View Full Version : Well done to David Cameron 2
For not back peddling on the £26,000 PA Benifit Cap
I've worked for 35 years and very few have exeeded this and it really Gripes my Butt :lol:
For not back peddling on the £26,000 PA Benifit Cap
Never thought that I would agree on something politically with a Thatcherite.
Now lets see him do something about paying Child Benefit to all and sundry.
Make it payable on a maximum of 2 or 3 kids, and have it means tested
And have the winter fuel payment means tested, C'mon Dave, there are lots you can do without hitting the poorest in society. You never know, you could even make yourself popular at the same time!!
C3.....;)
weezer 316
14-Jun-11, 12:05
Typical nationalist corrie, raised on salmonds politics where the populist policy is always the right one.
Glad too he hasn't backed down on the benefits. It should prob be lower in all honesty. Winter Fuel payment should be for only those on low incomes and even then id like to see it scrapped. Old people are responsible for ensuring they can live comfortably in retirement, not me, especially as they worked their whole lives.
And another thing - we could save money by charging rent on wheelchairs, crutches and zimmers.
And as for hospitals - charge for meals and all other services - after all we should take care of our own health.
Oh yes, if you phone an ambulance and don't have the right money for the fare - make the bleeders walk I say.
weezer 316
14-Jun-11, 12:41
I assume that was a dig at me! Bit far. Sorry though, OAP's have had their entire lives to work and provide for themselves. My generation likely wont have a state pension and will probably end up doing all the things you mention above mainly becuase the generation before us have received from the govt on the never never for years. The result is what you see today.
changilass
14-Jun-11, 12:48
And another thing - we could save money by charging rent on wheelchairs, crutches and zimmers.
And as for hospitals - charge for meals and all other services - after all we should take care of our own health.
Oh yes, if you phone an ambulance and don't have the right money for the fare - make the bleeders walk I say.
The crutches, zimmers and ambulances is going a bitty far.
But I don't see why they couldn't charge a nominal fee for food in hospitals, after all, if you were at home you would be paying for your food.
Old people are responsible for ensuring they can live comfortably in retirement,
Ah, The true Tory colours are coming out now Weezle, on one hand the Tories are brilliant for giving money to Africa, and now on the other hand you want all our old Folk killed off through malnutrition and hyperthermia just so you dont have to pay a pension to them. And all this after they have worked all their lives and earned their right to a healthy retirement through paying taxes and N.I contributions.
C3........:roll:;)
weezer 316
14-Jun-11, 13:35
Ah, The true Tory colours are coming out now Weezle, on one hand the Tories are brilliant for giving money to Africa, and now on the other hand you want all our old Folk killed off through malnutrition and hyperthermia just so you dont have to pay a pension to them. And all this after they have worked all their lives and earned their right to a healthy retirement through paying taxes and N.I contributions.
C3........:roll:;)
You just made that up! WHo said I want them killed by malnutrition! You just make it up as yo go along lad! They are responsible for themselves. You just live on the never never, is that what you suggest?
Most importantly, they havent earned the right to a healthy retirement by taxes and NI contributions. Your taxes today pay for your srvices today. Thast a basic point you clearly dont understand. You think tax paid in 1975 cover, or even comes close to covering pension payments now??????? Deluded mate.
Look after yourself. Your Generation were the first and probably only to have everything provided for them by the govt form the day they were born, and it was done on the never never. Now we are bankrupt. But screw tommorow and our children, I want you to pay my gas bill instead.
pinotnoir
14-Jun-11, 13:48
Labour will reportedly be voting “no” to the Welfare Reform Bill because, “the bill fails on compassion and fails on creating work”.
The Bill doesn’t support ambition to work because it will:
* Give a lack of clarity on what childcare support would be available for thousands of working families
* Penalise working families who save money for their future, as the Universal Credit will be taken away from anyone with savings of £16,000 and above
* Disadvantage mothers by paying the Universal Credit to households rather than the main carer, risking taking away money from children
* Create worrying uncertainty over who will be eligible for free school meals for their children
The bill doesn’t support compassion because it will:
* Take money away from vulnerable people who live in care homes
* Cut support for cancer sufferers and people with mental health conditions after just 12 months.
However, a Labour revolt is unlikely to be enough to stop it as the Liberal Democrats are likely to support the Bill.
The crutches, zimmers and ambulances is going a bitty far.
But I don't see why they couldn't charge a nominal fee for food in hospitals, after all, if you were at home you would be paying for your food.
Or our relatives could just come in and cook at the bedside as they do in other third world countries. That would save a pound or two...
You just made that up!
Orgers? Making stuff up? Surely some mistake? [lol]
weezer 316
14-Jun-11, 14:55
Orgers? Making stuff up? Surely some mistake? [lol]
Honestly! I couldnt believe my own eyes!
Honestly! I couldnt believe my own eyes!
Simples.......You want to stop pensions being paid then people will die as a result!!
Typical Tory !!!
C3......:roll:;)
weezer 316
14-Jun-11, 15:21
Yeah.....not wait......PROVIDE YOUR OWN PENSION!! I wont have a state pension when I get old. You know why? Ill tell you why, last generation receiveing far far far more than they gave. What you got to say to that?
er...how did we get from not paying more than £26,000 in benifits to not paying state pensions and everybody dying?
er...how did we get from not paying more than £26,000 in benifits to not paying state pensions and everybody dying?
One small step for mankind on Caithness.org.......
Yeah.....not wait......PROVIDE YOUR OWN PENSION!! I wont have a state pension when I get old. You know why? Ill tell you why, last generation receiveing far far far more than they gave. What you got to say to that?
What do I say to that??????
Better get saving now then Weezle!!! Thats what I say!!!!
The only way you wont get a State Pension when you get older is if you and those other Loonies keep voting Tory!!!!
And who keeps the Pension when guy has worked for 50 years and snuffs it on his 65th birthday???......The money he has paid in will go to keep the MP's in luxurious expenses, not to the guys widow!!!
C3........:eek:;)
weezer 316
14-Jun-11, 16:28
Luxurious expenses hahaha! You are an absolute buffon of a man! I would love to meet you, im utterly certain I could reduce you to a bumbling wreck.
Firstly, he has been paying for the service hes consumes throughout his life, and alongside 90% of the population they amount hes paid has been far less than what hes received in return hourhg things like schooling, NHS etc.
Secondly, is that a tactit admission the system is broke and to pay for a private pension?
So im summary, ill put this in caps seeing as you probably forgotten the last sentence already......THAT MONEY HE PAID HAS BEEN SPENT ON HIM ALREADY! Who do you think pays for a nurse nowadays? A person dies 20 eyars ago
Luxurious expenses hahaha! You are an absolute buffon of a man! I would love to meet you, im utterly certain I could reduce you to a bumbling wreck.
Firstly, he has been paying for the service hes consumes throughout his life, and alongside 90% of the population they amount hes paid has been far less than what hes received in return hourhg things like schooling, NHS etc.
Secondly, is that a tactit admission the system is broke and to pay for a private pension?
So im summary, ill put this in caps seeing as you probably forgotten the last sentence already......THAT MONEY HE PAID HAS BEEN SPENT ON HIM ALREADY! Who do you think pays for a nurse nowadays? A person dies 20 eyars ago
By the look of that post Weezle you should be looking nearer to home for the bumbling wreck !!!
Just read it again Man and realise what a load of ill written/spelt nonsense you have just inflicted on the .Org!!!
C3.......:eek:;)
weezer 316
14-Jun-11, 17:46
Yes yes. Totally ignore the points made. Move along, nothing to see here......
Nationalist 10x worse than anyone, tories, labour, you name it. Hypocritical to the last.
Yes yes. Totally ignore the points made. Move along, nothing to see here......
Nationalist 10x worse than anyone, tories, labour, you name it. Hypocritical to the last.
But there were no points to be made Weezle, that's what I am saying, your post made no sense at all, what were you trying to get across my dear friend?
I got your point about meeting up and trying to turn me into a bumbling wreck, didnt know if it was bullying or just that you would beat me hands down in a face to face discussion. As you are a Tory I will just put it down to bullying cos thats what Tories do isnt it? But my Tory friend, turning me into a bumbling wreck will never happen cos whatever weapons you choose you will be a loser, just like Cameron!!!!
C3.....:cool:;)
weezer 316
14-Jun-11, 18:22
Lots of points made, just like in other discussions, you ignore them. Here they are again, in summarised, easy to read, format:
People pay for the service they consume today through tax. Not for 20 years in the future. Tell me why somone should receive a pension when they havent paid for it?
Also, my generation likely wont get a state pension as the generation before us have lived on the never never. Why should tommrow be morgaged to pay for a generation that didnt look after its own future?
IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH??
you will be a loser, just like Cameron!!!!
C3.....:cool:;)
He's the one in the nice suit who lives in a nice house and is driven round in a nice Jaguar, right? :D
Lots of points made, just like in other discussions, you ignore them. Here they are again, in summarised, easy to read, format:
People pay for the service they consume today through tax. Not for 20 years in the future. Tell me why somone should receive a pension when they havent paid for it?
Also, my generation likely wont get a state pension as the generation before us have lived on the never never. Why should tommrow be morgaged to pay for a generation that didnt look after its own future?
IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH??
So, who paid for your Grandparents pension Weezle?
C3.......:roll::roll::roll:
He's the one in the nice suit who lives in a nice house and is driven round in a nice Jaguar, right? :D
No Duke,
He is the one who thinks he knows best, its what Tories do. Just like Weezle he thinks he is God and everyone under him is a fool!! He will go the same way as Thatcher you just watch!!
C3.....:eek:;)
John Little
14-Jun-11, 18:47
Lots of points made, just like in other discussions, you ignore them. Here they are again, in summarised, easy to read, format:
People pay for the service they consume today through tax. Not for 20 years in the future. Tell me why somone should receive a pension when they havent paid for it?
Also, my generation likely wont get a state pension as the generation before us have lived on the never never. Why should tommrow be morgaged to pay for a generation that didnt look after its own future?
IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH??
I'm afraid that is not quite accurate. The fundamental principle of National Insurance is that it rests on contributions- it is not a dole and it is not paid for out of tax. Essentially it stems from the National Insurance Act of 1911, and the National Insurance act of 1921 which made Health insurance universal; altered in some respects, it was the subject of much debate. The Conservative party did not think it necessary and organised a campaign against it. Labour wanted a dole but the Liberals wanted NI to be a self help mechanism - and it was administered partly through Insurance Companies and unions.
The National Insurance scheme is not a tax, though it is compulsory. Contributions are made from the employee, the employer and the Government. 6% of your wage is national insurance. Employers must contribute a further 9%- I'm not sure what the government percentage is right now.
Initially the money was supposed to be an investment for your future pension, just as with private pensions. More recently governments have come to use it as just another pot of money and they use it for whatever they wish to.
But the fact remains that there is a contract between you and the government. You get back because you pay in. If you do not then the government has broken the deal and may be challenged in the courts. You will get a pension when old unless somebody is foolish enough to try to abolish it.
But actually the Old Age Pension is not a lot. Mine will be about £4500 a year.
Gold plated or what?
No Duke,
He is the one who thinks he knows best, its what Tories do. Just like Weezle he thinks he is God and everyone under him is a fool!! He will go the same way as Thatcher you just watch!!
C3.....:eek:;)
Mmm I really don't know what the man has done to upset you so. But if we stood him next to Mr Salmond, I know which I would trust my future to. ;)
weezer 316
14-Jun-11, 22:02
I'm afraid that is not quite accurate. The fundamental principle of National Insurance is that it rests on contributions- it is not a dole and it is not paid for out of tax. Essentially it stems from the National Insurance Act of 1911, and the National Insurance act of 1921 which made Health insurance universal; altered in some respects, it was the subject of much debate. The Conservative party did not think it necessary and organised a campaign against it. Labour wanted a dole but the Liberals wanted NI to be a self help mechanism - and it was administered partly through Insurance Companies and unions.
The National Insurance scheme is not a tax, though it is compulsory. Contributions are made from the employee, the employer and the Government. 6% of your wage is national insurance. Employers must contribute a further 9%- I'm not sure what the government percentage is right now.
Initially the money was supposed to be an investment for your future pension, just as with private pensions. More recently governments have come to use it as just another pot of money and they use it for whatever they wish to.
But the fact remains that there is a contract between you and the government. You get back because you pay in. If you do not then the government has broken the deal and may be challenged in the courts. You will get a pension when old unless somebody is foolish enough to try to abolish it.
But actually the Old Age Pension is not a lot. Mine will be about £4500 a year.
Gold plated or what?
No fair points. However, on the question of pensions in particular, not eough money was saved. Like I say, I am 27 and will likely never see a state pension as the system itself is pretty much unsustainable, so I did what most would do, started a private pension.
Im sure, as a point of principle, you utterly must take responsibility for your own income in retirement though.
weezer 316
14-Jun-11, 22:04
So, who paid for your Grandparents pension Weezle?
C3.......:roll::roll::roll:
Do you actually read what is said!! You are incredible. I refuse to believe you read what is written then pose the questions you do. You must completely ignore them then just type a reply and hope it stumps them!
Ill tell you who paid for my grans pension...............second paragraph of the post you jad replied to. It starts something like "People pay for the service they consume today through tax....."
Your gonna turn me religious
John Little
14-Jun-11, 22:09
I too have an occupational pension - the state one I cannot draw until 65.
I do not know where you get the idea that all the NI contributions over the years do not provide enough to sustain the basic state pension. It's hardly munificent.
The problem is HM Treasury. They regard the money collected as just another pot- in the same way as they regard road tax as just another pot. If all road tax were spent on roads then we would have the best in Europe. The trouble is that they do not ring fence it.
Believe me - you will have a state pension. It won't be enough to live on, but there is no doubt you will have one. It's lasted 100 years so far and it will see you out.
Any government attempting to get rid of it will be committing political suicide.
Do you actually read what is said!! You are incredible. I refuse to believe you read what is written then pose the questions you do. You must completely ignore them then just type a reply and hope it stumps them!
Ill tell you who paid for my grans pension...............second paragraph of the post you jad replied to. It starts something like "People pay for the service they consume today through tax....."
Your gonna turn me religious
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, pensions do not come from tax, they come from a fund set up for that purpose.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, pensions do not come from tax, they come from a fund set up for that purpose.
Can you enlighten me? Where do the Treasury who pays out all monies from the Government get the money in the first place?
Can you enlighten me? Where do the Treasury who pays out all monies from the Government get the money in the first place?
Are you really saying that you have no idea what the difference is in the many taxes and funds you pay? or is it that you do not understand how the financial system in this country operates. lol
Are you really saying that you have no idea what the difference is in the many taxes and funds you pay? or is it that you do not understand how the financial system in this country operates. lol
I pay a little Income Tax, some Excise Tax, I drink, do not smoke or drive, some Vat on some goods I buy, but I get 2 nice pensions from the Government, one the State pension the other for my services to the government, I am happy, why should I worry where it comes from? But Kells, you obviously know the UK Financial system better than I, so I ask you once more to enlighten me.
I pay a little Income Tax, some Excise Tax, I drink, do not smoke or drive, some Vat on some goods I buy, but I get 2 nice pensions from the Government, one the State pension the other for my services to the government, I am happy, why should I worry where it comes from? But Kells, you obviously know the UK Financial system better than I, so I ask you once more to enlighten me.
Why would you think I have any interest in your personal cuircumstances or habits. So you assume that I know the UK Financial system because I understand what a pension fund is and then ask for me to enlighten you. You are trying to wind up the wrong person golach if you want lessons from me then it will cost you. lol
Why would you think I have any interest in your personal cuircumstances or habits. So you assume that I know the UK Financial system because I understand what a pension fund is and then ask for me to enlighten you. You are trying to wind up the wrong person golach if you want lessons from me then it will cost you. lol
Actually, there is no 'fund' with NI, what gets payed in today gets spent today. This has been the case for at least 20 years and probably longer.
And of course the problem is; less and less people paying in and more and more taking out, like weezer said, it is unsustainable.
weezer 316
15-Jun-11, 10:11
Why would you think I have any interest in your personal cuircumstances or habits. So you assume that I know the UK Financial system because I understand what a pension fund is and then ask for me to enlighten you. You are trying to wind up the wrong person golach if you want lessons from me then it will cost you. lol
Kells you seem to have talked yourself into a corner there. Pensions do come from tax, thats how they are paid for. Or perhaps you are aware of some other mechanism we clearly know nothing about. Like golach, I am desperate to be enlightened!
Can I ask where you think the cash that makes up this pension fund comes from?
John Little
15-Jun-11, 10:25
If you look at your payslip you will see deductions for tax.
Underneath if should be NI deductions.
Why do you think they appear separately?
...
Look after yourself. Your Generation were the first and probably only to have everything provided for them by the govt form the day they were born, and it was done on the never never. Now we are bankrupt. But screw tommorow and our children, I want you to pay my gas bill instead.
hmm...your beloved Thatcher spent all the North sea oil money propping up the city of London in the 80's instead of investing it for the future. If we had access to that invested money now, we wouldn't be in this mess would we?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/587341/why-hasnt-britain-got-a-sovereign-wealth-fund.thtml You may find this enlightening Weezer and it may just show you what voting for London based parties does for your future financial security.
John Little
15-Jun-11, 10:32
FYI;
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/BeginnersGuideToTax/NationalInsurance/IntroductiontoNationalInsurance/DG_190048
John Little
15-Jun-11, 11:21
It strikes me that the reason for the confusion might be the NHS.
State pension is an entitlement built up through contributions.
On the other hand it is the NHS that is funded through tax.
weezer 316
15-Jun-11, 11:26
hmm...your beloved Thatcher spent all the North sea oil money propping up the city of London in the 80's instead of investing it for the future. If we had access to that invested money now, we wouldn't be in this mess would we?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/587341/why-hasnt-britain-got-a-sovereign-wealth-fund.thtml You may find this enlightening Weezer and it may just show you what voting for London based parties does for your future financial security.
Amazing.
Londons economy generates £450bn a year, about 20% of the UKs GDP. Scotlands oil generated, at its peak, £12bn in tax.
Please explain just how the hell we prop, or ever propped up London? Londons economy on its own is double the size of the entire scottish economy!?!?!!?
Delusions in this country are utterly unbelievable. I ant believe you would even say we prop london up! Thats like saying caithness props Glasgow up!
weezer 316
15-Jun-11, 11:27
It strikes me that the reason for the confusion might be the NHS.
State pension is an entitlement built up through contributions.
On the other hand it is the NHS that is funded through tax.
Very possibly. I call it tax, I am aware its national insurance but its essentially another tax. The point is it doesnt generate enough for whats its meant to.
Very possibly. I call it tax, I am aware its national insurance but its essentially another tax. The point is it doesnt generate enough for whats its meant to.
Of course you generate entitlement to Unemployment Benefit from NI contributions, whether NI actually pays for it is another matter.
Shabbychic
15-Jun-11, 12:32
Londons economy generates £450bn a year, about 20% of the UKs GDP. Scotlands oil generated, at its peak, £12bn in tax.
Please explain just how the hell we prop, or ever propped up London? Londons economy on its own is double the size of the entire scottish economy!?!?!!?
Delusions in this country are utterly unbelievable. I ant believe you would even say we prop london up! Thats like saying caithness props Glasgow up!
Delusions??
I don't know the exact figures for today, but here are some (http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/biglie.html) from a few years ago.
Please also note the part about the annexing (stealing) of 3000 square miles of Scottish waters to English jurisdiction, when the Scottish parliament was reconvened. Not many know about that either.
weezer 316
15-Jun-11, 12:33
Of course you generate entitlement to Unemployment Benefit from NI contributions, whether NI actually pays for it is another matter.
Well it evidently doesn't, seeing as this country has been run at a perennial loss for the past 40 years! Govt doesn't collect enough tax/NI and spends to much on benefits. All democratically elected btw, so the ultimate fault is with the general public.
weezer 316
15-Jun-11, 12:38
Delusions??
I don't know the exact figures for today, but here are some (http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/biglie.html) from a few years ago.
Please also note the part about the annexing (stealing) of 3000 square miles of Scottish waters to English jurisdiction, when the Scottish parliament was reconvened. Not many know about that either.
And thats an unbiased peice of ever I saw it.
The facts are simple. No amount of mad websites will change it. Londons GDP is £450bn. More than double scotlands. It is IMPOSSIBLE for our feeble oil money to prop it up! £12bn at its best dear. Please tell me, please, how £12bn props up an economy that size! Please! I am dying to hear this.
Actually, there is no 'fund' with NI, what gets payed in today gets spent today. This has been the case for at least 20 years and probably longer.
And of course the problem is; less and less people paying in and more and more taking out, like weezer said, it is unsustainable.
John has already stated the different methods of payment for Income tax and the NI Stamp the reason for this being the different method of administration of the monies involved.
A Pension fund does exist. On days when more money is received than is paid out, the surplus is transferred to a National Insurance Fund Investment Account, managed by the National Debt Commissioners (CRND) who invest it in government securities.
HM Revenue and Customs transfers money to the National Insurance Fund Investment Account on days when it has a net inflow of cash and draws from the Investment Account on days when payments exceed receipts.
If you require more information of how this works go to the CRND’s website.
It is normally necessary to keep a high level of liquidity to cover daily movements, which can amount to more than £500 million deposits or withdrawals in any day, and to maintain a spread of gilt-edged securities with maturities of up to about 20 years with the aim of achieving a high level of income while at the same time protecting the capital value of the Fund.”
There is no doubt at all, therefore, about the Fund’s existence. It exists and is invested, in the same way as any other pension fund, though in a narrower range of “gilt-edged” government securities.
I hope this gives you and weezer some enlightenment about the difference of monies for the NI fund and Income Tax. I am very grateful that my and previous generations set this fund up for the benefit of all workers removing any need for us to depend on the present generation to support us.
Shabbychic
15-Jun-11, 13:27
Londons GDP is £450bn. More than double scotlands. It is IMPOSSIBLE for our feeble oil money to prop it up! £12bn at its best dear. Please tell me, please, how £12bn props up an economy that size! Please! I am dying to hear this.
Dear is it? Aw shucks.
Where do you get this £450bn from? As far as I'm aware the London GDP is more in the region of £53/54bn.
Secondly, who said our feeble oil money props up London? I do believe it props up the treasury at Westminster, or the English economy. Do you actually know what 'props up' means?
The whole issue is about Scotland getting less back than it pays in, while having to endure the constant bombardment of propaganda by Westminster and the press about SCOTLAND being subsidised.
Finally, what are your views on the Scottish waters that were taken by Tony Blair into English jurisdiction?
*Sigh* this isn't a bloody independence thread where people are free to preach at each other and ignore the others argument... anyway getting back on topic much as I dislike benefit fraud, it's a drop in the ocean compared to the money lost by businesses and individuals who avoid and evade tax. I think it should all be tackled but I'd go after the one that yielded the highest returns first.
EDIT: We seem to be covering pensions also, on that subject I found this interesting: http://www.catch21.co.uk/2011/06/new-funding-model-to-cope-with-the-106bn-bill-for-baby-boomers especially when you combine it with this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547771/Over-50s-control-80pc-of-wealth-says-survey.html and this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8326605/Baby-boomers-must-pay-for-their-own-elderly-care.html
Also on the topic on water it seems Boris Johnson wants the water from Scotland and Wales for England http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13765279
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13765279)
Kells you seem to have talked yourself into a corner there. Pensions do come from tax, thats how they are paid for. Or perhaps you are aware of some other mechanism we clearly know nothing about. Like golach, I am desperate to be enlightened!
Can I ask where you think the cash that makes up this pension fund comes from?
I have explained to golach the difference between Income Tax and contributions to the NI fund which is where Pensions come from and not from any tax source at all. You obviously have had no knowledge of the national pension fund or you would not be wittering on about tax supplying the money for it or saying that todays pensioners have failed to be responsible for themselves and that your generation are paying for todays pensions. The monies you contribute today to the NI fund are credited to you then invested for you in the hope that you live to claim your basic pension.
Shabbychic
15-Jun-11, 13:51
*Sigh* this isn't a bloody independence thread where people are free to preach at each other and ignore the others argument... anyway getting back on topic much as I dislike benefit fraud, it's a drop in the ocean compared to the money lost by businesses and individuals who avoid and evade tax. I think it should all be tackled but I'd go after the one that yielded the highest returns first.
This thread actually started off on benefit caps, not benefit fraud or pensions either. Everything just progressed as threads do. It is certainly not about Independence.
Now about tax evasion, this certainly should be looked at first, but too many of the largest culprits have too many friends in high places, so it is much easier to pick on the sick, disabled and elderly.
weezer 316
15-Jun-11, 13:58
Dear is it? Aw shucks.
Where do you get this £450bn from? As far as I'm aware the London GDP is more in the region of £53/54bn.
Secondly, who said our feeble oil money props up London? I do believe it props up the treasury at Westminster, or the English economy. Do you actually know what 'props up' means?
The whole issue is about Scotland getting less back than it pays in, while having to endure the constant bombardment of propaganda by Westminster and the press about SCOTLAND being subsidised.
Finally, what are your views on the Scottish waters that were taken by Tony Blair into English jurisdiction?
£54bn???? I assume you went to school. £54bn / 7.2 million cockneys gives it a GDP per capita of around £7500.......in a place where am ex council house costs 200k. It would also mean your average cockney is about 5x lazier than your average Brit. Think about the numbers you post before doing so as they clearly dont add up.
Secodnly, Scotland doesnt get out more than it receives.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/22160331/7
In summary, just so none one twists the figures presented, we pay in about 8.4% of govt income, from 8.6% of the population, a total of £44.5bn. We receive, at a stroke a £33bn grant for holyrood. Then we benefit from UK govt investment in scotland from other things like defence, tax, regulatory authorities etc.
And lets just not mention the £500bn bailout.......
Still think we pay in more than we get out? Figures are there, direct from the govt.
weezer 316
15-Jun-11, 14:01
This thread actually started off on benefit caps, not benefit fraud or pensions either. Everything just progressed as threads do. It is certainly not about Independence.
Now about tax evasion, this certainly should be looked at first, but too many of the largest culprits have too many friends in high places, so it is much easier to pick on the sick, disabled and elderly.
Shabbychic,
I read an article I cant find now from the guardian, those uber liberal, tory hating lefties, who put the figure of Tax evasion at between £8bn and £13bn. Thats the guardian who are very left wing. Its nowhere near plugging the £150bn hole in our finances.
We need to pay more tax, you and I, and receive less in services.
then invested for you in the hope that you live to claim your basic pension.
No, they are not.
Why would you think I have any interest in your personal cuircumstances or habits. So you assume that I know the UK Financial system because I understand what a pension fund is and then ask for me to enlighten you. You are trying to wind up the wrong person golach if you want lessons from me then it will cost you. lol
I have explained to golach the difference between Income Tax and contributions to the NI fund which is where Pensions come from and not from any tax source at all. You obviously have had no knowledge of the national pension fund or you would not be wittering on about tax supplying the money for it or saying that todays pensioners have failed to be responsible for themselves and that your generation are paying for todays pensions. The monies you contribute today to the NI fund are credited to you then invested for you in the hope that you live to claim your basic pension.
Where have you explained the difference between Income Tax and NI fund (what ever that is) to me? I have yet to see your explanations.
pinotnoir
15-Jun-11, 15:16
A question for David Cameron/Conservative supporters, if tax evasion costs the UK exchequer more than 15times ( http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274) as much as benefit fraud, why do we not hear the PM condemning tax evasion with the same vigour and regularity with which he raises the subject of benefit fraud?
hi does anyone know what the uk government takes in taxes from petrol and diesel per annum, this is after british oil has been taxed as soon as it hits the beach, ie grangemouth amongst others.
Shabbychic,
I read an article I cant find now from the guardian, those uber liberal, tory hating lefties, who put the figure of Tax evasion at between £8bn and £13bn. Thats the guardian who are very left wing. Its nowhere near plugging the £150bn hole in our finances.
We need to pay more tax, you and I, and receive less in services.
I think the numbers are around the region of £25 billion per year for tax avoidance and £70 billion per year for tax evasion and £28 billion just plain unpaid. According to Tax Research UK, PCS, UKUncut and a few other places anyway, I could be wrong though.
EDIT: Their explanation of the numbers is here (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/PCSTaxGap.pdf) (25 page PDF).
Shabbychic
15-Jun-11, 15:30
£54bn???? I assume you went to school. £54bn / 7.2 million cockneys gives it a GDP per capita of around £7500.......in a place where am ex council house costs 200k. It would also mean your average cockney is about 5x lazier than your average Brit. Think about the numbers you post before doing so as they clearly dont add up.
Secodnly, Scotland doesnt get out more than it receives.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/22160331/7
In summary, just so none one twists the figures presented, we pay in about 8.4% of govt income, from 8.6% of the population, a total of £44.5bn. We receive, at a stroke a £33bn grant for holyrood. Then we benefit from UK govt investment in scotland from other things like defence, tax, regulatory authorities etc.
And lets just not mention the £500bn bailout.......
Still think we pay in more than we get out? Figures are there, direct from the govt.
Yip, I went to school in the days when you had to learn how to spell, learn your tables off by heart, do mental arithmetic, and even dictation. My god I'm gettin' auld.
Now that my credentials are sorted out, to London and beyond.
OK, my figures were for the City of London, but I still dispute your £450bn. I think you'll find you are referring to $450bn, which equates to about £276bn or thereabouts.
The figures you link to are not including the oil and gas revenue, which as far as I'm concerned, comes from Scotland. Please see here (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/22160331/8), which is a continuation of the data from the same site as you quote from as proof.
Yes I do still believe we pay in more than we get out.
Where have you explained the difference between Income Tax and NI fund (what ever that is) to me? I have yet to see your explanations.
I cannot find the post either, so obviously done something wrong.... can't be bothered going over it all again but if you read the link porvided by JOhn and his posts you should be able to understand the difference between Income Tax and contributions towards the NI fund. Why are you asking for information that has already been given, can you not understand what John has said I thouight he was very clear
No, they are not.
they are not what ....... I guess you still fail to grasp the basics of what a pension fund is about. .... try following JOhns link and perhaps you will start to understand the basics of Ni at least before burying your head in the sand. .
I'd like to see NI and income tax combined but that's a different discussion. Income tax comprises about 29% of government income and NI is about 19% of it.
NI started out as a fund for illness and unemployment, it was later expanded to try and cover pensions and benefits. Broadly speaking, the principal difference between income tax and NI is that the former applies to income of all types, but the latter applies only to what might loosely be termed earned income.
they are not what ....... I guess you still fail to grasp the basics of what a pension fund is about. .... try following JOhns link and perhaps you will start to understand the basics of Ni at least before burying your head in the sand. .
20 years ago I was a financial consultant and had access to the very detailed figures. They proved that there was no investment ellement to NI contributions, hence the govenment of the day encouraging people under the age of 40 to opt out.
I just assume that the situation has not improved.
20 years ago I was a financial consultant and had access to the very detailed figures. They proved that there was no investment ellement to NI contributions, hence the govenment of the day encouraging people under the age of 40 to opt out.
I just assume that the situation has not improved.
So now you are an expert. lol then why ask such basic questions when you obviously think you know all the answers. Try reading about the National Insurance Fund Investment Account, managed by the National Debt Commissioners (CRND) who invest it in government securities.
So now you are an expert. lol then why ask such basic questions when you obviously think you know all the answers. Try reading about the National Insurance Fund Investment Account, managed by the National Debt Commissioners (CRND) who invest it in government securities.
What can I tell you? My information pre-dates the internet, where all knowledge is now found.
weezer 316
15-Jun-11, 16:56
Yip, I went to school in the days when you had to learn how to spell, learn your tables off by heart, do mental arithmetic, and even dictation. My god I'm gettin' auld.
Now that my credentials are sorted out, to London and beyond.
OK, my figures were for the City of London, but I still dispute your £450bn. I think you'll find you are referring to $450bn, which equates to about £276bn or thereabouts.
The figures you link to are not including the oil and gas revenue, which as far as I'm concerned, comes from Scotland. Please see here (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/22160331/8), which is a continuation of the data from the same site as you quote from as proof.
Yes I do still believe we pay in more than we get out.
Shabby,
It does include oil revenue, 2 summaries at the bottom of each table, one showing with and one without north sea oil. So that argument falls flat on its face. And for the record, it was £9.8bn for the last financial year, so worse than the year before.
How on earth can you "believe"...the figures are fact. We pay in £44.5bn. We get our block grant + central govt investment + benefits from UK govt for our unemployed, sick etc. £10bn down about 2 years ago for last set of figures. How can you "believe" otherwise. Its like believing the sky is green.
£450bn is the greater london area. London city proper is around £335bn as if 2007/08. Might be lower now after credit crunch. however, the fool before hand that said we proper up London was clearly deluded.
What can I tell you? My information pre-dates the internet, where all knowledge is now found.
I am not asking you anything so nothing for you to tell me, my knowledge predates the internet by many years but the internet is handy for updating.
secrets in symmetry
16-Jun-11, 00:30
I'd like to see NI and income tax combined but that's a different discussion. Income tax comprises about 29% of government income and NI is about 19% of it.
NI started out as a fund for illness and unemployment, it was later expanded to try and cover pensions and benefits. Broadly speaking, the principal difference between income tax and NI is that the former applies to income of all types, but the latter applies only to what might loosely be termed earned income.
That sounds about right to me.
I suggest the interested reader should read the article that Kells stole her quote from (without acknowledging her source.) It explains how the Treasury deals with NI, and why the so called NI fund isn't a fund in the sense a regular fund manager would recognise.
John Little
16-Jun-11, 06:57
I
give
up.
I
give
up.
Me too John, all this praise being heaped onto Cameron is making me feel very, very ill indeed!!
C3.....:roll:;)
weezer 316
16-Jun-11, 11:17
Corrie,
Why do you hate him? Surely some praise for the fact unemployment has went down for the first time in an age no? Amazing the unmovable perceptions you have of some people.
Corrie,
Why do you hate him? Surely some praise for the fact unemployment has went down for the first time in an age no? Amazing the unmovable perceptions you have of some people.
Try telling that to the people of N.Ireland Weezer !!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13774032
No doubt all the new jobs are in London and the S.East of England as usual!!!
C3.....:roll::roll:
weezer 316
16-Jun-11, 12:52
Well of course most of the new jobs will be there.......thats where most of the people are!!! Damn your dumb sometimes. Proper reasons please. Jesus
Well of course most of the new jobs will be there.......thats where most of the people are!!! Damn your dumb sometimes. Proper reasons please. Jesus
At least I am only dumb some of the time.!!!.....Anyway, arent you supposed to be working in an office, not chatting on the 'Org ??
Dont tell me you are coming on here in Company time and getting paid for it!!!!!.....:eek:
C3.....:cool:;)
That sounds about right to me.
I suggest the interested reader should read the article that Kells stole her quote from (without acknowledging her source.) It explains how the Treasury deals with NI, and why the so called NI fund isn't a fund in the sense a regular fund manager would recognise.
I did not steal the quote but had a link to it on the post that went missing when I noticed I had not put it on that posting. Not a so called fund but an actual fund in the sense of it being a fund and which any fund manager would fully understand. Like John I give up !!!!!!
@ C3 & Weezer. Are you two married????? :lol:.
They all pee in the same pot any way. Politicians, that is.
the tories boys pee in a gold pot,,and the rest oh emm pee in a tin pot, lol .
@ C3 & Weezer. Are you two married????? :lol:.
They all pee in the same pot any way. Politicians, that is.
The difference is Shazz ...................the Tories miss the pot and pee all over us!!!!
C3.......:roll::roll:
I'm sure there's a golden shower joke in there somewhere but I ain't making it.
Remember the curling lip below the quivering moustache of the late great Terry-Thomas talking about the union men in "I'm All Right Jack" - "they're a shower - a complete and utter shower"
Given June 30th and the potential strikefest, I can still see the dinosaur Fred Kite trembling with anger as he talks about actions "which will reverberate to the detriment of the masses". Meaningless mantras which usually disguise the discredited socio-communist ideologies which militated towards an equality of misery -" if we can't have something, we'll make damn sure you can't either". (Add references to Eton, silver spoons, dastardly mill-owners, etc.)
UK plc can't be doing with strikes right now. Not unless it wants to do a Greece, and ensure that UK plc hands down trillions of debt to the next generation.
And why are union leaders always so insufferably smug? And self-righteous? And rich? And how does that PCS twit get away with justifying a strike based on the votes of one fifth of the total workforce???
Strikes are not the answer. Check that out with the miners, the printers and the dockers. Price yourselves out of the market, and the market will move on.......
Hell, this ain't going to go down well in Partick, but someone's got to say it.
And at least Cameron's government is making an adult attempt to plug the leak, stop the rot, and take responsibility for the overall financial health of the country.
weezer 316
16-Jun-11, 15:58
Well said pmcd. Tories only ones that had a plan to try and stop us hemorrhaging money. Its ludicrous we were ever in this situation in the first place. And the reason we did end up like this is because the govt spent more than it had on services and kept promising more and more. One day you run out of money and you gotta start paying back. For that reason anyone who voted labour is at fault for this mess, not the tories thats for sure. If they didnt get in last election in 5 years time the cuts would have been even worse cause we would owe more.
But the likes of corrie doesnt understand this. And more importantly, doesnt care. When asked what to do, they shrug their shoulders and refuse and answer.
And at least Cameron's government is making an adult attempt to plug the leak, stop the rot, and take responsibility for the overall financial health of the country.
Is that not their job,or any other politicians job when in gov,
they get paid very well for it and fantastic goldplated pensions and perks,, like setting themselves up for a nice bank position, anyone on the org fancy a cushy job with morgan stanley lets say, after 5 years hard graft in gov,,
or with the council,, ye dream on,,
we will see where our posh men cameron and osborne run too when they eventually get kicked out in a few years time,nice easy jobs in the city,,
government should belong to the working class majority,
not some elitist toffs who buy there way into politics. I dont see many working class torys in government, all the best public school brigade are in, very democratic i must say, does not leave much chance for working class children in broken britain.
rant over,
weezer 316
16-Jun-11, 16:20
And at least Cameron's government is making an adult attempt to plug the leak, stop the rot, and take responsibility for the overall financial health of the country.
Is that not their job,or any other politicians job when in gov,
they get paid very well for it and fantastic goldplated pensions and perks,, like setting themselves up for a nice bank position, anyone on the org fancy a cushy job with morgan stanley lets say, after 5 years hard graft in gov,,
or with the council,, ye dream on,,
we will see where our posh men cameron and osborne run too when they eventually get kicked out in a few years time,nice easy jobs in the city,,
government should belong to the working class majority,
not some elitist toffs who buy there way into politics. I dont see many working class torys in government, all the best public school brigade are in, very democratic i must say, does not leave much chance for working class children in broken britain.
rant over,
Urgh.............
The majority of the people in this country voted for the Tories. End of. Democracy at its finest. Cameron didnt buy his way anywhere, just listen to the man, its clear he is very intelligent and given the fact hes convinced a working class majority to vote for him id say its simply a chip on your shoulder that makes you think like that.
And britains broke cause of "working class" labour mate. Dont forget that.
Are you suggesting minimum wage for the prime minister btw?
britain was broke long before labour got in , they just put the finishing touches to it, in style i may add ,they nearly broke the country financially ,the numpties.i dont like political party system its ripe for corruption.
oh and the majority of people in my country scotland did not vote the tories in,
and minimum wage , i bet you he would work as the pm for minimum wage ,,he could afford too, its not about the wages in his position, its about what wages he will make when he leaves gov, feathering ye old nest as they say ,just look at mr tory blair
hes making at much hes got to give it away,, lol
weezer old boy dont take anything i say to serious , i dont like politicians, blue or red or yellow for that matter.
And at least Cameron's government is making an adult attempt to plug the leak, stop the rot, and take responsibility for the overall financial health of the country.
Is that not their job,or any other politicians job when in gov,
they get paid very well for it and fantastic goldplated pensions and perks,, like setting themselves up for a nice bank position, anyone on the org fancy a cushy job with morgan stanley lets say, after 5 years hard graft in gov,,
or with the council,, ye dream on,,
we will see where our posh men cameron and osborne run too when they eventually get kicked out in a few years time,nice easy jobs in the city,,
government should belong to the working class majority,
not some elitist toffs who buy there way into politics. I dont see many working class torys in government, all the best public school brigade are in, very democratic i must say, does not leave much chance for working class children in broken britain.
rant over,
So how many millionaires were there in the last labour cabinet? [lol]
So how many millionaires were there in the last labour cabinet
wadges of them , exactly my point , they are all at it, in it for what they can get shorterm, where did ye think davy and co got their tips from, labour is full of private schoolboys, have been since tony blair got in, he ushered them in wee open arms.
and thats a so called labour party, lol
weezer 316
16-Jun-11, 22:09
If you dont like the political party system due to "corruption" what do you suggest instead? Absolute monarchy perhaps?
The fact someone is a millionaire is irrelevant. It doesnt alter their ability to govern effectivly and correctly. The only thing it alters is some sad poeples opinions of them, who assume they are out of touch.
I personally think the way this coutnry is run is superb. Institutions are virtually incorruptable, rule of law is obeyed, and where there are beaches of the system they are normally dealt with effectivly. Im not sure you can ask much more.
As for the ludicrous comments on the money a person makes after government, featehring your own nest as you put it, aint that a huge part of working? Make good money and let yourself live a comfortable life?
Perhaps on earing over 100k a year a person should be obliged to go down a pit for the rest of their lives?
Much of this thread reads like a rant- against the old.
The National Insurance introduced by the Liberals before WW1 was designed to remove the fear of the workhouse. We all pay it- and thus are entitled to a state pension.
While the super rich possibly don't need it- many people do.
Removing or means testing such benefit is the thin end of the wedge.
Back in the 1930's my maternal grandfather- an engineer- took ill and as he had savings set aside to buy a house (no mortgages in the 1930's)- had to live off those for years - until they were all used up. Even then he and his family had to starve for several months, depending on hand outs of food from relatives before he got any help from the state.
The welfare state of 1945 was hard earned- and I for one wouldn't want to see such hard times return.
I'd like to give you another consideration- if we all feel compelled to work well into our 70's- where will the younger generation ever find work?
I'd like to give you another consideration- if we all feel compelled to work well into our 70's- where will the younger generation ever find work?
I don't see how it makes any difference in the long run, people end work (or die) people start work. The people starting work do not replace the people ending work, so what happens (how many years) in between doesn't matter.
Lets take one example - the teachers.
There are lots of young talented people who qualified - and did their probation year- who now cannot get full time work as in our current hard times those expected to retire have now opted to work on- in some cases for up to 10 years.
The longer those young people remain without employment the less likely they are to find work.
Our same wonderful governments are creating outrage by raising the pension age to 68 - thus one option might be to stop training teachers for a decade. And if you apply the smae rule to doctors, nurses, and other jobs- you create a bottleneck
There's nothing wrong with a millionaire being in government provided they don't do anything illegal or questionable to further their own interests but I'd say that about anyone.
I suppose an argument could be made that the government or at least the cabinet should be demographically representative and that someone with that much wealth could potentially be out of touch, more so if it's inherited wealth.
It's not the old that people are annoyed at, I'd say it's the baby boomer generation or a particular subset of that generation.
secrets in symmetry
17-Jun-11, 00:01
I did not steal the quote but had a link to it on the post that went missing when I noticed I had not put it on that posting. Not a so called fund but an actual fund in the sense of it being a fund and which any fund manager would fully understand. Like John I give up !!!!!!Ok, from now on I shall stop making fun of those that are ill-equipped to defend themselves. I admit that I was motivated, at least in part, by enjoying watching you digging long after you should have taken a tea break.
For those that may still be interested, Kells stole her quote from The rape of the National Insurance Fund (http://www.southwark.tv/spag/spagNIFund.asp) (a draft prepared by Tony Lynes as a basis for a National Pensioners Convention factsheet on the National Insurance Fund)
The author's argument is that the Treasury should treat the National Insurance Fund as a proper fund. He says:
The Treasury regards NI contributions as a convenient form of taxation, while benefits, including pensions, are seen as part of total public expenditure. The size of the Fund’s balance, therefore, is not taken into account in deciding whether or by how much pensions should be increased.
But (given the organisation he prepared his report for) he would say that wouldn't he?
He makes some reasonable points, but given that NI has been used as an (increasingly regressive) income tax in everything but name for the last 20 or 30 years, I don't think many people in power will be listening. I also think I disagree with him, even in principle. Combining income tax and NI into a single tax would be more honest, and less regressive.
I don't expect pensioners to agree with that proposal, but it's surely not beyond the wit of man to come up with a simple scheme that doesn't increase the tax burden on pensioners. A higher tax allowance for pensioners would I think do the trick.
PS I am not as impressed with the new editor as I was last night. It's a little buggy...
If you dont like the political party system due to "corruption" what do you suggest instead? Absolute monarchy perhaps?
I suggest we get out of the UK and govern ourselves.
The fact someone is a millionaire is irrelevant. It doesnt alter their ability to govern effectivly and correctly. The only thing it alters is some sad poeples opinions of them, who assume they are out of touch.
Well that is one excuse gone for their lack of ability to gevern.
I personally think the way this coutnry is run is superb. Institutions are virtually incorruptable, rule of law is obeyed, and where there are beaches of the system they are normally dealt with effectivly. Im not sure you can ask much more.
Institutions are incorruptable!! You must be living on a different planet from everyone else, so what about Westminster and the corruption there? The rule of law...... the prisons are overflowing and you consider this acceptable.
As for the ludicrous comments on the money a person makes after government, featehring your own nest as you put it, aint that a huge part of working? Make good money and let yourself live a comfortable life?
They are very good at feathering their own nests as you say , it is just a pity that they do so at the expense of the more vulnerable members of society.
Perhaps on earing over 100k a year a person should be obliged to go down a pit for the rest of their lives?
If they governed the country more effectivly then they would not be suggesting that others work down the pit or in other hard and difficult work until they are 68
Ok, from now on I shall stop making fun of those that are ill-equipped to defend themselves. I admit that I was motivated, at least in part, by enjoying watching you digging long after you should have taken a tea break.
For those that may still be interested, Kells stole her quote from The rape of the National Insurance Fund (http://www.southwark.tv/spag/spagNIFund.asp) (a draft prepared by Tony Lynes as a basis for a National Pensioners Convention factsheet on the National Insurance Fund)
The author's argument is that the Treasury should treat the National Insurance Fund as a proper fund. He says:
The Treasury regards NI contributions as a convenient form of taxation, while benefits, including pensions, are seen as part of total public expenditure. The size of the Fund’s balance, therefore, is not taken into account in deciding whether or by how much pensions should be increased.
But (given the organisation he prepared his report for) he would say that wouldn't he?
He makes some reasonable points, but given that NI has been used as an (increasingly regressive) income tax in everything but name for the last 20 or 30 years, I don't think many people in power will be listening. I also think I disagree with him, even in principle. Combining income tax and NI into a single tax would be more honest, and less regressive.
I don't expect pensioners to agree with that proposal, but it's surely not beyond the wit of man to come up with a simple scheme that doesn't increase the tax burden on pensioners. A higher tax allowance for pensioners would I think do the trick.
PS I am not as impressed with the new editor as I was last night. It's a little buggy...
So you like to make fun of those whom you consider ill-equiped to defend themselves........ and you even sound proud to admit to doing so. At least you can see how disgusting such behaviour is and intend to stop doing so. As for you assuming me ill-equiped to deal with anyone trying to make fun of me you have made the wrong assumtion.
So once again you are having fun pointing out my error in losing a post which I will also point out to you I had mentioned long before you posted anything. You have not even found the correct site I used, lol the site you are using have also used the same material that I did. YOu obviously are unaware that it is not stealing to do this when there is no copyright just a lazy posting on my part so stop calling me a thief, you have done so twice and you are wrong in doing so.
If you think the correct way to make yourself or your argument appear correct or heaven forbid clever then think again, you come over as being immature and somewhat pathetic.
Ok, from now on I shall stop making fun of those that are ill-equipped to defend themselves. I admit that I was motivated, at least in part, by enjoying watching you digging long after you should have taken a tea break.
For those that may still be interested, Kells stole her quote from The rape of the National Insurance Fund (http://www.southwark.tv/spag/spagNIFund.asp) (a draft prepared by Tony Lynes as a basis for a National Pensioners Convention factsheet on the National Insurance Fund)
The author's argument is that the Treasury should treat the National Insurance Fund as a proper fund. He says:
The Treasury regards NI contributions as a convenient form of taxation, while benefits, including pensions, are seen as part of total public expenditure. The size of the Fund’s balance, therefore, is not taken into account in deciding whether or by how much pensions should be increased.
But (given the organisation he prepared his report for) he would say that wouldn't he?
He makes some reasonable points, but given that NI has been used as an (increasingly regressive) income tax in everything but name for the last 20 or 30 years, I don't think many people in power will be listening. I also think I disagree with him, even in principle. Combining income tax and NI into a single tax would be more honest, and less regressive.
I don't expect pensioners to agree with that proposal, but it's surely not beyond the wit of man to come up with a simple scheme that doesn't increase the tax burden on pensioners. A higher tax allowance for pensioners would I think do the trick.
PS I am not as impressed with the new editor as I was last night. It's a little buggy...
I did not provide a link or strictly speaking a ref when I posted but I did refer to my source by saying "you require more information of how this works go to the CRND’s website." I would advise you to do the same thing where you can obtain the facts rather than giving your opinion about someone else's opinion. Once again I make it clear that I am not a thief as you have called me twice ........ so what does that say about you.
weezer 316
17-Jun-11, 10:17
If they governed the country more effectivly then they would not be suggesting that others work down the pit or in other hard and difficult work until they are 68
kells I think your a very angry person who likes to blame and pick fault when there is none, or at least very little
You dont like the party political system.....and suggest independence. What then? More party politics! Read whats written please.
Institutions are incorruptible, or as close as you can get. Ever known someone to bribe a judge to freedom? Or perhaps even a local policeman? A common ocurance in parts of the world, but non-existant here. And corruption at westminster? Who would that be then? Cameron taking backhanders to pass legislation is he?
And who on earth do the feather their nest at the expense of? You paint a picture of Legions of pensioners slaving to cook meals for the cabinet with a foreman whipping them!
I think you need to be less cynical. Its a lovely world and you live in a country thats the envy of most, and a large part of that is thanks to the govt.
Shabbychic
17-Jun-11, 12:56
Institutions are incorruptible, or as close as you can get. Ever known someone to bribe a judge to freedom? Or perhaps even a local policeman? A common ocurance in parts of the world, but non-existant here. And corruption at westminster? Who would that be then? Cameron taking backhanders to pass legislation is he?
So you honestly believe there is no institutional corruption here?
You also believe that Westminster is squeaky clean, and is never influenced in passing legislation? Never heard of Lobbyists? Look a wee bit deeper into some of these lobbying bodies, and I think you'll find legal corruption alive and kicking.
I wish I lived in your utopian world, where politicians were honest, institutions were above reproach, and maybe even the media reported the truth.
weezer 316
17-Jun-11, 13:24
So you honestly believe there is no institutional corruption here?
You also believe that Westminster is squeaky clean, and is never influenced in passing legislation? Never heard of Lobbyists? Look a wee bit deeper into some of these lobbying bodies, and I think you'll find legal corruption alive and kicking.
I wish I lived in your utopian world, where politicians were honest, institutions were above reproach, and maybe even the media reported the truth.
Not none, but very very little. The single biggest reason the UK is such a good place to live is the fact our institutions are strong and try and do the right thing. Corruption is the likes of the banana republics or places like north korea where what economy there was has been totally undermined my rampant corruoption. That simply doenst happen here and if you even begin to say it does you are having a laugh.
Lobbying isnt corruption! Its lobbying! Trade unions lobby as do private businesses. Id say its as close to impossible to as you can get to bribe even a single MP. Tell me a case where it has been proven to happen? And you will notice the MP would have been jailed, and rightly so.
And the media. yes they talk nonsense, but they love nothing more than exposing dishonest politicians. This also helps keep our institutions above reproach.
It not utopia. Nothing is perfect and ever will be. Id suggest you stop undermining your own faith and accept what you have, which is a fabulous country to live in.
kells I think your a very angry person who likes to blame and pick fault when there is none, or at least very little
You dont like the party political system.....and suggest independence. What then? More party politics! Read whats written please.
Institutions are incorruptible, or as close as you can get. Ever known someone to bribe a judge to freedom? Or perhaps even a local policeman? A common ocurance in parts of the world, but non-existant here. And corruption at westminster? Who would that be then? Cameron taking backhanders to pass legislation is he?
And who on earth do the feather their nest at the expense of? You paint a picture of Legions of pensioners slaving to cook meals for the cabinet with a foreman whipping them!
I think you need to be less cynical. Its a lovely world and you live in a country thats the envy of most, and a large part of that is thanks to the govt.
When your argument fails make it a personal attack. I admit to enjoy reading your posts when you do this, you are so very creative.
YOu have it all wrong again Weezer, I am certianly not an angry person in fact a very happy person who has great joy in live and as for blaming or picking faults in others, that is boring and I do not do boring. Keep trying with the insults you will get it right at some point and then I will be happy to agree with you, I have lots of faults so you are bound to find them eventually.
So where has the "we are all in this together" rubbish gone, suddenly you find the country wonderful? have you forgotten your concern about the financial state this country is now in.
That is a good picture you created for yourself but no man will use a whip on this pensioner:lol: but there again some people find that fun so enjoy your little fantasy.
You are correct that I am cynical but not with life only the numties that call themselves a goverment.
weezer 316
17-Jun-11, 17:43
When your argument fails make it a personal attack. I admit to enjoy reading your posts when you do this, you are so very creative.
YOu have it all wrong again Weezer, I am certianly not an angry person in fact a very happy person who has great joy in live and as for blaming or picking faults in others, that is boring and I do not do boring. Keep trying with the insults you will get it right at some point and then I will be happy to agree with you, I have lots of faults so you are bound to find them eventually.
So where has the "we are all in this together" rubbish gone, suddenly you find the country wonderful? have you forgotten your concern about the financial state this country is now in.
That is a good picture you created for yourself but no man will use a whip on this pensioner:lol: but there again some people find that fun so enjoy your little fantasy.
You are correct that I am cynical but not with life only the numties that call themselves a goverment.
Kells, seriously, I dont know if I can take this any longer. Lets go throgh your points shall we. I think they need urgent and thoughtful clarification!
You are sick of party politics, and suggest independence(?!?!?!) as a solution. Please explain why this would solve the problem seeing as holyrood is as full of nitpicking politicians as anywhere else?
We are all in this together I think refers to the part we all need to take a bite of a pretty unpleasant sandwich. IM angry as the masses of this country have voted repeatedly for a labour govt that was spending way beyond its means, and now I am one for the generation thats gonna have to pick up the tab. I couldnt vote until the General election in 2005 but the damage had been done by then. So, seeing as the masses voted this govt in, the masses can pay the bill they ran up. Fair I believe is what you call it.
This is a superb country to live in. It has a perilous financial state whcih I am very concerned about, but that aside its a country that is the envy of most of the world. Im lucky to be aprt of a generation that has access to an incredible amount of informtion. The rusult is that we have a very good idea of where our country stands in the world, and its pretty high up!
But Like i said in another thread, tis not paradise and never will be. But its not full of politicians and big business shafting you. If You think it is, perhaps a workers paradise like the DPRK or some other shitehole would make use of your talents
Shabby,
It does include oil revenue, 2 summaries at the bottom of each table, one showing with and one without north sea oil. So that argument falls flat on its face. And for the record, it was £9.8bn for the last financial year, so worse than the year before.
How on earth can you "believe"...the figures are fact. We pay in £44.5bn. We get our block grant + central govt investment + benefits from UK govt for our unemployed, sick etc. £10bn down about 2 years ago for last set of figures. How can you "believe" otherwise. Its like believing the sky is green.
£450bn is the greater london area. London city proper is around £335bn as if 2007/08. Might be lower now after credit crunch. however, the fool before hand that said we proper up London was clearly deluded.
So...let me get this right....I'm a fool who is clearly deluded? Fair enough. I'm all for the concept of free speech but why don't you do yourself a favour and stick to debating without getting personal? It totally defeats your arguments when you resort to petty name calling.
You ignorant, snide, obnoxious man.;)
You ignorant, snide, obnoxious man.;)
Just like most Tories are!!!
C3......:roll:;)
secrets in symmetry
17-Jun-11, 21:35
The National Insurance scheme is not a tax, though it is compulsory. Contributions are made from the employee, the employer and the Government. 6% of your wage is national insurance. Employers must contribute a further 9%- I'm not sure what the government percentage is right now.I missed this last night.
Where do you get the 6% from? National Insurance employee contributions are 12% for earnings between £139 and £817 per week, and 2% thereafter.
NI is a regressive de facto income tax, as is explained rather well in the article that Kells still stubbornly claims she didn't nick. Successive governments have snidely increased it, ostensibly to cover pensions and the NHS, and the populace swallow it, sometimes even as a good thing. Did you read it?
John Little
17-Jun-11, 21:45
Ha! Thankyou for that. What is it about mathematicians that gives them such an air of certainty? My figures come from a discussion with an elderly Maths guy last week and evidently it differs from yours. Could he have been giving me some sort of average?
No - I did not read the article because what you say is correct. De facto it is an income tax, which is disgraceful and if we had a constitution would not be allowed.
De Jure however it is a different matter; it's part of the social contract which forms the basis of our state. Technically the money has been filched away from its proper course.
Just because something has come to be accepted does not mean that it is right.
secrets in symmetry
17-Jun-11, 22:47
Yes, it's part of the social contract, but as I understand it, that contract merely relates a person's State Pension to the number of employee National Insurance contributions they've made; it doesn't relate the level of their (or anyone else's) pension to the actual monies contributed, so I'm not sure it is a different matter legally.
The so-called National Insurance fund is little more than an NI current account with a few months' surplus that can cover urgent needs in just about any area of government spending, which I think is actually sort of almost ok. The author of the article Kells allegedly didn't steal argues that the NI fund should be a real independently managed fund, but I'm not convinced by that argument for several reasons. The pensioners' organisation just wants to divert more of the proceeds from the disingenuously excessive NI tax to increase the state pension, which in my opinion is at least as immoral as the current situation. Also, why reduce liquidity in government budgets to mirror the conventions of private sector pension or endowment funds? Shouldn't people be responsible for their own pensions over and above the standard minimum State Pension, and therefore not rely on the government to do it for them?
Could it be that your mathematician pays 6% of his salary in NI contributions and extrapolates his experience to everyone else? :)
Kells, seriously, I dont know if I can take this any longer. Lets go throgh your points shall we. I think they need urgent and thoughtful clarification!
Calm down wheezer, this is a discussion which means an exchange of ideas and thoughts not about who is right or who is wrong.
You are sick of party politics, and suggest independence(?!?!?!) as a solution. Please explain why this would solve the problem seeing as holyrood is as full of nitpicking politicians as anywhere else?
When I consider the mess that recent parties have made of things it makes sense to me to consider that someone different might just make better choices and if their main concern is the welfare of the residents in Scotland then I am all for giving them a chance.
We are all in this together I think refers to the part we all need to take a bite of a pretty unpleasant sandwich. IM angry as the masses of this country have voted repeatedly for a labour govt that was spending way beyond its means, and now I am one for the generation thats gonna have to pick up the tab. I couldnt vote until the General election in 2005 but the damage had been done by then. So, seeing as the masses voted this govt in, the masses can pay the bill they ran up. Fair I believe is what you call it
It is not about one generation having to pick up the spending beyond it's means it is about goverment failing to consider the welfare of all its people. As a society we have to look after those who need support and care and provide a decent standard of living for all, that should always be the first concern of any goverment and when this is done all benifit from it.
This is a superb country to live in. It has a perilous financial state whcih I am very concerned about, but that aside its a country that is the envy of most of the world. Im lucky to be aprt of a generation that has access to an incredible amount of informtion. The rusult is that we have a very good idea of where our country stands in the world, and its pretty high up!
You are fortunate to have access to an incredible amount of information but you appear to forget who made this possible. The working man in this country had worked and died in the mines, the factories and the fields and also lets not forget the two world wars to ensure that this generation has the chance to make life much better for themselves and future generations. Who cares where our country stands in the world what matters is where we stand within our own nation and the values we live by.
But Like i said in another thread, tis not paradise and never will be. But its not full of politicians and big business shafting you. If You think it is, perhaps a workers paradise like the DPRK or some other shitehole would make use of your talents
I do not consider that politicians or big business shaft me, I have a good life and have fulifilled most of my dreams but that does not mean I wear blinkers to what is happening in the world around me. We have not only a responsability for ourselves but for each other regardless of circumstances and that for me is what creates a good society.
Yes, it's part of the social contract, but as I understand it, that contract merely relates a person's State Pension to the number of employee National Insurance contributions they've made; it doesn't relate the level of their (or anyone else's) pension to the actual monies contributed, so I'm not sure it is a different matter legally.
The so-called National Insurance fund is little more than an NI current account with a few months' surplus that can cover urgent needs in just about any area of government spending, which I think is actually sort of almost ok. The author of the article Kells allegedly didn't steal argues that the NI fund should be a real independently managed fund, but I'm not convinced by that argument for several reasons. The pensioners' organisation just wants to divert more of the proceeds from the disingenuously excessive NI tax to increase the state pension, which in my opinion is at least as immoral as the current situation. Also, why reduce liquidity in government budgets to mirror the conventions of private sector pension or endowment funds? Shouldn't people be responsible for their own pensions over and above the standard minimum State Pension, and therefore not rely on the government to do it for them?
Could it be that your mathematician pays 6% of his salary in NI contributions and extrapolates his experience to everyone else? :)
Oh well at least you no longer accuse me of stealing, just nicked something or being stubborn, that is you opinion which I know is ill informed and makes you look very foolish.
So you continue to give an opinion on someone else's opinion but are not prepared ot listen to someone who can think for themselves or even be bothered to read and understand what you are wittering on about.
weezer 316
18-Jun-11, 11:52
I do not consider that politicians or big business shaft me, I have a good life and have fulifilled most of my dreams but that does not mean I wear blinkers to what is happening in the world around me. We have not only a responsability for ourselves but for each other regardless of circumstances and that for me is what creates a good society.
Kells again you are making no sense at all.
In short, your not sick or party politics, you just want independence. Fine. You could have just said that!
Secondly, it very much is about one generation picking up the tab after another has lived beyond its means. You can spout caring for the needy as much as you wish, the fact is it takes money to do this and that is someting which is in short supply, due to 15 years of a govt, openly and saying so before hand, spending more than it has had. And if its about the needy, tell me what about the needy tommorow? We wont be able to look after them, or anyone cause the last generation mortgaged our here and now....and then the last generation has the temerity to comlain about the fact their retirement dates are further away now, thier pension is worth less and the current lot arent caring about its people!
Thirdly, most importantly, our standing in the world is very important, after all we are part of it. Insularity belongs in the 20th century, not the 21st. Another benefit of the large amont of information we have access to.
Weezer,who do you think picked up the tab after WW2 when the country was on its knees and heavily in debt ?
We have paid out dues to society and all Cameron and Clegg want to do is make our last years on Earth miserable ones!!!
C3.................[disgust][disgust]
secrets in symmetry
18-Jun-11, 12:53
I forgot to mention the Second State Pension in my previous post. This does relate the level of your state pension to your total NI contribution, but its level is determined by Government, not by the balance the NI fund.
weezer 316
18-Jun-11, 15:00
Weezer,who do you think picked up the tab after WW2 when the country was on its knees and heavily in debt ?
We have paid out dues to society and all Cameron and Clegg want to do is make our last years on Earth miserable ones!!!
C3.................[disgust][disgust]
Really? $5.2bn paid back to the marshall plan over 60 years = $86m a year. Not a monumental amount. Infact it wouldnt last the NHS 1 day.
No, corrie they dont want to make your last years miserable. But you, and everyone else is responsible to amke sure you can live comfortably in old age! Thats not the govt responsibility thats yours! Yours and yours alone. And its utter hypocrisy if you are going to burden the next generation with £1tr of debt and a system losing money every year until such point that it collapses and then claim you paid your dues to society! You paid then took what you paid and then some back out!
secrets in symmetry
18-Jun-11, 15:46
Secondly, it very much is about one generation picking up the tab after another has lived beyond its means. You can spout caring for the needy as much as you wish, the fact is it takes money to do this and that is someting which is in short supply, due to 15 years of a govt, openly and saying so before hand, spending more than it has had.Weezy, if you're going to talk numbers, you should get them right.
The New Labour government was in power for 13 years (not 15) between 1997 and 2010.
It ran a surplus between 1998 and 2001, so it reduced the National Debt (in pounds) during those years.
In "real terms" (2005 pounds in the example I quote) the National Debt decreased between 1998 and 2002, and it didn't re-reach 1997 levels until 2005.
In terms of percentage of GDP, the National Debt decreased between 1998 and 2002, and it didn't return to 1997 levels until 2010.
Figures are taken from the UK Public Spending (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1997_2010&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2008&chart=G0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20National%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20G DP) website.
A reasonable rational and objective account of the situation can be found at UK National Debt (http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/).
Gordon Brown defied his critics by keeping public spending as a fraction of GDP just about under control between 2004 and 2007, but he was riding the back of a wild tiger, and (predictably) his luck ran out in 2008. What really got him into trouble was that his luck ran out in a huge way. There would be no serious problem today if post-2007 economic growth had continued at the level of the previous decade, i.e. if there hadn't been a steep, deep recession followed by a period of zero to sluggish growth. GDP and hence Government earnings, would have been circa 10-15% higher than they are today, perhaps even higher. The way out of this recurrent debt situation is growth, and we aren't getting that.
That doesn't mean that Blair and Brown got their spending right between 2005 and 2008. They took a huge gamble riding that tiger, and they lost big time in the end, predictably, I suppose. If I'd been chancellor, I would have increased NHS and education spending less rapidly, and tried harder to reduce the social security budget. My experienced advisor would have been Ken Clarke, but I would have kept Ed Balls within earshot because he thinks harder, and he understands economics better than the rest.
Finally, I think the politician who predicted the UK's economic performance in the last two years most accurately was the aforementioned Ed Balls.
And, God, it pains me to write that! [disgust]
Shabbychic
18-Jun-11, 16:11
Really? $5.2bn paid back to the marshall plan over 60 years = $86m a year. Not a monumental amount. Infact it wouldnt last the NHS 1 day.
No, corrie they dont want to make your last years miserable. But you, and everyone else is responsible to amke sure you can live comfortably in old age! Thats not the govt responsibility thats yours! Yours and yours alone. And its utter hypocrisy if you are going to burden the next generation with £1tr of debt and a system losing money every year until such point that it collapses and then claim you paid your dues to society! You paid then took what you paid and then some back out!
Again you take the simplistic view. What do you reckon your stated $5.2bn is worth in today's money? It may not seem much now, but it was a lot back then.
It's also very easy, with rose tinted spectacles, to say everyone should have saved for their retirement. Things have not always been like they are today. Working class people were barely making enough to eat, never mind save for a pension. By paying their tax and NI, they were assured free health care and a pension on retirement. This is the situation that is true for many pensioners today.
As regards to living beyond their means; many pensioners today did not have bank accounts or access to credit. They scrimped and saved for everything. If they didn't have the cash, they couldn't get it. Simple as that.
Those who are now reaching retirement age, may have had it a little easier, with better wages and opportunities, but many still didn't earn enough to save for a private pension, especially when they were guaranteed a pension on retirement, by the government. Now the rules are suddenly being changed, and that is why many are in the situation they are now in.
Very well put Shabby, you have to remember that Weezer is still only young and gets his information from Google. It would be a different story if he had lived through those years. I am not going to go into the hardship we endured but today, if the young ones dont have a car then that is a hardship to them. For us, cleaning our teeth with salt was an hardship, having bread and milk for breakfast was a hardship......see Weezer, things were so much different then and yes, we were promised a Pension at 65 and expecting anyone to work later than 65 is a disgrace, wait till you are 65 and see if you fancy carrying on working. But there we go again, is working in an office (like you do) real work? Its not work that makes your body ache at the end of the day is it? I tell you now and you can call me from a pig to a dog but when you have done 51 years of real hard work all you want to do is put your feet up and enjoy what little time you have left on this Earth!!!!
C'mon then Weezer, lets have the daily insults please, I cant wait!!!!
c3......:roll:;);)
Interesting turn, what is real work? I'd say any and all paid employment. I've done non manual work most of my life. The stress involved in only having a job if you are performing to a certain level is quite tiring I'd say. And frequently working for commission only (no wage) giving the opportunity for an income related diet, if you don't sell you don't eat, thats quite tiring too.
The other side of the coin, the people that don't work downt pit (for example) are the ones that are most productive to UK PLC. The bankers that earn millions in a day for instance (for the UK). What about teachers, nurses, doctors, policemen. Is that not 'real work'.......interesting.
Interesting turn, what is real work? I'd say any and all paid employment. I've done non manual work most of my life. The stress involved in only having a job if you are performing to a certain level is quite tiring I'd say. And frequently working for commission only (no wage) giving the opportunity for an income related diet, if you don't sell you don't eat, thats quite tiring too.
The other side of the coin, the people that don't work downt pit (for example) are the ones that are most productive to UK PLC. The bankers that earn millions in a day for instance (for the UK). What about teachers, nurses, doctors, policemen. Is that not 'real work'.......interesting.
Haha Duke, Are they the same bankers(sp?) that can lose millions in a day also?
The days in the 40/50/60/70's when a banker (sp?) could press a button and make millions for his country, those were the days...NOT!!!!
Great Britain was built on two things, hard work and selling to foreign countries, you maybe too young to remember the days when on the news was the export/import figures, we were either in the black (exported more than we imported) or in the red (imported more than we exported).
Of course we have always had to have the public sector, nurses, firemen, police etc but they contributed nothing to Britains wealth only as a secondary occupation. The people who made the real money were the people who worked in manufacturing, making stuff to sell abroad. And you and Weezer may well laugh at this and take the wee out of me but just look at China and India right here right now, how are they making their money, by hard work and selling abroad.
The Govt have to remember that there are still people about who went through this and gave their lives, their blood and their bodies to make Britain what it is...sorry, was!!! The bad backs, arthritis, broken bones and the like are what people endured on a daily basis but all was ok cos our Govt were going to look after us in our old age.
There is a big difference in working conditions nowadays, I broke 3 toes at work one day (before the introduction of steel cap boots) and was back at work after lunchtime the same day, today, people complain of Repetitive strain injury after typing all day long, they have weeks/months off on the sick and then sue for thousands of pounds from their employer. Theres one thing for sure Duke, this Britain will be great no more!!!!!
C3......[disgust][disgust][disgust]
Haha Duke, Are they the same bankers(sp?) that can lose millions in a day also?
The days in the 40/50/60/70's when a banker (sp?) could press a button and make millions for his country, those were the days...NOT!!!!
Great Britain was built on two things, hard work and selling to foreign countries, you maybe too young to remember the days when on the news was the export/import figures, we were either in the black (exported more than we imported) or in the red (imported more than we exported).
Of course we have always had to have the public sector, nurses, firemen, police etc but they contributed nothing to Britains wealth only as a secondary occupation. The people who made the real money were the people who worked in manufacturing, making stuff to sell abroad. And you and Weezer may well laugh at this and take the wee out of me but just look at China and India right here right now, how are they making their money, by hard work and selling abroad.
The Govt have to remember that there are still people about who went through this and gave their lives, their blood and their bodies to make Britain what it is...sorry, was!!! The bad backs, arthritis, broken bones and the like are what people endured on a daily basis but all was ok cos our Govt were going to look after us in our old age.
There is a big difference in working conditions nowadays, I broke 3 toes at work one day (before the introduction of steel cap boots) and was back at work after lunchtime the same day, today, people complain of Repetitive strain injury after typing all day long, they have weeks/months off on the sick and then sue for thousands of pounds from their employer. Theres one thing for sure Duke, this Britain will be great no more!!!!!
C3......[disgust][disgust][disgust]
Well, a bit of a tirade, how much can one miner mine in a day and what is it worth? Once you've taken out his or her pittence of a wage. The teachers I would say have the greatest claim to making Britain great although you seem a bit dismissive of their efforts. Any teachers care to comment?
And Britain were kings of export when we were a colonial power. When we had markets that had to buy from us at the price we decreed. Once we had to be competative, and the salt of the earth, union member, working man started to have influence, it all went down the tubes. China is very competative...............it is a totalitarian state.
Well, a bit of a tirade, how much can one miner mine in a day and what is it worth? Once you've taken out his or her pittence of a wage. The teachers I would say have the greatest claim to making Britain great although you seem a bit dismissive of their efforts. Any teachers care to comment?
A great swerve there Duke, not unexpected really!! Without the miners in the 40's you would now be speaking German not Scottish....Sorry, I forgot..... not English!!!
And I will stick my neck out and say that a miner is more important than a teacher right now in China and India. We need teachers and the rest of the public services, of course we do but we also need makers, we seem sadly to be lacking in makers these days!!!....Anyways Duke, nice deflection if I may say so!!!
C3......:roll:[disgust]
A great swerve there Duke, not unexpected really!! Without the miners in the 40's you would now be speaking German not Scottish....Sorry, I forgot..... not English!!!
And I will stick my neck out and say that a miner is more important than a teacher right now in China and India. We need teachers and the rest of the public services, of course we do but we also need makers, we seem sadly to be lacking in makers these days!!!....Anyways Duke, nice deflection if I may say so!!!
C3......:roll:[disgust]
Yes it was, care to comment on the Union's role in the decimation of our export markets?
Yes it was, care to comment on the Union's role in the decimation of our export markets?
Yes, they got it wrong!!!! They were trying to make life better for their members but totally ignored the fact that goods could be made cheaper abroad and thats where the markets went!!! But it was not helped by stubborness on the Govt's part (Ref Maggie) who failed to compromise and went all out for self glory!!
Next question?
C3.....:roll:;)
Yes, they got it wrong!!!! They were trying to make life better for their members but totally ignored the fact that goods could be made cheaper abroad and thats where the markets went!!! But it was not helped by stubborness on the Govt's part (Ref Maggie) who failed to compromise and went all out for self glory!!
Next question?
C3.....:roll:;)
OK.....We'll call that a draw.:lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.