Off Topic Politics Thread

He's advertising the same jobs in the UK too - we all know there are people who could work but choose not to and he needs to fill the job roles somehow...widening the net for applicants seems sensible. I doubt there are queues of unemployed brits failing to get these jobs because they've been filled by Polish workers.

 

Still hypocrisy in my book.

 

Although expenditure on the NHS goes up each year, the rate at which it has gone up since Cameron/May took control has slumped to the lowest ever percentage growth- 1.4% I think has been quoted, compared to 6% when Bliar was in charge.
Good to see that there is recognition at the top that there is a need to increase the money to support the NHS and social care. Just a shame that it has taken so long, when the evidence was there to be seen by all.
We often hear MPs talking about ring fencing money for certain projects. If ever there was an area where the annual injection of money was ring fenced at a workable percentage, then this is one of them and all MPs should be working together to protect it.

 

I see the Finns aren’t going to continue their Universal Basic Income experiment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43866700

 

Which is a pro EU argument yet they (their owners it seems) campaigned against the EU and spend half a million pounds doing so which is where the alleged hypocrisy comes from.

Article doesn't actually say why they campaigned against staying in the EU though, I would have to look it up. Article just says that they campaigned for a group that was anti immigration so they must be too which is a false premise. But the fact the article quotes the company as saying their owners views are not the view of the company or how they do buisness speaks volumes.

 

a little bit of hypocrisy but if they are advertising to both i don't see the fuss of it.

It's a bit like saying i hate giant corporations and i'm anti this and anti that whilst typing on my windows pc, eating monster munch in my chair and drinking coca cola

 

I'm not surprised, I never could get my head around how it would work. It will be interesting to see the reasons why it's been stopped.

 

i can see the theory behind it. My interpretation of it is that:

Our tax money will be paid to everyone regardless of who is earning what so it guarantees some sort of basic income that should be enough to live on regardless of how much they earn. If people want to earn more then they can and if people don't, they can still live and not be homeless etc.

It also recognises that people who are doing valuable jobs that don't pay well like voluntary, nursing, etc etc get a better income than what they are on now.

A big cost saving should be on not having means testing and fraud (although i guess that can still happen with fake people, fake applications etc) but it should save on costs because you just dole it out to everyone rather than having a dedicated team looking at applications, who makes it etc etc.

Also means people can change jobs without having to worry about being on the doll (although it doesn't stop people from having too much debt which stops people changing jobs).

I'm not sure how much it would cost to enact but thats a lot of taxes to be coupled in if we say pay everyone 12k a year (65 million people, 780 billion, if we take away kids thats then its 636 billion quid a year to dish it out)

 

There wouldnt be any fuss at all if they were just advertising in the UK but they arent. whether they advertise just in the Eu or not is irrelevant as either way they are saying that they need EU workers after running a campaign against bringing in EU workers. Its very much a case of do what i say not what i do by the rich elite, so of course there is going to be a fuss.

I agree with you about the hypocrisy of using products of big corperations while using their products. but this would be like running a campaign to not drink coke and drink pepsi instead while drinking both yourself and then when found out saying i drink whatever but Coke is better.

edit: should have been coke at the end or it makes no sense

edit 2: having looked at the guys twitter feed the guy based his decision on immigration, its most of what he talks about, so 100% hypocrisy.

 

roped in now, i have to read the article:

off the top - the owner back vote leave. There were many reasons people voted leave, one of the big reasons is immigration but whether that was on the forefront of his mind is a different matter.

to re-iterate, they picked one aspect of the vote leave campaign, the extra 300k jobs for british because they were trying to put across that is what he backed (among a range of policies) whether he agreed with that sentiment or not.

I'm sure most people (from the views i've seen) voted Labour (well not Tories) because you agreed with their general policies and Jezza even though Jezza is actually a brexiter at heart. That doesn't mean you agree with his brexit views but you agreed with most of his other ideas. You can vote for a party because you agree with most/the most important view is within that group and disagree with other parts of it.

I might be wrong on what he thinks but just from the article that was posted

 

Yeah, i mentioned this point in my first post and said they were basing their argument on a false premise and would have to look it up.

I have since done so and according to his twitter feed he was a ukip member and massive supporter of Farage to the point he defected to the cons once he left. this is the type of thing he posts:
(first result when i googled his twitter)

Whatever his views are what he has done however is give £400,000 to a group that is campaigning against immigration and supporting their views.

His stated aim is to reduce immigration to about 30-50k.

 

You have just explained why I don't see how it could work.

I don't agree that people who can manage just fine should get a handout. Taxes would need to be raised to pay for it which would also affect the poorest/people just making ends meet so already they have lost part of the payment. You could say they are being taxed to enable the rich to get the handout. Someone will say 'tax the rich' and you may get away with that to a degree, but they will find a loophole or leave the country as they have in the past if you tax them too much. We would need to raise an awful lot of tax. How is paying someone all the time a better idea than just when they need it? It would cost a fortune as you have demonstrated.

Having said all that I would like to see what the Finns have made of it seeing as they have actually tried it. It may answer some of my questions.

 

double post.

 

I'm not saying it's a good idea, I have no idea, but the problem is that having more benefits at the bottom that massively decrease when you find a job means there's barely any benefit to getting a job as you won't get paid much more and lose a lot of free time.

You would just have to tax people at the high end marginally more to get it back from them, and you pay less it administration to work it all out.

Middle class you could tax more for the same effect if you tax by income but again at less administration cost, and then you can easily modify it so that you do get more income for low income jobs.

The way I see it is currently benefits are about giving money when you may need it while this new system would be about taking it away when you dont.

Biggest benefit I see in that is that you don't have this universal credit issue where you don't get the money for a few weeks until the claim is processed.
Where you can fall into massive issues.

But on the reverse there would be a lot of people hiding income with higher income tax which would increase costs. But I would personally rather people hide income than not get any or avoid working.

 

I see Jeremy Hunt has saved himself £94,500.00, by buying the seven flats in Ocean Village, at the same time.
As I understand it, if you buy a second home, or a second property for letting, you have to pay 3% stamp duty, but in 2016 a law was passed allowing those who bought six or more properties at the same time to forego that payment.
Luckily for Hunt, the accountant who allegedly didn’t register Hunt’s part ownership of a property company, causing embarrassment, was switched on enough to save him a lot of money.

 

is that true? I'm just reading into it now and it's the lowering of stamp duty if you buys properties at less than i guess your expensive one (with a minimum of 1% which is still a damn site cheaper than 3% to pay).

You got the original link to that?

 

That is money staying with money.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...t-saved-100000-tax-bulk-purchase-seven-flats/

 

Jesus .When did they sneak in such a policy for rich ****s like hunt to get richer

 

It would lose most people money rather than increase it. I get way more than £12k in benefits a year whilst "in work" and by that I mean if I halve what we get assuming that myself and the wife (who doesn't work) would be be paid a set amount.

There will be others that get way more than me. Just think about the number of people in (and out of) work in London in receipt of the maximum housing benefits!!!

You would have to near double that £12k and then double that again to match my "benefits" when you add up all the working tax credits, child tax credits, DLA x 2, carer's allowance x 1, child benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit etc. And I don't claim for discount on water bills either.

£12k a year is way less than my child tax credit alone which is "super boosted" because I have 2 autistic children. They aren't autistic in terms of any major noticeable difference from other kids. They are more like "naughty boys" that are blameless (if you know what I mean) but intelligent, good at school but get angry quite a lot. Can be awkward like teenagers before their time has come to be teenagers but other than that they are just normal kids that are a handful.

The 3rd child is probably autistic too but then she is a girl so nothing has been noticed yet at school and thus she has not been referred yet. When they start noticing that girls can be autistic too there will be an explosion on this front numberswise because the whole "boys are x more likely to be autistic" myth will be finished with. They just don't "present" the "symptoms" of autism as easily due to differences in the things they do, play etc.

This country would be bankrupted if it substituted the current system to that Norwegian model. People won't work less, they will just see it as a bonus because this country is obsessed with wealth and material stuff. People would still work the same hours with a "£12k" bonus on top.

Quite different from when tax credits initially came in and workers stopped doing O/T because it would just be taken off their tax credits. This isn't taking anything off. It is a freebie so people would still work more hours for more money and buy more stuff to show off to the Jones' then years down the line after initially those it saved from poverty we would be in an even worse position.

As for the Butlins argument you can take Wetherspoons as well. See above. This country is obsessed with money, profits, business. Business that does well out of the EU supports the EU. There is a trade off however with a lot of "service" business. If your clientele is mainly the demographic likely to be leavers it makes good business sense to support leave. So Butlins and Wetherspoons gets some very good and well positioned publicity which its main clientele agrees with..........unless you think Wetherspoons is full of city traders and Butlins is the domain of the well to do investors!!! Last time I went to Skeggy Butlins it was full of the Hoi Polloi that will have been a vast majority leave and Wetherspoons was full of middle aged blokes in their 80s leather blousons and tinted glasses on. Very good publicity for these types of places and that is what the world has become.

They don't care about the pluses or minuses of Brexit at all. You and I have more care about that. They care about what makes their profits bigger (whether supporting leave or remain.) Whereas you lot and I may differ in our support of leave or remain but we made that decision based on a belief and not a £ calculation. And that was a big failing in the whole concept of the remain argument. They made an assumption that all they have to do is tell people they would lose money and then assumed we are all mercenaries with no other interest than money.

The problem with this country (and other leading nations) is the obsession with money and material; things. Maybe Norwegians are not as far down that path to doom as we are? Maybe more Norwegians still value time with family over money in their pockets? We hear a lot of people on telly that talk up the whole "paternal" time off, flexibility in work etc and how wonderful it is but then they tend to be people that have a bit of money stashed away etc. In the real world optional paternal time off is a pipe dream. Employers being flexible is a pipe dream.

Over here time is sacrificed and we are obsessed with rushing about everywhere because our money obsessions means we are working as many hours as we can and then blaming that obsession on us not seeing our families or "being busy" when we've already wasted 10 hours plus tapping away on our phones or laptops to strangers so they can see a picture of what we were about to eat, wasting half an hour on the running machine closest to the glass wall so the world can see we are members of a gym or being stuck in traffic because we refuse to walk anywhere.

And the answer to all the problems is? Yep, need more money spent.........and the whole material cycle of needing more money to be earned to feed the obsession of being the Jones' means that everything goes up in price, no one wins and then we want more and more money spent.

How many people do you really think will decide to drop hours because they are getting an extra £12k? Probably the same ones that can afford to decide they will take paternity leave or other types of time off work. The rest will see it as an extra £12k to spend on top of their earnings and no-one wins other than the government getting a chunk back through VAT etc. It won't reduce hours for the other 99.9% and that I would guess is why the Norwegians dropped it. They probably saw evidence that it didn't change habits enough to be worthwhile.

If we really want to sort this out then it would have to be some sort of system that stops blasting through our TVs that we should all have everything, live in super styled homes to be constantly redecored every couple of years and stop spending so much money on rubbish. But that is not the western model. Consumerism will not allow people to decide to work less because apart from a select few that can already afford to drop hours the system is geared up for making people want more money to keep up and this continually drives costs of essentials (housing etc) upward and it is a spiral.

I guess I sound like I am promoting communism or socialism there but then socialism in its modern guise is exactly what I describe above. Constant drive to increase earnings/benefits to spend more to "improve" your standard of living which is then judged on a scale of what you have materially rather than what your actual quality of life is. "What is the health of your assets" without a thought to "How do you feel." You must feel great because you have a pretty new car, live in pretty nice house all decorated in this year's colours and styles, fitted with massive telly and all the subscriptions you could ever want etc."

And then they talk about concern over mental health? I await the calculation of mental health in £ terms because that will be their real concern. It will all be related (in their minds) to money.

I would blame the Russians but then all their money is London so it can;t be their fault this time.