-
It's a bugger, I reckon.
What would the effect be of giving (say) every "key worker" an additional 10K on their salary, and taking away all perks such as subsidised housing/travel?
Would a keyworker be better off?
I imagine that the policy is to keep pay as low as possible whilst providing other benefits (which would be taxable, to a normal employee I believe?) in order to keep the pensions in check as they are final salary pensions?
Therefore, if the pensions were turned into that which the private sector can expect, i.e. not final salary linked, the motivation to keep a lid on wages for the majority of public sector workers, whilst spending money on then enabling them to be able to afford housing, would wane?
All supposition based on ignorance, mind.
-
A typically sexist Gallic view, utterly outdated and a very good clue as to why the French economy - inflexible, backward looking and ossified - is doing so badly.
Vive Les Gens de la Poubelle D'exterieur!WW pwns VV. :)
-
but isn't that the key to economic growth? Getting people spending money?
If someone has no debt and plenty of savings and is living well beneath his/her means then the economy would love him/her to start spending like crazy.
Unfortunately this doesn't describe most of the strikers from yesterday.
-
It's not, but he said 'I would take them outside and execute them' which if taken literally could be seen as a death threat. Which obviously, is illegal.
His massive hypocrisy bothers me more, he may not directly work for the BBC but he's effectively bankrolled by one of the most notoriously cushy public sector employers. He's already rich from his BBC work, and probably has a job for life with Top Gear, unless he gets sacked for saying something stupid. So suggesting that workers like nurses who do essential public services, in often unpleasant working environments and for little reward, are somehow less deserving or hard working than him really shows what a massive Richard he is.
He was on the show to promote his new video. Has he succeeded in increasing current public awareness of himself and thus his new video? Yes.
I have met him a couple of times and off camera he doesn't spout all this drivel, he's quite a nice guy.
He's no different to Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr in that they use statements written to offend.
The bit I disagree with is that there are too many idiots who won't see it for the attention seeking that it is and will believe in it.
-
He was on the show to promote his new video. Has he succeeded in increasing current public awareness of himself and thus his new video? Yes.
I have met him a couple of times and off camera he doesn't spout all this drivel, he's quite a nice guy.
He's no different to Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr in that they use statements written to offend.
The bit I disagree with is that there are too many idiots who won't see it for the attention seeking that it is and will believe in it.
Though we now live in a world where trying to 'incite a riot' that didn't happen by posting about it on Facebook can get you 4 years in chokey.
-
I have met him a couple of times and off camera he doesn't spout all this drivel, he's quite a nice guy.
He's no different to Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr in that they use statements written to offend.
Cannot divorce the man from his views, Comedians use shock for the point of humour, Clarkson has views on how society should be and it has an alarming amount of subscribers, he is not a comedian.
ergo; he is a massive prick (see morgan, cowell et al)But we already have a Clarkson thread somewhere
-
Cannot divorce the man from his views, Comedians use shock for the point of humour, Clarkson has views on how society should be and it has an alarming amount of subscribers, he is not a comedian.
ergo; he is a massive prick (see morgan, cowell et al)JC =total denialist dreamer. END OF.
-
Probably should be in the Epic Fail thread:
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Public-sector-workers-use-tele-3918178442.html?x=0If you are in the 99% and don't want to be worse off - STOP SPENDING ALL YOUR MONEY.
As Bill Gates explained to Homer Simpson, "I didn't get rich by writing checks, Homer."
And yes, I know how to spell cheques and yes I know the original source of that article is the Torygraph.
Pretty sure they would have just gone out at the weekend and bought the same things, so it probably didn't make much difference. In fact, the reason they did it then was probably because it was better value - no parking fees, shorter queues than the weekend, less fuel burnt sitting in stationary traffic.
So really, they were being economically quite clever. Of course, they'll look pretty stupid if the retailers all end up discounting heavily before Christmas as panic about poor sales takes hold.
-
Hmm. Wonder what child mortality & literacy rates are in the post-communist era? Wonder what the gap between the richest and the poorest are in Russia, as compared to 1985?
The state of post-Soviet Russia is entirely a result of the transformation of apparatchiks into kleptocrats. There's no ideology there beyond fucking-over the serfs, so they have gone back to pre-Soviet conditions but with the additional leverage provided by 21st Century technology.
The disastrous Soviet experiment was not only a bad thing in and of itself (remember kids, Stalin murdered more of his citizens than did Nazi Germany, possibly 10 times as many in absolute numbers), but also wasted a whole century when Russia should have been progressing in parallel with the USA, but with the added benefit of actually having some culture.
As it goes, infant mortality has still halved in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it has declined by >70% in Czech Republic, whose transition from Communism to Democracy has been more successful. Russian literacy rates have been maintained at the >99% level achieved in late Soviet times.
-
The state of post-Soviet Russia is entirely a result of the transformation of apparatchiks into kleptocrats. There's no ideology there beyond fucking-over the serfs, so they have gone back to pre-Soviet conditions but with the additional leverage provided by 21st Century technology.
The disastrous Soviet experiment was not only a bad thing in and of itself (remember kids, Stalin murdered more of his citizens than did Nazi Germany, possibly 10 times as many in absolute numbers), but also wasted a whole century when Russia should have been progressing in parallel with the USA, but with the added benefit of actually having some culture.
I don't really want to get into the who killed how many argument, as Stalin had much longer to get on with it (1926 - 1953, as opposed to 1933 - 1945, or 41-45 if we are simply talking about the number of Soviet citizens killed by Hitler), and although there were many, many executions under Stalin (eg the Katyn massacre), and there is also no doubt that the gulag system was inhuman, the Hitler regime was qualitatively different in that the only outcome foreseen for the *Vernichtungslager *and certain *Arbeitslager *was death, whereas even the German POWs held after the end of the war had a notional release date, even if a lot of them did not live to see it (anything from 1950 - 1955, trivia fans).
Did the communists do a better job of managing the economy than the Tsarists (or some other bourgeois version) would have? An open question, but to say that a century was wasted is wrong. Huge progress (at a terrible cost) was made under the Soviets - to pretend otherwise is just not right.
-
The state of post-Soviet Russia is entirely a result of the transformation of apparatchiks into kleptocrats. There's no ideology there beyond fucking-over the serfs, so they have gone back to pre-Soviet conditions but with the additional leverage provided by 21st Century technology.
Well, the 1990s period was cloaked in a great deal of ideology, IIRC, mostly the free market kind.
Remember this:
[INDENT]What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War as the final form of human government.
[/INDENT] -
He was on the show to promote his new video. Has he succeeded in increasing current public awareness of himself and thus his new video? Yes.
I have met him a couple of times and off camera he doesn't spout all this drivel, he's quite a nice guy.
He's no different to Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr in that they use statements written to offend.
The bit I disagree with is that there are too many idiots who won't see it for the attention seeking that it is and will believe in it.
So you're saying he doesn't really believe what he's saying, he's just cynically decided to further his own ends by acting as a figure-head for the selfish hate-filled demographic who agree with his statements? I'm not sure that raises my opinion of him.
Actually, I think the idiots who believe and agree with him are a potential justification for his spouting: at least by giving them a voice they can then be publicly challenged. But sadly that's not going too well - the initial response of spluttering indignation and threats to sue won't do much to win round his followers.
His cushy bbc job is a poor argument against him - he probably earns more for the beeb than he costs.
-
So you're saying he doesn't really believe what he's saying, he's just cynically decided to further his own ends by acting as a figure-head for the selfish hate-filled demographic who agree with his statements? I'm not sure that raises my opinion of him.
Yes, but he walks a line of lazy humour to justify it, like a sugar pill to deliver justification for bigotry to his readers and a veil of humour to others.
Clarkson is a catch all persona for the bewildered.
-
Some naughty person has been throwing concrete blocks off the Fryerning Lane bridge:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-15998468Some of you may remember this bridge from such rides as 'Deepest, darkest Essex - part 1 - Bradwell-on-Sea & the Dengie Peninsula'.
-
The same argument was used when the rate went up to 50%. They didn't leave then. Nor would they leave if it was 60%. They are not all single, with no kids, no friends, no reason to stay except the money. In other walks of life it would be called attempted blackmail. Call the self-serving greedy fuckers on it, see how many actually want to relocate.
Just out of curiosity what classifies as 'rich'?
IMO the 'leave the country' argument gets over-simplified by everyone.
First, it does happen. My dad was born at the end of the 1940s. He saw huge numbers of his piers emigrate. I also see more people I know seriously considering it. Many of non-UK City workers I know plan to leave once their kids get to walking age - is pushing them earlier a good idea? Then again, maybe it won't make a difference.
Second, a lot of it comes down to perceptions. As soon as people start thinking this isn't the place to make money they'll look abroad. Not just that, but as money moves so do other human resources. Anyway, those who have emigrated to the UK, will have no problems. Obviously you can say "but they're all non-doms, so they don't pay any tax anyway. Even putting aside those inaccuracies aside, there is a huge amount of wealth generation from them.
Thirdly, imho the majority of established top earners probably won't 'leave the country', but they will be incentivised to find ways to reduce their tax liability, and when they do they will pay significantly less tax than before.
It's likely they pay fuck all anyway, so let 'em piss off.
This is probably more true (depending on your classification of 'rich'). The bigger danger is when the moderately wealthy start to get heavily involved in tax avoidance. The very richest have, and always be able to choose how much they pay.
On tax avoidance, imo there is a really simple way around it. Reduce tax to the point that no one can be bothered to try and avoid it. You'd collect more money and be able to slash the huge cost of HMRC to the tax payer. Win-win. The only problem with that is the number of unemployed that would result from both the Revenue and the tax avoidance industry. You also have to deal with the individual emotional frustration of top earners not paying more relative to their purchasing power.
Just my 2p.
-
oh dear
What does Jeremy Clarkson think of the public sector strike 30/11/11 Top Gear - YouTube
Has this been posted yet?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i0RXMvzMs"]Stewart
Lee on Top Gear - YouTube[/ame]Saw it the other day, and it now seems strangely poignant.
-
Love a state-run media, me.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213377.html
Thanks to @sparkes/@mattholehouse for the link.
-
On tax avoidance, imo there is a really simple way around it. Reduce tax to the point that no one can be bothered to try and avoid it. You'd collect more money and be able to slash the huge cost of HMRC to the tax payer. Win-win. The only problem with that is the number of unemployed that would result from both the Revenue and the tax avoidance industry. You also have to deal with the individual emotional frustration of top earners not paying more relative to their purchasing power.
Just my 2p.
I agree with most of what you said prior to this, but I can't see how reducing tax will mean that people start actually paying it. I'd much rather see the tax dodgers more efficiently found/punished, crack down on the big companies etc. Reducing tax may have the effect of making a few people pay, but It wouldn't make up for the loss in revenue from lower taxes. IMHO, higher taxes and a better funded public sector > low taxes and mass privatisation.
-
It doesn't work like that.
You have tax evasion (illegal), and you have tax avoidance (legal).
It is often proposed to have specific anti-avoidance legislation. One problem is that you end up in this weird situation, where you're prohibiting people from doing something that is legal. Which tbh makes me uneasy as a principle. Especially when HMRC already have some pretty fucked up ways of operating.
I'd say Corporations are a perfect example of where lowing tax is a good thing. @ 15% most wouldn't bother with the hassle of structuring their affairs to seriously avoid tax, followed by the enquiry process, followed by the cost of going to court if the enquiry goes against them, followed by the risk of the Court going against them, or the inevitable cost of settling, and all set against the backdrop of wasting loads of time/money.
Also remember a lot of them don't like all the negative PR. One well known pharmaceutical co, makes sure that it always 'makes money' in every jurisdiction it operates in, just so it can pay tax.
As for better funding the Public Sector and privatisation... from my limited experience of the Public Sector I think there is a lot they could do themselves to make sure they're better funded. Limiting pensions is a start. Hopefully this (amongst other things) would get them on the road to having employees rather than wasting a fortune on temp agencies and contractors just to get around it.
Also growing some balls and actually challenging the fees they are charged and hold contractors to account. IMO individual bonuses for heads of departments would be a good way of doing this, because (ime) there seems to be an endemic problem that no one seems to give a fuck about where/what money is spent as it 'isn't theirs'.
-
Yes, but he walks a line of lazy humour to justify it, like a sugar pill to deliver justification for bigotry to his readers and a veil of humour to others.
Clarkson is a catch all persona for the bewildered.
He's just not funny.
In context, his comment isn't particularly inflammatory - it was more of a jibe against the BBC rather than the strikes. He did voice his support for those striking earlier. It's certainly nothing to get riled up about - there's far more important things happening in the world today:
I think his choice of 'joke' was pretty poor considering this year saw a massacre of left wing youth in Norway and the EDL stating that striking trade unionists had become a "legitimate target" because they believe in multiculturalism.
I expect there's also people in the UK seeking asylum who have come from countries where this kind of thing does happen but I don't think it needs the attention it's getting...
...Oh wait, he's got a book and a DVD to sell? He's certainly getting a lot of publicity.
-
you're trying to say, that if we lower taxes, we will be better off, because companies will pay more than they are now?
Tiswas is trying to help you out on this:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve[/ame] -
so, let me get this straight.
you're trying to say, that if we lower taxes, we will be better off, because companies will pay more than they are now?
Yes.
In a oversimplified hypothetical:
Say you reduce corptax by 20%, from 30% down to 10%
X LTD makes £10m and would have paid £3m CT.
They don't want to, so they use a clever instrument to offset 85% of their profits, thereby ending up paying £450k CT.
They know that they'll have to pay a chunk in advisor fees, followed by legal fees, but it's still less, and worst case they'll defer the tax for a few years and probably only have to pay half the original amount originally due. All round win.
In my scenario they only pay £1m, so they are £550k down, but would probably have spent around half of that on fees to reduce their profits in the first place. So why bother.
The Govt gets £1m with no bullshit. No teams of staff ranging in seniority, working on the case. No legal fees. No risk of loosing the case.
Not just that, but you could actually foster an air of cooperation between business and the Revenue, which might actually help develop business in the long run.
Like I said it's just my opinion.
Call me cynical, but I think the main forces against this are because; HMRC would reduce in size, the senior individuals would loose their political power - especially given their current ability to ride on the back of public opinion to create and expand their power separate of Parliament. And the politicians can't sell it to the electorate.
Personally I don't think any of those are good reasons.
Dammit
Oliver Schick
walm
NurseHolliday
Manc_Ronnie
harrong
deleted
rhowe
gbj_tester
Buffalo_Bill
moth
neu
Fox
hugo7
CYOA
spenceey
CowHen
BRM
johnnyhotdog-
Post a reply
About
In the news
Posted by
@Platini
It certainly is, whilst there's people happy to live in debt then this problem will never be solved, why the fuck you have to have sky with all the channels and 3 land rovers when you live no where near a field I don't know.