Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No worse than the austerity we had to endure with the Tories for 14 year's, complaining they had no money blah blah blah. Meanwhile spending hundreds of billions on white elephant projects such as HS2 and smart motorways, whilst cutting public services and ensuring that the NHS fails by tying it up in red tape. But apparently that was all the previous labour government fault as well even tho the jolly hockey sticks brigade had 14 year's to resolve it. All they did was line their own pockets and the pockets of friends and family ( PPE) debacle being a prime example. Next question??" Presumably, the next question is: " But will Labour MP’s and the Trade Unions stand for it?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As long as most of the cuts come from the welfare / benefits budget then it will be the first thing that they do right. Not holding out much hope of that though." Am sure the welfare budget will be going up in April not down. Pensions up Benifits up. Then reduce them so it looks like a cut give in one hand take with the other. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuts never work, it's money that can be circulated in the economy. Wether it's paying for rent, utilities, goods n services. To cut someone benefits just takes money out of the economy. Why would anyone do that, stupid. There's millions in Benefits not being claimed sitting in the coffers. What's happening to all the Chinese 60 million in investment and other investments. Private contractors are creaming off the public sector. Everything seems to be privately contracted bins, hospitals services, security gaurds, maintenance. Labour need to get a new casio calculator. " Not stupid at all. Benefits should be a short term helping hand for people whose circumstances change. They should not be a lifestyle choice. The vast majority of people should look after themselves. Statistics from 2022 show that nearly 54% of people received more in benefits than they contributed in tax. That is completely stupid and unsustainable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuts never work, it's money that can be circulated in the economy. Wether it's paying for rent, utilities, goods n services. To cut someone benefits just takes money out of the economy. Why would anyone do that, stupid. There's millions in Benefits not being claimed sitting in the coffers. What's happening to all the Chinese 60 million in investment and other investments. Private contractors are creaming off the public sector. Everything seems to be privately contracted bins, hospitals services, security gaurds, maintenance. Labour need to get a new casio calculator. Not stupid at all. Benefits should be a short term helping hand for people whose circumstances change. They should not be a lifestyle choice. The vast majority of people should look after themselves. Statistics from 2022 show that nearly 54% of people received more in benefits than they contributed in tax. That is completely stupid and unsustainable." And that is what they receive lots of servays don't include what they get for free. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No worse than the austerity we had to endure with the Tories for 14 year's, complaining they had no money blah blah blah. Meanwhile spending hundreds of billions on white elephant projects such as HS2 and smart motorways, whilst cutting public services and ensuring that the NHS fails by tying it up in red tape. But apparently that was all the previous labour government fault as well even tho the jolly hockey sticks brigade had 14 year's to resolve it. All they did was line their own pockets and the pockets of friends and family ( PPE) debacle being a prime example. Next question??" Oh dear, this is a lot of whataboutery.... You have however not mentioned that the Blair / Brown governments messed up the NHS so badly we are still paying for it today and still for many years to come. PFI and ISTC contracts through private companies, the NHS and never really recovered.... Shall we also turn a blind eye to "this governments" other cuts and over spending that already runs into many billions that has got us nowhere. The bottom line is this government owns the economy now and we should hold them accountable for it, just as we did the last government or any other government in the future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has got around a million 18-24 year olds who are economically inactive or not in education and drawing benefit. Britain needs more recruits for the armed forces. That isn't degree level maths. "The state has paid to educate them, what are these dossers doing every day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has got around a million 18-24 year olds who are economically inactive or not in education and drawing benefit. Britain needs more recruits for the armed forces. That isn't degree level maths. "To me if they are not in Traning, Education or voluntary work reduce there benifit by 2/3 if you can't get a job you can still help at a food bank or a charity shop. And this might help them engage with others if nothing else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuts never work, it's money that can be circulated in the economy. Wether it's paying for rent, utilities, goods n services. To cut someone benefits just takes money out of the economy. Why would anyone do that, stupid. There's millions in Benefits not being claimed sitting in the coffers. What's happening to all the Chinese 60 million in investment and other investments. Private contractors are creaming off the public sector. Everything seems to be privately contracted bins, hospitals services, security gaurds, maintenance. Labour need to get a new casio calculator. Not stupid at all. Benefits should be a short term helping hand for people whose circumstances change. They should not be a lifestyle choice. The vast majority of people should look after themselves. Statistics from 2022 show that nearly 54% of people received more in benefits than they contributed in tax. That is completely stupid and unsustainable." Most people who apply and get benefits are guess what working, but they do not earn enough money to pay their rent so have to apply for housing benefit, and PIP most likely. This is due to employers not paying a living wage so the tax payer me you and the rest have to top up the wages the employers are getting away not paying. And when they say they will cut benefits they will not as not all benefits are being applied for, so there is millions possibly billions just sitting there not being claimed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has got around a million 18-24 year olds who are economically inactive or not in education and drawing benefit. Britain needs more recruits for the armed forces. That isn't degree level maths.
The state has paid to educate them, what are these dossers doing every day. "Trying different things, smoking funny things, making love down by the lake to their favourite song. Drinking whisky out the bottle, not thinking about tomorrow but probably not singing Sweet Home Alabama. With apologies to Kid Rock. 
Seriously though. If they are able bodied, not working or in full time education, then why shouldn't they have to serve in the forces?
A bit more Audie Murphy and a lot less Al Capone would do us all a bit of good.
Yes I think its time for HANDS OFF COCKS AND ONTO SOCKS! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuts never work, it's money that can be circulated in the economy. Wether it's paying for rent, utilities, goods n services. To cut someone benefits just takes money out of the economy. Why would anyone do that, stupid. There's millions in Benefits not being claimed sitting in the coffers. What's happening to all the Chinese 60 million in investment and other investments. Private contractors are creaming off the public sector. Everything seems to be privately contracted bins, hospitals services, security gaurds, maintenance. Labour need to get a new casio calculator. Not stupid at all. Benefits should be a short term helping hand for people whose circumstances change. They should not be a lifestyle choice. The vast majority of people should look after themselves. Statistics from 2022 show that nearly 54% of people received more in benefits than they contributed in tax. That is completely stupid and unsustainable. Most people who apply and get benefits are guess what working, but they do not earn enough money to pay their rent so have to apply for housing benefit, and PIP most likely. This is due to employers not paying a living wage so the tax payer me you and the rest have to top up the wages the employers are getting away not paying. And when they say they will cut benefits they will not as not all benefits are being applied for, so there is millions possibly billions just sitting there not being claimed." I wonder why working people cannot afford the rent? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has got around a million 18-24 year olds who are economically inactive or not in education and drawing benefit. Britain needs more recruits for the armed forces. That isn't degree level maths.
The state has paid to educate them, what are these dossers doing every day.
Trying different things, smoking funny things, making love down by the lake to their favourite song. Drinking whisky out the bottle, not thinking about tomorrow but probably not singing Sweet Home Alabama.
With apologies to Kid Rock.
Seriously though. If they are able bodied, not working or in full time education, then why shouldn't they have to serve in the forces?
A bit more Audie Murphy and a lot less Al Capone would do us all a bit of good.
Yes I think its time for HANDS OFF COCKS AND ONTO SOCKS!"Thinking about it that could be taken a step further. Why not copy the French and set up a foreign legion? I'm sure they would be charging across the channel to join up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuts never work, it's money that can be circulated in the economy. Wether it's paying for rent, utilities, goods n services. To cut someone benefits just takes money out of the economy. Why would anyone do that, stupid. There's millions in Benefits not being claimed sitting in the coffers. What's happening to all the Chinese 60 million in investment and other investments. Private contractors are creaming off the public sector. Everything seems to be privately contracted bins, hospitals services, security gaurds, maintenance. Labour need to get a new casio calculator. Not stupid at all. Benefits should be a short term helping hand for people whose circumstances change. They should not be a lifestyle choice. The vast majority of people should look after themselves. Statistics from 2022 show that nearly 54% of people received more in benefits than they contributed in tax. That is completely stupid and unsustainable. Most people who apply and get benefits are guess what working, but they do not earn enough money to pay their rent so have to apply for housing benefit, and PIP most likely. This is due to employers not paying a living wage so the tax payer me you and the rest have to top up the wages the employers are getting away not paying. And when they say they will cut benefits they will not as not all benefits are being applied for, so there is millions possibly billions just sitting there not being claimed. I wonder why working people cannot afford the rent?" Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuts never work, it's money that can be circulated in the economy. Wether it's paying for rent, utilities, goods n services. To cut someone benefits just takes money out of the economy. Why would anyone do that, stupid. There's millions in Benefits not being claimed sitting in the coffers. What's happening to all the Chinese 60 million in investment and other investments. Private contractors are creaming off the public sector. Everything seems to be privately contracted bins, hospitals services, security gaurds, maintenance. Labour need to get a new casio calculator. Not stupid at all. Benefits should be a short term helping hand for people whose circumstances change. They should not be a lifestyle choice. The vast majority of people should look after themselves. Statistics from 2022 show that nearly 54% of people received more in benefits than they contributed in tax. That is completely stupid and unsustainable. Most people who apply and get benefits are guess what working, but they do not earn enough money to pay their rent so have to apply for housing benefit, and PIP most likely. This is due to employers not paying a living wage so the tax payer me you and the rest have to top up the wages the employers are getting away not paying. And when they say they will cut benefits they will not as not all benefits are being applied for, so there is millions possibly billions just sitting there not being claimed. I wonder why working people cannot afford the rent? Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers." Very simplistic and totally wrong. The UK minimum wage is one of the highest in Europe while productivity is one of the lowest. Most of our manufacturing has gone abroad and I don't think that it is because they pay better wages. I suppose we could encourage all those jobs back. Maybe 25% import tariffs would be the answer. Besides wages has nothing to do with rents. If it were then rents would have to be in step with wages. So something else is causing UK rents to be at such high levels. I wonder what? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has got around a million 18-24 year olds who are economically inactive or not in education and drawing benefit. Britain needs more recruits for the armed forces. That isn't degree level maths. "no ... i just checked the stats. less than half of neets are claiming benefits. there are as many 16-24 year old non-claiming economically inactive as ther are 50-67 year old non-claiming economically inactive. i guess you want the latter conscripted into the armed forces too then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has got around a million 18-24 year olds who are economically inactive or not in education and drawing benefit. Britain needs more recruits for the armed forces. That isn't degree level maths. "Kings Own Woke Fusiliers. 🇬🇧 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's something like 9 million economically inactive people in the UK...so they ain't getting the tax receipts or NI in. But, are there actually 9 million job vacancies available?" Dose this exclude disabled not able to work, mum's looking after the family, carer's "work in itself". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has got around a million 18-24 year olds who are economically inactive or not in education and drawing benefit. Britain needs more recruits for the armed forces. That isn't degree level maths.
no ... i just checked the stats. less than half of neets are claiming benefits. there are as many 16-24 year old non-claiming economically inactive as ther are 50-67 year old non-claiming economically inactive. i guess you want the latter conscripted into the armed forces too then"Nah! Grandads army? Too many corporal Jones's. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's something like 9 million economically inactive people in the UK...so they ain't getting the tax receipts or NI in. But, are there actually 9 million job vacancies available? Dose this exclude disabled not able to work, mum's looking after the family, carer's "work in itself". " Not sure tbh, I presume it includes people who claim benefits and those that don't. Unpaid carer's must save the gov't £millions though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has got around a million 18-24 year olds who are economically inactive or not in education and drawing benefit. Britain needs more recruits for the armed forces. That isn't degree level maths.
Kings Own Woke Fusiliers. 🇬🇧"That Russian has just offended me. Best surrender now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has got around a million 18-24 year olds who are economically inactive or not in education and drawing benefit. Britain needs more recruits for the armed forces. That isn't degree level maths.
Kings Own Woke Fusiliers. 🇬🇧
That Russian has just offended me. Best surrender now. "And obviously before battle they will all receive trigger warnings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain has got around a million 18-24 year olds who are economically inactive or not in education and drawing benefit. Britain needs more recruits for the armed forces. That isn't degree level maths.
Kings Own Woke Fusiliers. 🇬🇧
That Russian has just offended me. Best surrender now.
And obviously before battle they will all receive trigger warnings."We won't be going to war, we haven't got the money now, spent it all on Ukraine, junior doctors and train drivers. We all need to dig deep, forget about the imaginary 22 billion blackhole, the WFA, unilateral pay rises worth billions and sending anything left overseas, it is time to turn the thumb screws on our own again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Telegraph reports that Reeves is considering cuts to welfare and other public sector spending as the Government runs out of money. Having committed not to raise taxes again this Parliament, and with government borrowing getting ever more expensive, it would seem that cuts are now the only option. Presumably all the Ukraine jingoism and sabre-rattling have been about preparing the electorate for cuts and/or more tax rises. But will Labour MP’s and the Trade Unions stand for it?" Didn't Labour used to complain about such cuts when they were in opposition? I suppose its a bit like they used to complain about to many financial changes in the year and that there should only be a once a year budget, no Autumn or spring statements. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers." The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough?" Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers." "The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough?" "Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs." If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it." Exactly, in work benefits are one of the most illogical areas. Those of us who don’t get them (and have never got any) are subsidising others who can’t be bothered to look after themselves. This is ripe for cuts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it." Working fewer hours is not always a choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it. Working fewer hours is not always a choice." So are you advocating full time pay for part time work? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it. Working fewer hours is not always a choice. So are you advocating full time pay for part time work?" My ex use to work 18 hours but only got paid for 16 as at that point she could clam benifits if she got paid for the 18 she would have been entitled to 0 there is a system and people make it work for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it. Working fewer hours is not always a choice. So are you advocating full time pay for part time work? My ex use to work 18 hours but only got paid for 16 as at that point she could clam benifits if she got paid for the 18 she would have been entitled to 0 there is a system and people make it work for them. " Why didn't she just work 16 hours? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it. Working fewer hours is not always a choice. So are you advocating full time pay for part time work? My ex use to work 18 hours but only got paid for 16 as at that point she could clam benifits if she got paid for the 18 she would have been entitled to 0 there is a system and people make it work for them. " That has changed in recent years. UC is means tested so even if you work 10 hours a week your UC is reduced. Also even if you work 20 hours a week you can still claim a certain amount of UC. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it. Working fewer hours is not always a choice. So are you advocating full time pay for part time work? My ex use to work 18 hours but only got paid for 16 as at that point she could clam benifits if she got paid for the 18 she would have been entitled to 0 there is a system and people make it work for them. Why didn't she just work 16 hours? " After 16 hours payed work you get £0 help so you lose concil tax help, Income support, free school meals and othere help mind you this was 25years ago but I would guess its about the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it. Working fewer hours is not always a choice. So are you advocating full time pay for part time work? My ex use to work 18 hours but only got paid for 16 as at that point she could clam benifits if she got paid for the 18 she would have been entitled to 0 there is a system and people make it work for them. That has changed in recent years. UC is means tested so even if you work 10 hours a week your UC is reduced. Also even if you work 20 hours a week you can still claim a certain amount of UC. " So what about school meals and council tax is that the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it. Working fewer hours is not always a choice. So are you advocating full time pay for part time work? My ex use to work 18 hours but only got paid for 16 as at that point she could clam benifits if she got paid for the 18 she would have been entitled to 0 there is a system and people make it work for them. That has changed in recent years. UC is means tested so even if you work 10 hours a week your UC is reduced. Also even if you work 20 hours a week you can still claim a certain amount of UC. So what about school meals and council tax is that the same." If you are on benefits then you pay 5% of your council tax but if you work again its means tested so the more hours you more council tax you pay. As for school meals I don't know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers." "The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough?" "Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs." "If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it." "Working fewer hours is not always a choice." That's true, and I'm sure it makes life very hard, but it's still not down to the employer paying poor wages. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How are the DWP going to get people who don't claim any benefits to engage with a 'work coach'?" After 4 weeks of benefits, again I say if not in Education or doing voluntary work benifits are cut buy 30% another 4 week's and cut gain only a work coach could alter this. Oveusly there will be people how can't work Due to disability that this would not apply to in the same way. But there are lots not working at all that could do more. Voluntary work might give the confidence and skills to get back in to the work place. Just meeting other people is a start. But posably it would give some confidence and self worth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How are the DWP going to get people who don't claim any benefits to engage with a 'work coach'? After 4 weeks of benefits, again I say if not in Education or doing voluntary work benifits are cut buy 30% another 4 week's and cut gain only a work coach could alter this. Oveusly there will be people how can't work Due to disability that this would not apply to in the same way. But there are lots not working at all that could do more. Voluntary work might give the confidence and skills to get back in to the work place. Just meeting other people is a start. But posably it would give some confidence and self worth. " all well and good but it still doesn't answer how the dwp would get people who claim no benefits into work | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If claiming no benifit dose it mater if there not working. The DWP would not even have contact with them may be they just don't need to work. Would you work if you did not need to. " but these are exactly the people creating an ever increasing downward pull on productivity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But if you have cash in the bank earning interest or stocks and shears ISA giving you enuf to live on why would you work. Some I know don't work per-say but do property development then live of the profit. Why would someone like this want a 9-5" They would still pay some tax if their profit margins were big enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But if you have cash in the bank earning interest or stocks and shears ISA giving you enuf to live on why would you work. Some I know don't work per-say but do property development then live of the profit. Why would someone like this want a 9-5" of course, but as the number of people doing this increases, uk productivity decreases. the irony is that those that chose not work are most vocal about how 'lazy bastard scroungers' are ruining the economy by lowering productivity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But if you have cash in the bank earning interest or stocks and shears ISA giving you enuf to live on why would you work. Some I know don't work per-say but do property development then live of the profit. Why would someone like this want a 9-5 of course, but as the number of people doing this increases, uk productivity decreases. the irony is that those that chose not work are most vocal about how 'lazy bastard scroungers' are ruining the economy by lowering productivity" They'll also be using some services that require tax being paid but they won't be engaging with a 'work coach' at the DWP | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But if you have cash in the bank earning interest or stocks and shears ISA giving you enuf to live on why would you work. Some I know don't work per-say but do property development then live of the profit. Why would someone like this want a 9-5 of course, but as the number of people doing this increases, uk productivity decreases. the irony is that those that chose not work are most vocal about how 'lazy bastard scroungers' are ruining the economy by lowering productivity They'll also be using some services that require tax being paid but they won't be engaging with a 'work coach' at the DWP" I guess like me have worked hard in the past. So if someone has done there time worked hard saved hard are they not due a brake. I now only work a 4 day 48 hour week down from 7 days at one point. There is I guess lots that look like they are pulling down productivity. Some in the cash economy look like they do this but whenever I mention this I just get told cash is dead. My ASS | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But if you have cash in the bank earning interest or stocks and shears ISA giving you enuf to live on why would you work. Some I know don't work per-say but do property development then live of the profit. Why would someone like this want a 9-5 of course, but as the number of people doing this increases, uk productivity decreases. the irony is that those that chose not work are most vocal about how 'lazy bastard scroungers' are ruining the economy by lowering productivity They'll also be using some services that require tax being paid but they won't be engaging with a 'work coach' at the DWP I guess like me have worked hard in the past. So if someone has done there time worked hard saved hard are they not due a brake. I now only work a 4 day 48 hour week down from 7 days at one point. There is I guess lots that look like they are pulling down productivity. Some in the cash economy look like they do this but whenever I mention this I just get told cash is dead. My ASS" jeremy hunt was highlighting the problem in his last couples of years in government. the tory party were toying with the idea of mandatory community service for people retiring early as an incentive to keep people working longer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But if you have cash in the bank earning interest or stocks and shears ISA giving you enuf to live on why would you work. Some I know don't work per-say but do property development then live of the profit. Why would someone like this want a 9-5 of course, but as the number of people doing this increases, uk productivity decreases. the irony is that those that chose not work are most vocal about how 'lazy bastard scroungers' are ruining the economy by lowering productivity They'll also be using some services that require tax being paid but they won't be engaging with a 'work coach' at the DWP I guess like me have worked hard in the past. So if someone has done there time worked hard saved hard are they not due a brake. I now only work a 4 day 48 hour week down from 7 days at one point. There is I guess lots that look like they are pulling down productivity. Some in the cash economy look like they do this but whenever I mention this I just get told cash is dead. My ASS jeremy hunt was highlighting the problem in his last couples of years in government. the tory party were toying with the idea of mandatory community service for people retiring early as an incentive to keep people working longer" Don't see how that would work out. But I get the point after April I'll hopefully be reducing hours again no point being the richest person in the grave yard. Why work if you don't need the income. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state has paid to educate them, what are these dossers doing every day. " Actually, my taxes has paid to educate them. And I am quite happy if they want to stay at home playing Xbox for the rest of their lives, because that is their personal autonomy and choice to do so. . My friend's son is 25. Lives at home. Stays in his room and does exactly that. It's a cheap and harmless existence, but more importantly, it's his autonomy. My friend's daughter is at Uni studying medical science. That's her choice too. Also seems content. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state has paid to educate them, what are these dossers doing every day. Actually, my taxes has paid to educate them. And I am quite happy if they want to stay at home playing Xbox for the rest of their lives, because that is their personal autonomy and choice to do so. . My friend's son is 25. Lives at home. Stays in his room and does exactly that. It's a cheap and harmless existence, but more importantly, it's his autonomy. My friend's daughter is at Uni studying medical science. That's her choice too. Also seems content." So are we saying 2 x 25 year olds that basically have never worked and have little aspirations in life as every thing they want or need is given to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state has paid to educate them, what are these dossers doing every day. Actually, my taxes has paid to educate them. And I am quite happy if they want to stay at home playing Xbox for the rest of their lives, because that is their personal autonomy and choice to do so. . My friend's son is 25. Lives at home. Stays in his room and does exactly that. It's a cheap and harmless existence, but more importantly, it's his autonomy. My friend's daughter is at Uni studying medical science. That's her choice too. Also seems content. So are we saying 2 x 25 year olds that basically have never worked and have little aspirations in life as every thing they want or need is given to them. " 1 of them, his son, doesn't want to want to work and is happy to live at home in his own bubble. The other, his daughter isn't working yet, as she did a degree, then went to her to Masters (I suspect a Doctorate is next). Her goal is a Nobel Prize in medicine. But both are happy and he's happy to support both as he loves them. I find that commendable. Sure, my taxes support both I suppose, but put it like this... In one instance they support a very smart young lady who may be instrumental in discovering the cure for several diseases, which will help millions. In the other instance, said lad is at home, not on illicit substances and/or burgling / mugging people, which keeps him off the streets. That benefits me too. So win-win. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe labour should stop all foreign aid and giving millions to help other countries until they get england sorted out" Only England? 🤷♀️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe labour should stop all foreign aid and giving millions to help other countries until they get england sorted out" Look after our own first. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe labour should stop all foreign aid and giving millions to help other countries until they get england sorted out Only England? 🤷♀️" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I still think of Scotland and wales as being part of England is only some people from these places that want independence " Scotland and Wales have never been part of England. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I still think of Scotland and wales as being part of England is only some people from these places that want independence" "Scotland and Wales have never been part of England." Wales was made officially a part of England in 1535, and it didn't get separated (legally) till 1967. But Scotland has never been part of England. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I still think of Scotland and wales as being part of England is only some people from these places that want independence Scotland and Wales have never been part of England. Wales was made officially a part of England in 1535, and it didn't get separated (legally) till 1967. But Scotland has never been part of England." Well googled | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I still think of Scotland and wales as being part of England is only some people from these places that want independence" "Scotland and Wales have never been part of England." "Wales was made officially a part of England in 1535, and it didn't get separated (legally) till 1967." "Well googled " Is it not possible to just know some things about the country one lives in? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it. Exactly, in work benefits are one of the most illogical areas. Those of us who don’t get them (and have never got any) are subsidising others who can’t be bothered to look after themselves. This is ripe for cuts." Some people CANNOT work full time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Because employers no longer have to attribute or take into account renting prices, as they are now allowed to pay poor wages which do not cover living expenses. So we the tax payer cover the bill for these employers. The minimum wage will soon be £12.21, or £25,641 for a 40 hour week. That's a great wage for a single person living in the north. In what way do you think that their employer is getting away with not paying enough? Unfortunately a lot of those on the minimum wage are not in 40hours a week jobs. If you work fewer hours, you get less pay. That's not the employer paying poor wages though is it. Working fewer hours is not always a choice. So are you advocating full time pay for part time work?" Yes please  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I still think of Scotland and wales as being part of England is only some people from these places that want independence " 
You mean the UK | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I still think of Scotland and wales as being part of England is only some people from these places that want independence " You might want to brush up on your geography then. They are literally separate countries. A union of nations that make up the UK. Supposedly equal partners. Regardless of any desire for independence or not. Scotland and Wales are NOT part of England🙄🙄 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reported the government to cut £3bn from Benefits over the next three years and is expected to announce billions more in savings from the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit. £3bn a year is peanuts, equivalent to 10 days interest on our national debt " I'm fighting as it is to get PIP, ffs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reported the government to cut £3bn from Benefits over the next three years and is expected to announce billions more in savings from the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit. £3bn a year is peanuts, equivalent to 10 days interest on our national debt I'm fighting as it is to get PIP, ffs." £3bn from this, £1.7bn winter fuel allowance, farmers land via IHT, £460M from private school vat. Combined, a fortnights national debt interest. Labours politics of envy, and all of it lost in the mix of a worsened economy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reported the government to cut £3bn from Benefits over the next three years and is expected to announce billions more in savings from the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit. £3bn a year is peanuts, equivalent to 10 days interest on our national debt I'm fighting as it is to get PIP, ffs." Just the start I'm afraid. Reeves screwed up the budget and the cost of gov borrowing has risen accordingly. These cuts are just one of many coming to manage the rising debt repayments. Might be time to invest in gilts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reported the government to cut £3bn from Benefits over the next three years and is expected to announce billions more in savings from the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit. £3bn a year is peanuts, equivalent to 10 days interest on our national debt I'm fighting as it is to get PIP, ffs. Just the start I'm afraid. Reeves screwed up the budget and the cost of gov borrowing has risen accordingly. These cuts are just one of many coming to manage the rising debt repayments. Might be time to invest in gilts "£9bn a month servicing £2.7trn debt All these headlines and big announcements over insignificant amounts to the treasury. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£1,006,000,000,000. Treasury tax receipts £3,000,000,000 from pip £1,700,000,000 from pensioners £520,000,000 farmers business property relief £460,000,000 private school vat I make that an extra 0.56% tax grab" The bottom line for me is, Reeves raised £40 billion in tax hikes but has already lost 25% of that due to increased borrowing costs! This could have been avoidable but she tied herself up with her fiscal rule changes which impacted the budget. It is a shocker of a performance from her and I have no idea why Starmer is keeping her in role. She’s had the luxury of staying out of the spotlight while the media circus focuses on Trump coverage. That ends on March 26 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
