimming pools and libraries go?
But hey- haven't the Woolies shops been taken over? Friend of husband does the refit on the factory shop premises. Fine as long as we don't all decide to copy mr O and insist on bare essentials only- esp with VAT going up for the first time in January
Vulcan was shutting down long before the defence review. It's fate was decided years ago regardless of any new Trident programme.
Libraries and swimming pools are financed by the Highland Council, which recieve their funds from the council tax, unaffected by the nationwide cuts.
rob murray
21-Oct-10, 17:35
I doubt if Caithness will be hit too hard to be honest.
None of the defence cuts will affect us directly, and as for public sector jobs, outside schools and the NHS how many are there in the county?
I thought the good old highland council had done its best to get the jobs out of Caithness and into Golspie/Inverness already?
Schools, NHS, Highland Council ( use your eyes what about local service points / local service delivery, plenty going on there ) HIE CASE, JCP etc...all employ locally and all will be hit ( along with fast streamed de manning at Dounreay ) The local private sector can pick up the slack eh !
Schools, NHS, Highland Council ( use your eyes what about local service points / local service delivery, plenty going on there ) HIE CASE, JCP etc...all employ locally and all will be hit ( along with fast streamed de manning at Dounreay ) The local private sector can pick up the slack eh !
The Education budget or that of the NHS have not been cut.
The council might have to make cuts, but I'd imagine they'd be done outwith the county as so many jobs have already been moved to Inverness and Golspie.
HIE/CASE etc, fair enough, but how many do they employ in comparison?
Dounreay has nothing to do with these government cuts either.
I still believe Caithness is getting off very lightly in comparison with other areas.
Ah- but given that there is now a cap on housing benefit- and Caithness has cheap affordable housing- all those lovely homes that haven't sold, expect lots of folk on benefit moving up north- that'll keep the schools and hospitals full...
Ah- but given that there is now a cap on housing benefit- and Caithness has cheap affordable housing- all those lovely homes that haven't sold, expect lots of folk on benefit moving up north- that'll keep the schools and hospitals full...
Very true.
As much as I don't want to see it happen, I can imagine it might.
However, surely all these people spending their benefits will boost the local economy?
rob murray
22-Oct-10, 17:25
The Education budget or that of the NHS have not been cut.
The council might have to make cuts, but I'd imagine they'd be done outwith the county as so many jobs have already been moved to Inverness and Golspie.
HIE/CASE etc, fair enough, but how many do they employ in comparison?
Dounreay has nothing to do with these government cuts either.
I still believe Caithness is getting off very lightly in comparison with other areas.
You either have second sight, or are choosing to be blind. All local services ( and there are many that have to be geo centric ) have to be subject to review = savings = knock on effect. I am suggesting that, inclusive of Dounreay which is going anway, the detail of the cuts will undoubtably affect a community whose prime economic driver ( alike most of the highlands ) has been centred around the public centre. Private sector growth is supposed to mop up those who lose public sector jobs, where is the private sector growth opportunities in Caithness...seriously ? If it aint there, where do school leavers, college graduates, redundant ex Dounreay workers, redundant public sector workers get work from ? Seriously what are your suggestions here ?
rob murray
22-Oct-10, 17:26
Very true.
As much as I don't want to see it happen, I can imagine it might.
However, surely all these people spending their benefits will boost the local economy?
Yep very true, expect a busy Lidl's
rob murray
22-Oct-10, 17:31
The One "The council might have to make cuts...post"
I suggest that you just google Highland Council Cuts, drill down a bit and you will see that the situation is long past might have to make cuts
Are you retired by the way ?
The One "The council might have to make cuts...post"
I suggest that you just google Highland Council Cuts, drill down a bit and you will see that the situation is long past might have to make cuts
Are you retired by the way ?
You seem to be very interested in other peoples business
rob murray
22-Oct-10, 20:14
You seem to be very interested in other peoples business
Is that the best you can come back with...just wondered if you were retired...Im trying to understand your mind set / approach here...you obviously are quite comfortable with whats comming up...I thought that with that attitude you had to be comfortably well off retired.. and can ride out any service cuts etc etc
You either have second sight, or are choosing to be blind. All local services ( and there are many that have to be geo centric ) have to be subject to review = savings = knock on effect. I am suggesting that, inclusive of Dounreay which is going anway, the detail of the cuts will undoubtably affect a community whose prime economic driver ( alike most of the highlands ) has been centred around the public centre. Private sector growth is supposed to mop up those who lose public sector jobs, where is the private sector growth opportunities in Caithness...seriously ? If it aint there, where do school leavers, college graduates, redundant ex Dounreay workers, redundant public sector workers get work from ? Seriously what are your suggestions here ?
Rob,
Your original post, at the begining of this thread asked "how will the the planned cuts hit Caithness?". This was under the heading "Government cuts".
Apart from Dounreay, which has not been affected by the cuts, where are the majority of public sector jobs in Caithness? There must be a lot in Education and Health, which are not being cut, and then some in the council, although a lot less than in the past.
Its not as if we've got a huge government department like DVLA or a tax office employing the majority of the workforce.
Now I go back to my original point. I don't think Caithness will be affected as much as other areas because of the government cuts announced in the last week. We'll certainly not see anything like the job losses in Moray.
As for the lack of jobs here now and in the future, I don't have the answer. I would suggest that unless we can attract new industries the outlook isn't too good.
And no, I'm not retired. I work................in the private sector.
The One "The council might have to make cuts...post"
I suggest that you just google Highland Council Cuts, drill down a bit and you will see that the situation is long past might have to make cuts
Are you retired by the way ?
The council are not funded by government, the council are funded by council tax.
Council tax hasn't risen in 4 years, that is one of the reasons for the council cut, wages and costs have risen but income not so.
If we want less council cuts, we'll have to pay more tax.
The council are not funded by government, the council are funded by council tax.
Council tax hasn't risen in 4 years, that is one of the reasons for the council cut, wages and costs have risen but income not so.
If we want less council cuts, we'll have to pay more tax.
Well I don't claim to be an accountant but a cursory glance at the Highland Council's accounts seems to reveal that Council tax only accounts for less than 20% of Highland Council funding, the bulk is made up from central government grants.
Well I don't claim to be an accountant but a cursory glance at the Highland Council's accounts seems to reveal that Council tax only accounts for less than 20% of Highland Council funding, the bulk is made up from central government grants.
I stand corrected.
Is that the best you can come back with...just wondered if you were retired...Im trying to understand your mind set / approach here...you obviously are quite comfortable with whats comming up...I thought that with that attitude you had to be comfortably well off retired.. and can ride out any service cuts etc etc
No no, I don't think we will ride the cuts without any difficulty and I wouldn't say I'm comfortable with it. But I don't see an alternative. We've been living outwith our means for too long and now are in debt.
John Little
22-Oct-10, 21:02
Hm - the only problem with that is that most of us have not. I have been living within my means, going to work, paying my mortgage and doing that sort of stuff- like a lot of people. And I have never had a credit card in my life and don't want one.
And knew nothing of sub-primes or stock market gambles or MP expenses.
So frankly, if all those hard working bankers get multi-million pound bonuses and people take to the streets and start smashing bank windows I'd find it very tempting to join them.
They go on about cutting back benifits and getting people back into work and some of the people that are unemployed say they can get jobs i heard this on the radio and the other person pointed why is it foriegners from other countrys travel hundreds of miles to the uk and manage to find jobs but our own people that are unemployed cant find job makes you wonder the chap on the radio has a good point
Like most things it depends were you live if there is lot of work or not in the area u live
Government now allows local councils to own wind farms etc and sell renewable energy to the grid direct.
A wind farm like Causeymire probably earns about £15 million per annum in electricity sales and ROCs. About 10 publically owned wind farms would relieve every household from having to pay Council Tax. Interesting thought in these troubled times...
i heard this on the radio and the other person pointed why is it foriegners from other countrys travel hundreds of miles to the uk and manage to find jobs but our own people that are unemployed cant find job makes you wonder the chap on the radio has a good point
Probably because theyre living 10 to a room and getting paid cash in hand.
I read with interest this thread and am a tad shocked at some of the comments regarding foreigners '10 to a room', bankers earning millions of pounds in bonuses and gripes about cuts in the public sector.
I moved to Scotland 5 years ago and am now priveliged enough to attain cheap uni fees, free prescriptions (soon!), eye tests and reduced dental fees. Not in England & Wales. Foreign workers find jobs because rather than complaining about not finding work, they do the work that locals feel is beneath them. Many employers prefer to employ eastern europeans because they have an amazing work ethic, are prepared to work long hours, do not expect every perk under the sun and are reliable.
We have been accustomed in this country to the idea that we 'deserve' or are 'entitled' to something and moan when we don't get it. Perhaps this is the shake up required. Instead of this misconstrued idea that 42" tvs, sky, a pack of fags and a tin of Tenants is a 'right', maybe its about time that people realised when needs must, a job scrubbing toilet floors is just the ticket.
As for these million pound bonuses popularised by tabloid press, I can assure you that an extrodinarily tiny fraction of investment bankers receive them. Moreover many commute 3-4 hours a day to and from the office and home, work 70-80 hour weeks (not unusual by a very long stretch of the imagination) and sacrifice monumental amounts of time and dignity to work in these banks. I can assure you many people would refuse to work in some of the environments, be subject to the aggression required and work to the extent they do. Added to this your career is very likely to be over at 40-45 and traders lack a skill base that can take them elsewhere. Many end up as hackney cab drivers - rarely complaining. They are not backed by unions, so you screw up and you are often out the door with no more than a fake smile. People may knock them - but there is nothing to stop anyone from going off and entering the profession, if you are prepared for the kind of sacrifices it takes. In fact many ex-traders are eastend boys who came from abject poverty and never wanted to endure it again. Tabloid-fuelled, chip-on-the-shoulder attitudes soon u-turn when the opportunity to achieve the same presents itself.
I do not agree with all the cuts, but given that the banking industry, the square mile in particular contributes to 4.2% of this country's GDP, yet the welfare state costs us 36% of it, I wonder which provides the net benefit?
Has anyone also forgot that we went from a country with one of the largest gold reserves, to one with nothing because a certain Mr Brown decided to sell it off when it was trading at its lowest level in history - therby jepordising our credit rating and appeal to foreign investors? To add insult to injury, he then failed to use the revenues to invest in anything sustainable or substantial.
Yes cuts are coming, yes times will be tough byt frankly maybe its time for a rethink in people's attitudes. Anyone sitting at home typing away at their pc/laptop from home in a heated house with the tv on and a fag in hand should consider themselves pretty darn lucky.
John Little
23-Oct-10, 08:50
Believe me - I am weeping into my porridge....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/02/is_rbs_right_to_pay_bankers_13.html
Plenty more where that came from.
"Moreover many commute 3-4 hours a day to and from the office and home, work 70-80 hour weeks (not unusual by a very long stretch of the imagination) and sacrifice monumental amounts of time and dignity to work in these banks."
Is this junior doctors we are speaking of?
Nurses?
Teachers?
Firemen?
Police
AA men?
Ambulance people?
Men out on patrol in Afghanistan?
Oh - investment bankers.
Right...........
I know very few fireman, teachers, doctors, nurses who commute such hours and pay 4-5k for a seeason ticket to do so. Also teachers (there are a few in our family) do have generous holiday entitlements. Doctors eventually reap their rewards also.
Steven Hester has chosen not to take his bonus but he is right, skilled bankers are being lost to banks like Barclays Capital (who lets not forget was not bailed out by the taxpayers), Citibank and the like. Pay in any sector is relative. Part of the problem with the public sector is that many of the workers within it (not all by a long short, but many) are there simply to collect final salaries (which no longer exist in the private sector),and are ineffective as workers. Clearing out the chaff and rewarding those who are dedicated to it with higher salaries should happen - but unions protect those appalling workers. I know of many who work in education for example, who are enraged by poor teachers for who simply cannot be fired - and it is our children who suffer. It is a simple fact that you have to pay for talent, if you don't then be prepared for the fall out. Barclays and Citibanl are 2 very good examples of why this is necessary and it is no different in any other profession, except the public sector. It is a false labour eceonmy, ironically poropped up by the tax payer - what a paradox.
You are however overlooking the choice factor - investment banking is not a closed profession. Anyone can go and do it, many try and feel the sacrifices are too great and drop out. By the same token, people chose to become fireman, teachers etc fully aware one would hope of what it entails. I should add fireman do not work such long hours however admiral their job. And as pointed out, they are heavily backed by unions that can hold a counrtry to ransom. (see France) I would also add that people throw this term investment banker around as they they understand what it is and simply don't. i know many investment bankers working 60-70hr weeks (excluding communting times), earning well under 45-50k, but people don't want to hear about them. The vast majority earn under 70k. yes this is a lot of money, but no more than a doctor or head teacher. It doesn't suit people's argument to hear this though. Added to this a 1 bedroom house in London where many have to work, will set you back £200k (min£1000 pm to rent)- its all relative and none of this is taken into consideration when people throw exaggerated figures around.
As I said previously, many of those who knock it would soon change their minds if they had the opportunity to earn it. If people work hard how can anyone begrudge their earnings? I am not a supporter of the Fred Goodwins of this world, however he is simply not representative of the average investment banker.
Entitlement is earned not guaranteed. Work ethic in this country overall is poor and part of the problem is the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude stemming from the relative wealth we all enjoy. If you don't think so, think about the vast majority of countries and people in this world who do not have a social welfare state to fall back on. One which is propped up quite considerably by those high earners, who, in my experience actually don't begrudge doing so. There is however a limit. And watching someone who has barely worked in their adult life have their rent paid, bills subsidised and fags bought by the tax payer, is insulting - particularly when they then believe they are worth some sort of minimum wage. Therein lies the difference between the eastern european worker, investment banker and those I am referring to above.
John Little
23-Oct-10, 11:13
"I know very few fireman, teachers, doctors, nurses who commute such hours and pay 4-5k for a seeason ticket to do so. Also teachers (there are a few in our family) do have generous holiday entitlements. Doctors eventually reap their rewards also. "
So let me get this straight. These poor bankers get up at the crack of dawn, they struggle miles to work - and pay to do it. They work all day, straining every muscle to earn money to support the rest of the workshy creeps without a work ethic. Their conditions are cold, hard, dirty and aggressive. Their working lives are short and stressful and they deserve to walk away, not just with their wage but a bonus on top which may run into millions.
You and I live on such different planets that discussion is probably entirely superfluous.
But I think you, probably need to get out some more and see some life for your statements appear to me to come from a very sheltered existence.
I leave you to the tender mercies of my fellow Orgers - many of whom have seen life - but I suspect a lot have not see your posts - yet.
Oh - my wife works in an office. She commutes 4 hours a day - along with everyone else in her train. Her season ticket cost a lot too.
She works in a hospital medical school.
Not a bank - and gets no bonuses.
And I have never had a 'bonus' in my life - I have a wage to live with.
Many employers prefer to employ eastern europeans because they have an amazing work ethic, are prepared to work long hours, do not expect every perk under the sun and are reliable. No. They are employed because they are cheap labour, employers will tell you the rest to justify sacking perfectly capable staff.
I can assure you that an extrodinarily tiny fraction of investment bankers receive them. Moreover many commute 3-4 hours a day to and from the office and home, work 70-80 hour weeks
Ohh pity the merchant bankers, we should set up a fund for them. Oh wait, we did. I should send them my old jumpers to keep them warm this winter, I'm welling up, I can feel it in my chest.......like bile!
They choose to commute from the stockbroker belt where they will live in relative luxury in a sumptuous mock tuder pad no doubt.
70-80 hours a week, yeah been there done that. You'd be surprised how many people do work long hours, quite often for pennies.
I know people that work in the financial sector, and not one of them on less than £100k basic.
I'm off now to sell my granny so I can send some money down the the poor merchant....now what's that word that rhymes......
Well said Phill.
How much did you get for your granny, by the way.:lol:
Firstly, i think your response regarding a sheltered existence is totally unfounded, I have lived in several countries around the world and within the uK have livein the South East, Aberdeen Thurso and Wales. I have worked in the banking sector and now work in the public sector. I had a highly successful career in the banking sector and never took a bonus of over £100k - I wish! I worked my nuts off like many people. recently I was unemployed and despite being a 40% tax payerwas entitled to no benefit, merely my NI stamp. this was because having been in full-time education, I had not paid enough NI in the last 2 years. I have self supported myself for 4 years in order to reeducate myself prior to this so that I could enter my new profession and now earm 30% less than the minimum wage - have no pension and no savings. My choice indeed, but I was at a point where I defaulted on my mortgage and couldn't even pay my fuel bills until I had the news that I had a job. The assumptions you make lack about me lack credence.
I know of no doctors living in abject poverty and certainly don't begrudge them thir wage. I think teachers do an amazing job, but my point stands, bad ones are impossible to fire and continue to be funded by the tax payer. I note you respond only to the arguments that suit you - but they seem to lack any insight at all. Investment banker is an umberella term that includes those individuals earning far below the figures being thrown around.
I am sure the likes of Alan Sugar and Duncan Bannantyne, who did not have the privelige of a heated home, did not start out with the attitude - I haven't got it, therefore why should everyone else have, they wouldn't be where they are if they did. Do you begrudge them as well? Moreover, those footballers whoose salaries are augmented to levels quite beyond reality (see Wayne Rooney), are supported quite happily by every subscriber to Sky sports and do they receive such a knocking.
I am open to discussion, but it needs to be based on facts and experience.
I am open to discussion, but it needs to be based on facts and experience.
You've picked the wrong forum for that....
It appears that may be true, but democracy is based on open debate - I hope!!
Mrs Bucket
23-Oct-10, 13:07
I dont feel qualified to comment on the situation but I am enjoying the post. So far I am . in agreement with John Little and Phil
John Little
23-Oct-10, 13:51
" i know many investment bankers working 60-70hr weeks (excluding communting times), earning well under 45-50k, but people don't want to hear about them. The vast majority earn under 70k. yes this is a lot of money, but no more than a doctor or head teacher. It doesn't suit people's argument to hear this though"
I do not know a single investment banker.
You speak of earning sums of money in a year that I would never even dream of aspiring to. And find it ok to get bonuses on top of that.
"The assumptions you make lack about me lack credence. "
I assume nothing. You have travelled and lived - and seen what you want to see. If you tell me that you've lived on an inner city estate, or visited people who are so poor that the contents of their box-flats look like they came from the council tip; if you tell me you've seen or experienced how it feels down the hard end of life then you might get credence. Untill then I think you travelled without seeing.
But no - you make excuses for people already earning more than most ever make for pushing their noses further into the trough.
70K? National average wage is £23,000 and a lot don't even get that.
"I note you respond only to the arguments that suit you - but they seem to lack any insight at all."
I respond to the kernel of what you have said - an apologia for greed.
The rest, as they say, is commentary.
Healthy debate is good, methinks. But I just can't see where Mr Little has provided any evidence to support his argumentds and neither has ther been a response to arguments put forward - just a c onstant referral to 'investment bankers'. My personal experience having worked in the banking industry for a number of years, of the very many earning no higher more than head teachers and doctors but without the union support and final salary pensions. Yes I know of a few earnoing substantial incomes but added to those 60-70 hr working weeks are the 15-20 hr commutes, making for quite a sacrifice to family life.
On the other hand, the exorbitant waste I see now I work for the public state would force most private companies to bankcruptcy. Ah let me see, the public sector is by accountcy definitions bankrupt - but propt up by the taxpayer so more concealed. Take out those high earning bankers and the contribution to the Treasury is estimated to be reduced by 11% (inclusive of those bankers living abroad but paying UK tax) - not withstanding the coporate tax - could the UK endure that reduction? Added to this is the charitable donations (see SPARKS as a prime example).
The wealth created in the city provides a substantial contribution to charities (and again not begrudged by bankers or banks), the social programmes they invest in and also initiate(inner city schemes, education, children's charities) are considerable. Added to this is the secondary and tertiary knock-on effect to the economy. How many people in caithness have rented out their holiday homes to wealthy bankers. Trust me, the estates in the Highlands benefit hugely from the corporate events held by bankers. I should also point out that Edinburgh is home to the city with the second largest amount of funds under management in europe - a little known fact, but a great source of wealth creation.
I note with interst Mr Little thatyou live in Kent. If you are a homeowner, no doubt you will be elated with the broker belt effect (that now extends as far Hastings), that will have seen your house rise in value considerably so that you may enjoy a substantial abode in Caithness should you choose to return here. And in anticipation of a retort alluding to my sheltered life, I have family in Tunbridge and know the area very, very well and return often to visit friends who I left behind when I moved here.
I wonder if these arguments are little more than extensions of tabloid perception, designed to highlight the worst - it wouldn't be a story otherwise.
John Little
23-Oct-10, 14:01
Yawn.
I don't read tabloids.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8540020.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/21/fsa-chief-bonuses-executive-pay
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLNE61B00320100212
http://www.ft.com/indepth/bank-bonuses
There's plenty more out there.
I know some investment bankers. They get paid ok for what seems to me to be a fairly uninspiring and spiritually unrewarding job. I suspect the ones that work long hours do so because they're not very good at it and they have little else in their lives. What I don't know is which is the cause and which is the effect.
The ones I know near the top are on a month long sailing trip in the Caribbean. I was asked to go with them but stepped back when I heard the word hurricanes! :eek:
Duncansby
23-Oct-10, 14:30
Yes I know of a few earnoing substantial incomes but added to those 60-70 hr working weeks are the 15-20 hr commutes, making for quite a sacrifice to family life.
I can't quite see the validity of your argument that we should feel sorry for the poor bankers with the bonuses because they work a 60-70 hr week and commute 15-20 hr a week. You mentioned the 'broker belt' pushing up house prices as bankers identify these areas outside London as the place to raise a family. I'm inferring here but I think that's what you are driving at? But...
No one is forcing bankers to live outside London and commute 3.5 - 4 hours each way to work - they chose to. As I'm sure many non-banking workers also chose to do. The same applies to the working week you mention they chose to work in that profession and work those hours. A lot of people in this country work similar hours, often in two or more jobs and usually for minimum wage. None of this excuses the fact that the irresponsible actions of the banks has brought this country into financial crisis.
You may not read tabloids (although some would debate The Guardian - champagne socialist is often a reference used to describe their readership, I certainly know many of them), but neither do you substantiate your arguments with anything concrete.
I'm with Womble. :cool: We always knock people who do well (better than us) in this country. And the fact is, without them we would have to join the Shyte Creek Paddleless Canoeing club :lol:
Imagine the senario that this UK had to function on the taxes paid only by people on minimum wage. Or imagine an independent Scotland in the same boat. Don't make me laugh.
John Little
23-Oct-10, 14:52
You may not read tabloids (although some would debate The Guardian - champagne socialist is often a reference used to describe their readership, I certainly know many of them), but neither do you substantiate your arguments with anything concrete.
You do move in exalted circles! Investment bankers, and champagne socialists.
Wow!
My arguments are substantiated by just about every news report I read, by speeches from politician after politician in all parties, on the radio, the internet, magazines - and just about every organ for the disseminating of information that I can think of. That's where most of us get our information.
What substantiates yours?
Or do you just 'know' better?
Ducati - even the Tories want to clamp down on the bonus culture.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5487933/Banks-should-not-return-to-bonus-culture-George-Osborne-warns.html
Watch it - you'll have the whips after ye!
Womble - you appear to be after an argument but actually I can't be bothered - I'm trying to work on this very long document at the moment.
Folks - I'd be glad if someone else could take this up - grand-daughters are arriving soon and I have to get this done.....
One thing that always surprises me about investment bankers is how little they know or understand. They can do arithmetic and understand how profit and loss and borrowing and interest work and some can even predict what will happen next year but that's about it. Most politicians are the same, especially Conservatives that espouse super-naive so-called common-sense accounting in lieu of proper macro-economic and monetary policies. You'd think they'd never even heard of Keynes and how he peed on Thatcher's gates and saved the world.
It's as if there are no Complicated issues (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=97867) for The new prime minister's guide dog (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=105148) to peruse. Milton has taken us to the butcher's this week. I fear he has the attitude of a naive banker but he at least has Vince Cable (http://vincethedog.com/) to explain complicated issues to him. One thing for sure is that he's a right-wing toff.
This country would be better off ruled by witches. Most of us understand how the economy works better than politicians do.
As I say, I earn 30 % less than the national wage. I do not ask and make no mention of feelig sorry for bankers - they don't ask for pity themselves. I merely point out that banker banshing is often (not always, but very often) done against a background of ignorance.
In response to my experience with povery. Yes I have experienced inner city life which is why i can speak of it. I worked as a volunteer for Shelter for 9 years and saw horrendous poverty. I also experienced it myself and being unanble to put a potoato on your plate is no fun at all. Moreover I continue to make a monthly donation to charity, although much reduced given my current situation.
However, pity is often a luxury afforded by the bourgeois to those whose situations are markedly better than those they pity - and often patronising to the recepients of it. I do not see only what I want to see, i actively seek to help those who cannot even afford money for their electricity meter. how many here actively give up several hours of their time a week to do the same. takinga bag of unwanted goods to a charity shop is not the same thing - though I fear we digress.
The point I am making is that it is all to easy to make assumptions without peeling back the layers. I can name you at least 5 bankers who have lost their family homes in the last 14 months. They were not huge mansions in the middle of 20 acres, for the most part 3-4 detached bedroom houses. by the same token, I can also name those who do live in large houses. I could have achieved that too, but was unwilling to make the sacrifices in order to do so, that's what separates them from me. How can I begrudge them, just because I was unwilling to do so.
I am very grateful for the things I have like a home, food on the table and the ability to afford a laptop (luxury) and pay for the broadband (luxury)allowing me have this conversation. Should I give this up because somebody else can't afford it?
i note my points in respect of charitable donations and social programmes were ignored as well as my comments relating to the Scottish estates that continue to employ many locals. Make no mistake, directly or indirectly, many have and continure to benefit from the wealth creation eminating from th City.
A final point, we may decry the banking system - but how many out there were happy to take those 100-90% mortgages that were offered and then claim ignorance to the consequences of payment failure? I note with interest the large number of 2nd, 3rd, 4th local homeowners that exist in Thurso for instance being rented out to non-locals who appear to keep the market bouyant, and good for those homeowners. Ignorance is not a defence in law and neither should it be in matters of finance. If you don't have the money - you can't have it, not a brainstormer of a concept really. I hear it said to children often after all.
We are all capable of bettering ourselves, but how much we want to sacrifice in the process is the key question - and that is an individual choice. thank the lord for the ability to have that choice.
Anyway off to help my 88 year old ex-neighbour who is without family and needs help carrying wood for her fire - not very investment bankerlike of me I know, but as I say, generalisations are the cornerstone defence of ignorance.
One thing that always surprises me about investment bankers is how little they know or understand. They can do arithmetic and understand how profit and loss and borrowing and interest work and some can even predict what will happen next year but that's about it. Most politicians are the same, especially Conservatives that espouse super-naive so-called common-sense accounting in lieu of proper macro-economic and monetary policies. You'd think they'd never even heard of Keynes and how he peed on Thatcher's gates and saved the world.
It's as if there are no Complicated issues (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=97867) for The new prime minister's guide dog (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=105148) to peruse. Milton has taken us to the butcher's this week. I fear he has the attitude of a naive banker but he at least has Vince Cable (http://vincethedog.com/) to explain complicated issues to him. One thing for sure is that he's a right-wing toff.
This country would be better off ruled by witches. Most of us understand how the economy works better than politicians do.
The trouble with witches is they get outsmarted by small children. Fancy not seeing the difference between a bone and a finger then getting slammed in your own oven. Even Gordon Brown wouldn't have fallen for that.
One final point Mr Little, I don't move in exalted circles and never claimed to mix with Champagne socialists. I merely pointed out that some have called Guardian readers this in the past.
you will see my range of contacts is from those living on the street or earning money from it sadly (work with shelter) to old people nable to heat their homes to the affluent. this provides me with some credence in respect of my commentary.
However living in the broker belt as you do (remind me again of the average house price in leafy, kent?), you may find homeless people hard to come and it is very far from the inner city. when was the last time you visited Hackney?
John Little
23-Oct-10, 15:16
You may not read tabloids (although some would debate The Guardian - champagne socialist is often a reference used to describe their readership, I certainly know many of them), but neither do you substantiate your arguments with anything concrete.
"champagne socialist is often a reference used to describe their readership, I certainly know many of them),...":confused
John Little
23-Oct-10, 15:21
One final point Mr Little, I don't move in exalted circles and never claimed to mix with Champagne socialists. I merely pointed out that some have called Guardian readers this in the past.
you will see my range of contacts is from those living on the street or earning money from it sadly (work with shelter) to old people nable to heat their homes to the affluent. this provides me with some credence in respect of my commentary.
However living in the broker belt as you do (remind me again of the average house price in leafy, kent?), you may find homeless people hard to come and it is very far from the inner city. when was the last time you visited Hackney?
Of course we all live in mansions in sunny Kent...
LOL - you really want me to trade my recollections with you about when I lived in the East End? Or worked in Bermondsey?
Is that what is needed to establish cred here?
I think I'll pass Mr Banker.
And I'll say it again, just one more time because you seem to find it hard to take in for some reason - I get my information about the world in the same places that everybody else gets it. I have sent you enough links as a sample. You want to ignore it then it's your problem.
Now I'm back to my work and I'll leave you to your doing good.
LOL - you really want me to trade my recollections with you about when I lived in the East End? Or worked in Bermondsey?
Is that what is needed to establish cred here?
I think I'll pass Mr Banker.
Well that's it then.
I can't argue with Tomsk or Bungo because I lived in Hampstead most of the time and also Pimlico so I know nothing. :lol:
John Little
23-Oct-10, 15:47
Oh I give up - there is no way that I am arguing with a champagne socialist witch. She might cast a spell on me, turn me into a pig and then I would just have to go and snurffle in the trough with the rest of them.
I'm orf out of here - I think I'll go and buy some champers at Waitrose in Tenterden- they might even have it on a special offer.
Hampstead and Pimlico sheeesh..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0r5rhwrifo&p=3712A7528311723A&playnext=1&index=53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzWkELIgS2k
Has Mr. Womble joined to wind you all up????????????
Has Mr. Womble joined to wind you all up????????????
I don't care, I'm looking forward to see if he/she can sustain the line of debate without falling off his train.
Does anyone actually know the exact UK debt? I've seen and heard all sorts of amounts from £165 billion to £900 billion.
Where is the definitive source of info?
Does anyone actually know the exact UK debt? I've seen and heard all sorts of amounts from £165 billion to £900 billion.
Where is the definitive source of info?
As good as any: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/
As good as any: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/
Thanks for that.
£952.8 billion. wowee!
now this make me laugh, I was watching an economic programme last night on the BBC and the host was interviewing the Irish Energy minister about the poor state of the Irish economy stating it was in debt by a third of Irish GDP and the minister was very gracious about how his government was tackling it from a rather rude angle of interrogation. And yet it seems the UK is deeper in debt in percentage terms, more like two thirds of our GDP, stones in glasshouses? And the Irish minister was gracious enough not to press that one back.
On the other hand, the exorbitant waste I see now I work for the public state would force most private companies to bankcruptcy.I quite agree, the public sector needs a hell of a shake up, from the top down. Serious commercial nous is required and 'management' needs thinning out.
I'm with Womble. We always knock people who do well (better than us) in this country. And the fact is, without them we would have to join the Shyte Creek Paddleless Canoeing club.I'm not knocking people who do well, far from it. Success is good for all of us, it is good to see people achieve good things and earn good money.
But trying to make out that people choosing a profession that is challenging but yet financially rewarding are somehow hard done by! C'mon.
This country would be better off ruled by witches.Skyclad! Nubile, busty Witches, yes please.
but how many out there were happy to take those 100-90% mortgages that were offered and then claim ignorance to the consequences of payment failure?The banking system, and the financial system shouldn't have allowed it. The financial system failed wholly on control, regulation and risk management. Incompetence of the highest order. And we have to bail them out with £500 Billion then watch as the Gov't make horrendous cuts which are going to have a massive impact across the whole of the UK. All the while there are Bankers still taking huge Gambles (risks) and getting huge bonuses.
I worked in the property / construction industry at a senior (ish) level within a large group. Several years ago I saw something coming, I assumed then a property crash or UK recession. I didn't know or understand just how wild the the whole financial issue was.
I assumed these bankers took educated risks, calculated gambles based on good sense and sound knowledge.
I was seeing people literally getting £millions from banks to gamble on property at a time when it was clearly unsustainable.
And many top level people knew this, yet there was no restraint.
Does anyone actually know the exact UK debt? I've seen and heard all sorts of amounts from £165 billion to £900 billion.With the interest payments on those figures they'll never hold long enough to know.
There are quite some peeing contests going on here folks. I know the most investment bankers, I do the most voluntary work, i earn the least money, I have seen the worst poverty.
It seems to me that where people do a good job they might be lucky enough to get a bonus, if the company they work for is in profit, doing well and not being propped up by tax payers money. It also seems that a bonus of 10 or 15% of ones wages should be more than enough to make anyone smile. Any more than this is just extravagant and should be taxed at a high level to discourage it.
Trying to sell bankers to me as a misunderstood minority is not going to work. They work hard and make plenty money. Whilst I am not minded to think that they are personally responsible for thesituation we are in,I do believe that the organisations they work for are not taking their role in this seriously and RBS are a case in point. Over 1bn in bonuses paid to staff from a bank that is propped up by tax payers money and still making a loss? Where is the sense in that?
It seems that it's ok for the public sector to make millionaires as in the BBC guy with his £900000 pay off but I may very well lose my child benefit when my son enters 6th year; that many people will be forced out of their homes because housing benefit won't meet their rent costs,especially in the southeast where housing is scarce and expensive. But of course, Iain Duncan smith suggests I just get on the bus to go to work like that has never occurred to anyone.
It's all so patronising. It smacks of an 'i'm alright jack' attitude which looks at people on lower incomes and benefits as a burden and a scourge which needs to be broken and punished not supported and encouraged. I too do voluntary work in several different roles. As a member of the board of directors of one voluntary group I am worrying about how we will support our vulnerable clients when the funding is cut. Clients for whom we are often their last hope. As a volunteer for two more groups I am concerned that we are ALREADY seeing people frightened and upset because they can't make ends meet now, what's going to happen when the benefit changes happen.
So forgive me if I am not sympathetic to banks or those people who receive massive bonuses and pay offs, I would tax them at a punitive rate and save my sympathy for those people who really need it.
Tubthumper
24-Oct-10, 10:36
I know a few who have already made a good dunt of cash buying shares in organisations that have 'collapsed' in the last couple of years. RBS is one, tell me it won't get back its feet again in a while. Isn't bust just part of the inevitable cycle?
Can we assume that our economic modellers with their enormous computing power, would have examined the consequences of allowing our bankers (and us as well) to follow the economic autobahn we've all rushed off along, and anticipated the results?
Surely it's not beyond the realms of fantasy to consider that those with a hand on the tiller of government, media and business to be party to the same information, and that this is part of the grand plan.
In that case we shouldn't worry, as they'll have considered a 'recovery' that will work best for all of us.
Recession ma erse!:)
Getting back to the thread :confused
Government only provide public services.
If they need to save money, that is all the spending that can be reduced.
Additionally, they can raise tax. Vat is going up by 2.5%. That's fair, we all pay it. And lets be honest, when it went down by 2.5%, unless you were buying a car or boat, who really noticed?
We proles won't be paying more income tax, I imagine that the tax on beer n fags will be increased again in the next budget (that won't matter because we can't afford them anymore).
So, why all the moaning about fairness?
tonkatojo
24-Oct-10, 11:12
Getting back to the thread :confused
Government only provide public services.
If they need to save money, that is all the spending that can be reduced.
Additionally, they can raise tax. Vat is going up by 2.5%. That's fair, we all pay it. And lets be honest, when it went down by 2.5%, unless you were buying a car or boat, who really noticed?
We proles won't be paying more income tax, I imagine that the tax on beer n fags will be increased again in the next budget (that won't matter because we can't afford them anymore).
So, why all the moaning about fairness?
"Why all the moaning on fairness", when the IFS quote the poorest 10% lose 5.5% of their income and the top 10% lose 4.5%, even a dip like me can work that out.
Tubthumper
24-Oct-10, 11:23
"Why all the moaning on fairness", when the IFS quote the poorest 10% lose 5.5% of their income and the top 10% lose 4.5%, even a dip like me can work that out.
You should have stuck in at school TJ, then you'd be up in the top 10%!
"Why all the moaning on fairness", when the IFS quote the poorest 10% lose 5.5% of their income and the top 10% lose 4.5%, even a dip like me can work that out.
I don't see how that works? anyway 4.5% of the top 10% earnings is a lot :eek:
And the top 10% are losing 4.5% more of the money they earned, the bottom 10% are losing 5.5% (dare I say this) of the money they are being given.
I think closure of the Wick Sherriff Court will be a great cost saving move. The difficulty to get impartial jurors in such a close knit community has always been a huge obstacle to justice anyway.
piratelassie
24-Oct-10, 12:50
Does the Westminster cuts, which are basically English tory driven, not an argument for an alternative approach, i.e. self control of our own finances. I know cuts must take place but can we not cut at our own pace.
I think closure of the Wick Sherriff Court will be a great cost saving move. Getting impartial jurors in such a close knit community has always been a huge obstacle to justice anyway.
No no Rheg. You need to put on George and Vince's thinking caps to solve this problem.
Wick Sheriff Court can be turned into a self-sustaining and even money making weekly event if you broadcast it on daytime TV. The silly names of its regular visitors to the dock will soon be as well known as the stars of Corrie and EastEnders.
An unlimited number of impartial jurors can be sampled from the undead of Portgower.
politians are no more than highway men without the mask how a bout we cut all politians wages to 50,ooo a year and what a saving we could make its us the small people that pay there wages so they should respect the working man
Does the Westminster cuts, which are basically English tory driven, not an argument for an alternative approach, i.e. self control of our own finances. I know cuts must take place but can we not cut at our own pace.
It's a UK budget deficit, not an English one.
It's a UK budget deficit, not and English one.
Don't be so magnanimous. We should claim the credit crunch and indeed much of the UK's deficit as our very own. After all, the collapsed banks RBS and HBoS are, or were, Scottish. Why let the English in Westminster share our very own home-grown mess? :lol:
piratelassie
24-Oct-10, 13:49
Don't be so magnanimous. We should claim the credit crunch and indeed much of the UK's deficit as our very own. After all, the collapsed banks RBS and HBoS are, or were, Scottish. Why let the English in Westminster share our very own home-grown mess? :lol:Home grown???????
tonkatojo
24-Oct-10, 17:42
I don't see how that works? anyway 4.5% of the top 10% earnings is a lot :eek:
And the top 10% are losing 4.5% more of the money they earned, the bottom 10% are losing 5.5% (dare I say this) of the money they are being given.
Personally I don't know how you dare say "given" I for one paid substantially in to the pot for numerous years. 4.5% of £50000 still leaves £47750 while 5.5% of £10000 only leaves £9450, quite a difference to try and live off.
I use these figures loosely.
Personally I don't know how you dare say "given" I for one paid substantially in to the pot for numerous years. 4.5% of £50000 still leaves £47750 while 5.5% of £10000 only leaves £9450, quite a difference to try and live off.
I use these figures loosely.
Your lifestyle fits your income. Who are you to say who is worst effected?
BTW £50,000 isn't even close to being top 10% earnings
tonkatojo
24-Oct-10, 20:17
Your lifestyle fits your income. Who are you to say who is worst effected?
BTW £50,000 isn't even close to being top 10% earnings
Exactly, they get more, but when your spouting fairness or the cons/dems are where is the fairness ??.
Alice in Blunderland
24-Oct-10, 20:37
Can anyone enlighten me on this one.
How much do you need to earn to be in the top 10% of earners in this country ? :confused
tonkatojo
24-Oct-10, 21:00
Can anyone enlighten me on this one.
How much do you need to earn to be in the top 10% of earners in this country ? :confused
Do you think you are missing out on something Alice ?, Do you mean individually or combined salaries.
Alice in Blunderland
24-Oct-10, 21:06
Do you think you are missing out on something Alice ?, Do you mean individually or combined salaries.
I was just wondering what sort of pay takes you into this bracket whether individually or combined. There is so much talk of the top 10% of earners in this country but I wondered what they actually were earning and whether its a huge amount or not. :confused
tonkatojo
24-Oct-10, 21:12
I was just wondering what sort of pay takes you into this bracket whether individually or combined. There is so much talk of the top 10% of earners in this country but I wondered what they actually were earning and whether its a huge amount or not. :confused
The "put put" ;) man might tell you or there is another con man just joined the org his name slips my mind will certainly enlighten you. :(
Now if you want to know the lower 10% just ask the poor sods on minimum wage.
manloveswife
24-Oct-10, 21:12
From what I can find, statistically the top 10% of salaries start from around 50K, the problem is these sort of figures are based on PAYE statistics and it is difficult to asses the earnings of the top earners whose reporting lines are different as they may be contractors, self employed etc.
It may be better to consider that half of the countries wealth is owned by just 10% of people, and 50% share just 7%, these figures are skewed further if you remove dwellings from the statistics.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/images/charts/2.gif
Exactly, they get more, but when your spouting fairness or the cons/dems are where is the fairness ??.
You're just blustering, talk sense :roll:
I think you are just irritated that some earn more than you.
There are many reasons, some are highly skilled, some have a good idea and the nouse to make money from it. Some are just lucky, but I guarantee, all work hard
tonkatojo
25-Oct-10, 08:53
You're just blustering, talk sense :roll:
I think you are just irritated that some earn more than you.
There are many reasons, some are highly skilled, some have a good idea and the nouse to make money from it. Some are just lucky, but I guarantee, all work hard
Not me blustering, maybe your cons and lib dems trying to justify their version of the word "fairness". I don't dispute some make money and work hard at it, but it wasn't me that tried to justify the poorest paying a % more than the well off.[lol]
Once a tory always a tory.
Duncansby
25-Oct-10, 09:44
Your lifestyle fits your income. Who are you to say who is worst effected?
It has been estimated that 1 in 5 in the UK live in poverty (http://http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml). For a family of 4 this equates to £288 or for a single person £119 a week after income tax and housing costs have been deducted (2008/09). How can it be fair to expect those with very little, who struggle to pay the bills every week, shoulder a bigger proportion of the burden than those with ‘disposable’ income? Surely it is only fair to expect those who can survive with a reduction in income to do so rather than punish the poorest in society.
Not me blustering, maybe your cons and lib dems trying to justify their version of the word "fairness". I don't dispute some make money and work hard at it, but it wasn't me that tried to justify the poorest paying a % more than the well off.[lol]
Once a tory always a tory.
Sorry, sorry, I'm just still annoyed every time socialists blame the coalition for the cuts.
If the previous cabinet of Millionaires (as has been established) had been as adept at running the country as they were at acquiring their personal wealth, we wouldn't be in this state.
tonkatojo
25-Oct-10, 10:23
It has been estimated that 1 in 5 in the UK live in poverty (http://http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml). For a family of 4 this equates to £288 or for a single person £119 a week after income tax and housing costs have been deducted (2008/09). How can it be fair to expect those with very little, who struggle to pay the bills every week, shoulder a bigger proportion of the burden than those with ‘disposable’ income? Surely it is only fair to expect those who can survive with a reduction in income to do so rather than punish the poorest in society.
Dear me, you don't half talk common sense, Its a pity the current government won't see it and never will/have. It has always been the tory way of milking the the masses into servitude.
It has been estimated that 1 in 5 in the UK live in poverty (http://http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml). For a family of 4 this equates to £288 or for a single person £119 a week after income tax and housing costs have been deducted (2008/09). How can it be fair to expect those with very little, who struggle to pay the bills every week, shoulder a bigger proportion of the burden than those with ‘disposable’ income? Surely it is only fair to expect those who can survive with a reduction in income to do so rather than punish the poorest in society.
So if being in poverty means you are living on a wage which is below a percentage threshold of the average national wage then by definition the country will always have a percentage of its citizens living in poverty no matter how rich the nation becomes in relation to other countries?
http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml
Paul_and_Anna
25-Oct-10, 11:05
So if being in poverty means you are living on a wage which is below a percentage threshold of the average national wage then by definition the country will always have a percentage of its citizens living in poverty no matter how rich the nation becomes in relation to other countries?
http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml
I'm so tempted to say ..... "That's it in a nutshell."
What is all the fuss about? If you are at least 40 yrs of age you have seen this political/financial situation several times before and if there is a meaning to it then surely it is that they NEVER learn or deviate from the norm.
Luncheon Vouchers Anyone?
Duncansby
25-Oct-10, 11:32
So if being in poverty means you are living on a wage which is below a percentage threshold of the average national wage then by definition the country will always have a percentage of its citizens living in poverty no matter how rich the nation becomes in relation to other countries?
http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml
The indicator of poverty used in this study is worked out on median’s not averages. So if the everyone’s income below the median was increased to the median level the median would remain the same.
Eg. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (where the median is 4)
4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7 (the median is 4)
Similarly, if those whose income was above the median was increased or reduced the median would remain the same.
Therefore, a rise in income of those below the threshold would result in a reduction in poverty; or rather a reduction in terms of the current definition of poverty. I guess it really depends on what you perceive as poverty: absolute, relative, social exclusion…
The indicator of poverty used in this study is worked out on median’s not averages.
The study uses averages but the fact that it mentions median and average interchangeably rather in the strictest mathematical sense changes nothing.
The most commonly used threshold of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the average (median) British household income in that year.
Duncansby
25-Oct-10, 11:51
The study uses averages but the fact that it mentions median and average interchangeably rather in the strictest mathematical sense changes nothing.
The sentence on that page "60% or less of the average (median) British household income" is a bit ambiguous. But the indicator is based on 60% of the average of the median and not 60% of the average of British household income. The median will therefore remain relatively constant as will the 60% average of the median.
There is more here (http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/income%20intro.shtml).
It has been estimated that 1 in 5 in the UK live in poverty (http://http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml). For a family of 4 this equates to £288 or for a single person £119 a week after income tax and housing costs have been deducted (2008/09). How can it be fair to expect those with very little, who struggle to pay the bills every week, shoulder a bigger proportion of the burden than those with ‘disposable’ income? Surely it is only fair to expect those who can survive with a reduction in income to do so rather than punish the poorest in society.
See other post, I have experience of people with disposeable income on Job seekers allowance e.g. they buy fags, beer and canabis. And others on above the national average earnings struggling to pay massive mortgages with no disposable income at all.
You can't measure fairness in the absolute terms people are trying to use here.
And £1200 a month after housing costs and Income tax is not my idea of poverty. That would equate to a salary of over £30,000
Paul_and_Anna
25-Oct-10, 12:02
The sentence on that page "60% or less of the average (median) British household income" is a bit ambiguous. But the indicator is based on 60% of the average of the median and not 60% of the average of British household income. The median will therefore remain relatively constant as will the 60% average of the median.
There is more here (http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/income%20intro.shtml).
Yes ....... I get the point!
But does it really matter? They will make the cuts, the TUC will hold several protests, the public will moan and whine but eventually do ..... absolutely ........ nothing!
I'm sorry to sound so dismissive but these things have quite a history. If you want to be a Politician get on a soap box and throw in your deposit! If you can't in anyway be a part of a better solution then all your figures and posturing simply cause you to be part of the problem.
Politicians have always been Leeches who feed upon others, and if you look at it that way the figures are not important, it is the ACTIONS that really hurt the voters.
Things can change, but not if all you can do is quote figures and percentages. That is ALL too political in the extreme!!!! That's how THEY cook the books, now YOU have to join in???????
Stop voting for them, nothing hurts them more!!!!! :) :)
The sentence on that page "60% or less of the average (median) British household income" is a bit ambiguous. But the indicator is based on 60% of the average of the median and not 60% of the average of British household income. The median will therefore remain relatively constant as will the 60% average of the median.
There is more here (http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/income%20intro.shtml).
How can you have an 'average of the median', the median can only be one value, the average of it is itself.
My definition of poverty is if the household income is not enough to cover the basics like food, responsible heating and modest clothing etc before things like booze, cigarettes and video games are taken off from income.
Paul_and_Anna
25-Oct-10, 12:21
My definition of poverty is if the household income is not enough to cover the basics like food, responsible heating and modest clothing etc before things like booze, cigarettes and video games are taken off from income.
LOL!
You would have made a fine Edwardian.
Duncansby
25-Oct-10, 12:24
See other post, I have experience of people with disposeable income on Job seekers allowance e.g. they buy fags, beer and canabis. And others on above the national average earnings struggling to pay massive mortgages with no disposable income at all.
You can't measure fairness in the absolute terms people are trying to use here.
And £1200 a month after housing costs and Income tax is not my idea of poverty. That would equate to a salary of over £30,000
I get what your saying – there are exceptions for every rule but its not the ‘normal’ families who earn above the national average, it’s those 10% who receive 40% of all personal income.
Is a little under £15,000 adequate to feed, clothe, entertain and provide sufficient heating for a family of 4? I don’t know I don’t support a family
LOL!
You would have made a fine Edwardian.
You might have something there, at least there were proper paupers back then instead of these pseudo paupers.
:Razz
Duncansby
25-Oct-10, 12:28
Stop voting for them, nothing hurts them more!!!!! :) :)
If I stop voting how can I exercise my democratic right? Quantitative and qualitative evidence is often used to support arguments - that's what I'm doing. As for becoming a politician...I'm far to sensible and idealistic to join ;)
Duncansby
25-Oct-10, 12:29
How can you have an 'average of the median', the median can only be one value, the average of it is itself.
If the median is £10,000, wouldn't 60% of this be £6,000?
If the median is £10,000, wouldn't 60% of this be £6,000?
Yes like if the mean was £10,000, 60% would be £6000.
To calculate the true median wage of the UK then you have to put the entire wage earners of the UK in order, then count in from each end of the list until you got to the chap in the middle. I don't believe this is how they calculate the median wage.
You might have something there, at least there were proper paupers back then instead of these pseudo paupers.
Shall we start with the 'Four Yorkshiremen' sketch? I'll take the part of Obadiah.
It has been estimated that 1 in 5 in the UK live in poverty (http://http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml). For a family of 4 this equates to £288 or for a single person £119 a week after income tax and housing costs have been deducted (2008/09).We live in poverty then according to these figures. As a family of four we have far less than £1150 per month to 'scrape' by on.
Oh and a dog to feed, but if we have a bad winter i suppose we could always eat him. Fortunately we don't smoke nor take drugs, I do however have an 'addiction' to red wines, especially a fine New Zealand Merlot but I digress.
Is a little under £15,000 adequate to feed, clothe, entertain and provide sufficient heating for a family of 4? I don’t know I don’t support a familyYes, if you seriously prioritise the funds and budget well.
My definition of poverty is if the household income is not enough to cover the basics like food, responsible heating and modest clothing etc before things like booze, cigarettes and video games are taken off from income.Agreed.
Duncansby
25-Oct-10, 12:46
Rheghead please enlighten me - how do they calculate the median wage if they don't use the median?
Paul_and_Anna
25-Oct-10, 12:58
If I stop voting how can I exercise my democratic right? Quantitative and qualitative evidence is often used to support arguments - that's what I'm doing. As for becoming a politician...I'm far to sensible and idealistic to join ;)
Fair enough. :)
Just one thing though ..... you live in a democracy? So, everytime there has to be a major decision - lets use invading Iraq as an example - you were consulted as to your wishes, or allowed to vote upon that decision? Perhps the government consulted you as to your wishes concerning spending cuts ........
We do not live in a democracy, we are living under and have ALWAYS lived under a feudal system.
Either that, or you have different voting options to the ONE that I have!!!
History, is a great eye opener. :)
Duncansby
25-Oct-10, 13:14
We get a choice in who we elect to parliament and they make decisions on our behalf. In that sense we are a democratic nation. Perhaps there is some truth in the notion that we get the polictians we deserve.
The days of being granted land by a lord and owing allegiance are long gone nor am I obliged to work a set number of days on my landlords farm.
The Land Reform Act (Scotland) swept the last vestiges of feudalism away in 2003.
Paul_and_Anna
25-Oct-10, 13:30
We get a choice in who we elect to parliament and they make decisions on our behalf. In that sense we are a democratic nation. Perhaps there is some truth in the notion that we get the polictians we deserve.
The days of being granted land by a lord and owing allegiance are long gone nor am I obliged to work a set number of days on my landlords farm.
The Land Reform Act (Scotland) swept the last vestiges of feudalism away in 2003.
Yes ...... and no. :)
Study your first line, someone making decisions on your behalf smacks of "Norman" syndrome to me. Plus, if they can make decisions on your behalf which would include taxes ..... compulsory land purchase .... well .... I think you can see where I am going with this. The Norman's might well have started the Feudal system, but trust me, Politicians have turned that idea into a fine art. As I stated earlier, the only way to hurt them is by NOT voting. However ..... study history and you find that it will not work either, because countries with low voting turn outs inevitably make voting compulsory! Australia is a good example of this .......
The economic Political system used around the world has never truly been any use to the "Real" impoverished denizens of this world. Perhaps I can sum it up another way ....
...... I have seen many Sad things in my time, but one of the saddest has to be watching news coverage of a 10yr old boy being executed in a Village in Africa by warring tribesman. They used a British rifle .........
Politicians and politics? Words ... for once .... fail me .....
We get a choice in who we elect to parliament and they make decisions on our behalf. In that sense we are a democratic nation. Perhaps there is some truth in the notion that we get the polictians we deserve.
.
Yes, in that sense we are democaratic, but it raises the question does democracy work?
Our system is a bit like a popularity contest. If the politicians are popular they stay in power until the next election. Therefore, they have to base their policies, at least to some extent, on short term popularity rather than long term good.
Thats very dangerous. What is good for the country is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right. In another post Rheghead points out that scientists believe one of the only ways to cut greenhouse gas emmisions would be by the government forcing us to.
But to do so would be political suicide. So the government won't do whats good for the country or the planet because they have to win a vote in 4 years.
The fact is that you and I aren't qualified to know whats best in every situation. Scientists, sociologists, medical doctors and economists are (in their own fields). Thats one of the principles behind quangos. They make judgements using experts immune from political pressure. Although I agree there was perhaps too many of them and they needed cut, is removing these experts from the decision making process and giving their power to people trying to win a popularity contest the way forward?
Democracy, power to the people, one man one vote etc are all fundamental beliefs in our society which I doubt we will ever change. But the fact is it empowers people not qualified to make those decisions.
rob murray
25-Oct-10, 16:24
I certainly started a debate eh ! I believe in fair play and fairness, is it fair that Highland Council pay their senior management team six figure sum salaries and protected pensions, given the average wage in the Highlands..a fair situation would be to peg salary's to the local economy. Its the managerial waqe and pensions bill ( cross UK cross public sector ) that has caused financial problems, in my humble opinion. Bankers ( city based ) made money ( well some did / do ) no problems with that as its an economic contribution. Is it fair that poorly paid workers are to suffer through regressive taxes ...nah ! Is it fair that dependant people are to lose services..nah..are we all in this together obviously not.. will poeple take to the streets like the French...no doubts about that...give some time for the fine details of the cuts to hit people...
tonkatojo
25-Oct-10, 21:09
I certainly started a debate eh ! I believe in fair play and fairness, is it fair that Highland Council pay their senior management team six figure sum salaries and protected pensions, given the average wage in the Highlands..a fair situation would be to peg salary's to the local economy. Its the managerial waqe and pensions bill ( cross UK cross public sector ) that has caused financial problems, in my humble opinion. Bankers ( city based ) made money ( well some did / do ) no problems with that as its an economic contribution. Is it fair that poorly paid workers are to suffer through regressive taxes ...nah ! Is it fair that dependant people are to lose services..nah..are we all in this together obviously not.. will poeple take to the streets like the French...no doubts about that...give some time for the fine details of the cuts to hit people...
Ah but there could be more sweeteners in the pipeline albeit for the future. (subject to change) like the pension increase Mr Cable released as a hush-up, well that's got the grey voters conned (pun meant). let's wait for the other futuristic cons to sweeten us up more. Oh I forgot the new Harry Potter has just conjured (note the first three letters) up futuristic jobs with the CBI applauding.
Sorry for the thread drift but I just can't help wondering what Peter Dow (http://www.forum.caithness.org/member.php?u=16333) thinks of the cuts.
"We, the people, must be prepared to ask our military to kill the Queen if we are serious about killing her government's cuts."
Lilly livered fence sitter he is.
Sorry for the thread drift but I just can't help wondering what Peter Dow (http://www.forum.caithness.org/member.php?u=16333) thinks of the cuts.
"We, the people, must be prepared to ask our military to kill the Queen if we are serious about killing her government's cuts."
Lilly livered fence sitter he is.
Great post! Brought a smile to my face.
Aaldtimer
26-Oct-10, 02:40
A modern update from the invisible ex leader of the Tories, I.D.S...."Get on a bus"...
"A row over a Government minister's remarks that the unemployed should "get on a bus" to find work has flared up when a study found there were almost nine times more jobseekers than jobs in the city at the centre of the controversy.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said last week that Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales was an example of a place where people had become "static" and did not know that if they got on the bus they would be in Cardiff an hour later and could look for work there.
"We need to recognise the jobs often don't come to you. Sometimes you need to go to the jobs," said the minister, who was criticised by union leaders for being "insulting" to the unemployed.
Research by the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) showed there were 15,000 people in Cardiff chasing 1,700 jobs, while in Merthyr there were 1,670 unemployed people and 39 job vacancies, all temporary and part-time.
The number of people out of work in Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent combined was more than the total number of job vacancies for the whole of Wales, said the PCS.
The vast majority of vacancies in Cardiff were temporary and part-time, mainly unskilled labouring, for just one or three weeks' duration, said the union.
The most popular vacancy on the day the union carried out its research last week was a Christmas job in a well-known store working four-hour shifts on Saturdays and Sundays for the national minimum wage.
Among the permanent jobs was work in a casino or bars. Neither offered help with journeys home afterwards and the last bus out of Cardiff leaves at 11.06pm, the union pointed out.
"Workers from outside the city might be able to get the bus to work but they would not be able to get home," said a spokesman.
"These figures prove it is not a question of people not being willing to work, there simply are not enough jobs for them to do - and there are unlikely to be any time soon because of the Government's plans to cut public spending, including cutting 15,000 more jobs in the Department for Work and Pensions."
Nice to know he's got the finger on the pulse! Bloody Dipstick![evil]
Nice to know he's got the finger on the pulse! Bloody Dipstick![evil]
He won a vote, using our system.
"Democracy" is the best way forward. So much so that we'll force it upon foreign countries.
Who are 'we' to tell 'them' how to conduct their lives?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.