[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by Phil57

Did you say that Dazza74?

Yes good sir he did

He did indeed

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

So if a job only pays £55 per week excluding taxes pension etc and less than benefits does you are saying people should take that job because it looks appealing and end up on the poverty line by taking that job with less to live on , even if benefits pay more than that?

If what they are proposing to do is true, you'll no longer have the option to turn down any job in favour of sitting on benefits instead. They are going to stop your money aren't they if you don't take a job? that's the impression I get.

I don't agree with it, but I'm also mindful of the fact that as a single person of working age with no kids, I'm in a minority. I'm not somebody a political party cares that much about when it comes to winning an election.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by dazza74

No you don't, you just cut people's benefits to an extent that any work looks appealing.

You could argue your beloved Labour party didn't exactly help the plight of workers wages in this country by opening the flood gates to anyone from the EU, at least other countries had the common sense to apply some form of quota's.

That's what I don't really get with you a lot of the time. At least I've woken up and realised that a vote for Labour or the Lib Dem's would never acheive the sort of fairness in society that you and I would for the most part like to see.

and cause a huge amount of resentment?How bright is that? not! Welcome to further disruptions as people strike or go on go slows. Incentives means making work an attractive option which gives people decent pay decent conditions and a sense of dignity.Its about respect as well.Bad employers who show disrespect by exploiting their staff and forcing them to work in bad conditions should be forced out of business IMO

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

By the way all this would do is increase the amount of protests and cause more bother. If work pays decently enough which is should to be fair then you wouldn't see people on benefits all the time.

Why?

If your a couple, what are you going to do. Both work full time minimum wage jobs and bring in say £20k a year between you or choose a life on benefits with £100 a week to survive on. That's why there's no protests in the street etc, because the vast majority in society benefit from working even if it's only on a minimum wage.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Phil57

That is one of the most stupid things you have ever posted.
It is Not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of FACT, what the facts are and how they are interpreted. you have an opinion.
However they are interpreted, the FACTS remain the same.

The only FACT is we have a debt , the rest is opinion .

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

and cause a huge amount of resentment?How bright is that? not! Welcome to further disruptions as people strike or go on go slows. Incentives means making work an attractive option which gives people decent pay decent conditions and a sense of dignity.Its about respect as well.Bad employers who show disrespect by exploiting their staff and forcing them to work in bad conditions should be forced out of business IMO

Most employees today are not part of unions anymore and have very little power imo. Would Tesco's care if your stacking shelves one day and down tools, of course not because we've a ready supply of people waiting in the wings looking for that job.

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by dazza74

Why?

If your a couple, what are you going to do. Both work full time minimum wage jobs and bring in say £20k a year between you or choose a life on benefits with £100 a week to survive on. That's why there's no protests in the street etc, because the vast majority in society benefit from working even if it's only on a minimum wage.

Not everyone on JSA is a couple. There are more single people on JSA than there are couples this is fact.

By the way there are not many jobs about that pay £20,000 a year between two people.

Add to this unemployment being sky high and unemployment blackspots you can quickyl kiss goodbye to that £20,000 for each couple a year theory.

Originally Posted by dazza74

Most employees today are not part of unions anymore and have very little power imo. Would Tesco's care if your stacking shelves one day and down tools, of course not because we've a ready supply of people waiting in the wings looking for that job.

Are you sure because last time i checked a lot of people working for tesco only had short term contracts and not permanent jobs. Sooner or later that's a lot of people going back onto JSA again. And most of the tesco vacancies advertised don't pay all that great anyway minus tax, pension, insurance etc.

Its unreal how many new people you see in tesco show up and for the staff you remember to not be working there anymore.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Not everyone on JSA is a couple. There are more single people on JSA than there are couples this is fact.

Are we not to some extent in agreement Gaz, for couples with two incomes works more viable than being single on low wages?

Vast majority of people in this country earn over £7 an hour.

As far as I understand it single parents and single people make up about 80% of the workless households in this country.

Of the 5 single people I know where I live, only one of them pays rent out of wages, everyone else is either dependant on the state for their rent or a relative.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Are you sure because last time i checked a lot of people working for tesco only had short term contracts and not permanent jobs. Sooner or later that's a lot of people going back onto JSA again. And most of the tesco vacancies advertised don't pay all that great anyway minus tax, pension, insurance etc.

They get away with this because of over supply in the labour market, plus also I believe women can work so many hours and still retain all of their child benefits etc.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by dazza74

Most employees today are not part of unions anymore and have very little power imo. Would Tesco's care if your stacking shelves one day and down tools, of course not because we've a ready supply of people waiting in the wings looking for that job.

they would do well to be sensible and not exploit their staff because in the long term in wont pay them to do so. Unions may not have the power they once had but can still cause problems if called upon .Anyone with half a brain knows that one is far more likely to get better results if the staff are treated fairly otherwise morale goes down and so does performance.
People can be quite prepared to make sacrifices in the short term if conditions dictate provided they can see the glimmer of a better future.Treat them like horse manure and I can see nothing but trouble .I witnessed this idiot yelling at one of his staff in BQ the otherv day in front of customers .I took it upon myself to approach him and tell him his attitude was way out of order. Such people should never be in positions of responsibility over others.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

The only FACT is we have a debt , the rest is opinion .

The fact is that following one of the biggest boom periods for some time the last government managed to put us in debt to the tune of £600 billion (published debt) plus a further £1-£2 trillion in off balance sheet debt, before the credit crisis hit!!!

I value your opinion as to who caused this...........

Sidicks

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by sidicks

The fact is that following one of the biggest boom periods for some time the last government managed to put us in debt to the tune of £600 billion (published debt) plus a further £1-£2 trillion in off balance sheet debt, before the credit crisis hit!!!

I value your opinion as to who caused this...........

Sidicks

£2 trillion debt not possible i know for a fact thats over exagerated

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

£2 trillion debt not possible i know for a fact thats over exagerated

How do you 'know for a fact' that number is "over exaggerated"?

What is the cost of accrued state pensions, public sector final salary pension schemes and PFI projects.

Plenty of reports that back up a number of £1-2 trillion.

What's your number and where does it come from??
:-)
Sidicks

[pandemic]

Originally Posted by sidicks

How do you 'know for a fact' that number is "over exaggerated"?

What is the cost of accrued state pensions, public sector final salary pension schemes and PFI projects.

Plenty of reports that back up a number of £1-2 trillion.

What's your number and where does it come from??
:-)
Sidicks

Actually, if you calculated all that as "real or true" national debt it is in excess of £4 trillion.

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by pandemic

Actually, if you calculated all that as "real or true" national debt it is in excess of £4 trillion.

So if we have all that debt then how come the whole country can afford to live in a house, drive cars and how are businesses even operating.

I call shenanigans

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

So if we have all that debt then how come the whole country can afford to live in a house, drive cars and how are businesses even operating.

I call shenanigans

So basically you admit you don't understand the difference between personal debt, government debt borrowed from the markets and unfunded government promises?

Further, when you said you that the figure i quoted of £1-2 trillion was "over exaggerated" you were basically lying, as you have no idea?

Thanks for confirming what I strongly suspected!
:-)
Sidicks

[pandemic]

The true debt includes future debt, technically it doesn't exist yet, but we know it will in years to come. We have to pay pensioners in future, amongst other things (Because we've already promised the money i.e. signed the contract). So it's a financial time bomb in a sense. Personally, I look at the whole system as a Ponzi scheme, as long as people "invest" we can pay the people who "invested" earlier, until of course we can't find "investors" i.e. too many pensioners and not enough workers. And every goes tits up.

[Mshulla]

Originally Posted by sidicks

How do you 'know for a fact' that number is "over exaggerated"?

What is the cost of accrued state pensions, public sector final salary pension schemes and PFI projects.

Plenty of reports that back up a number of £1-2 trillion.

What's your number and where does it come from??
:-)
Sidicks

If this is correct it suggests whomever gave this figure was guessing, £1 - 2 trillion is a huge margin for error.

It's a bit like someone asking how much I want to sell my car for and I reply between £1.00 and £10,000.00.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by pandemic

The true debt includes future debt, technically it doesn't exist yet, but we know it will in years to come.

It's a moot point, but from my perspective, as we've promised to make these payments which have already been earned, then I'd strongly argue it is an existing debt.

We know that through future accrual there will be further benefits paid in the future, but as this has not been earned yet, it is reasonable to say that this debt doesn't exist yet.

Originally Posted by pandemic

We have to pay pensioners in future, amongst other things (Because we've already promised the money i.e. signed the contract). So it's a financial time bomb in a sense. Personally, I look at the whole system as a Ponzi scheme, as long as people "invest" we can pay the people who "invested" earlier, until of course we can't find "investors" i.e. too many pensioners and not enough workers. And every goes tits up.

Agreed, which is why we need to address the issue sooner rather than later, before it's too late!

Sidicks

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Mshulla

If this is correct it suggests whomever gave this figure was guessing, £1 - 2 trillion is a huge margin for error.

It's a bit like someone asking how much I want to sell my car for and I reply between £1.00 and £10,000.00.

There are some significant assumptions to be made about investment returns and longevity for 50 plus years into the future. Due to the effect of compounding etc, a small change in assumption can have a huge difference in cost.

No guesswork required!

Sidicks

[Mshulla]

Originally Posted by sidicks

There are some significant assumptions to be made about investment returns and longevity for 50 plus years into the future. Due to the effect of compounding etc, a small change in assumption can have a huge difference in cost.

No guesswork required!

Sidicks

I can't claim to understand national finance, but if I understand what you've written, a small change may mean we aren't in debt at all, in fact we may have a huge surplus

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Mshulla

I can't claim to understand national finance, but if I understand what you've written, a small change may mean we aren't in debt at all, in fact we may have a huge surplus

In that case no, you don't understand!

The vast majorrity of these pensions are unfunded i.e. there are liabilities but no assets. The debate is regarding the current cost of providing those benefits, which as stated above, depends on a number of assumptions.

£1 trillion is probably optimistic. £2 trillion is possibly pessimistic.

Either way it's still a huge debt which needs to be recognised (and paid for at some point!!!).

Sidicks

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

The fact is that following one of the biggest boom periods for some time the last government managed to put us in debt to the tune of £600 billion (published debt) plus a further £1-£2 trillion in off balance sheet debt, before the credit crisis hit!!!

I value your opinion as to who caused this...........

Sidicks

the boom was going perfectly well under Labour but was unsustainable basically because of the ineptitude and greed in the city,useless financiers and investors, not to say the tech bubble burst .The Tories, by contrast, plunged us into, not one, but two massive recessions and wasted billions of North Sea revenue keeping people unemployed , and let our public services run down to such an extent it took years of Labour rule to get it back to something usable again.Labour was committed to invest in public services and that is what it did.Now the Tories are ruining them again

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

the boom was going perfectly well under Labour but was unsustainable basically because of the ineptitude and greed in the city,useless financiers and investors, not to say the tech bubble burst .The Tories, by contrast, plunged us into, not one, but two massive recessions and wasted billions of North Sea revenue keeping people unemployed , and let our public services run down to such an extent it took years of Labour rule to get it back to something usable again.Labour was committed to invest in public services and that is what it did.Now the Tories are ruining them again

Yawn, whatever you say....

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Yawn, whatever you say....

oh so you agree with him

Talk about being beaten la gran siete does it again

[sidicks]

Gazberotten.....

Originally Posted by sidicks

So basically you admit you don't understand the difference between personal debt, government debt borrowed from the markets and unfunded government promises?

Further, when you said you that the figure i quoted of £1-2 trillion was "over exaggerated" you were basically lying, as you have no idea?

Thanks for confirming what I strongly suspected!
:-)
Sidicks

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

oh so you agree with him

Talk about being beaten la gran siete does it again

C'mon, there's nothing good on telly, why don't you reposte the telegraph article? Heaven forfend your unwillingness to do so might stem from a total inability to do so rather than not liking doing what people ask.

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Gazberotten.....

Sidlicks i know your trying to make your point but could you please Stop repeating your posts we can all read what you posted we aren't stupid mate

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

C'mon, there's nothing good on telly, why don't you reposte the telegraph article? Heaven forfend your unwillingness to do so might stem from a total inability to do so rather than not liking doing what people ask.

So now we have gone from politics to nothing good being on telly and then to a telegraph article i really dont care about?



And for any conservative supporters reading this thread i have a vision of who will be back in power with the way the coalition is running this country and yes this is my opinion i stand by it

And i dont even support Labour either

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Sidlicks i know your trying to make your point but could you please Stop repeating your posts we can all read what you posted we aren't stupid mate

You are repeatedly claiming certain things, then refusing to prove / justify them. It just makes you seem a bit simple, to say the least....

Do you not think that justifying your statements would enhance your credibility if you actually had something worth saying...??

Sidicks