Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => Politics => Topic started by: Pete on September 09, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
-
Well done, Vince! Someone has to stand up for workers' rights!
If this legislation and abolishing the National Minimum Wage goes through, it will set this country back 100 years.
http://bit.ly/TxMDoV (http://bit.ly/TxMDoV)
-
This presumably is the same Vince Cable who allegedly doesn't understand the needs of businesses and should be fired?
-
Yer - that's him ;)
Can you imagine a situation where there is massive unemployment and unscrupulous employers can set folks on at rock bottom wages, work 'em do death and sack them without reason.
If anyone here thinks that we should do this to compete with India, China, etc. - they've got a fight on their hands... >:(
-
Can you imagine a situation where there is massive unemployment and unscrupulous employers can set folks on at rock bottom wages, work 'em do death and sack them without reason.
I can't but I know a Prime Minister and Chancellor who probably can!!
-
Cable should vote with his feet because Cameron & Osborne aren't going to listen to such views
-
Yer - that's him ;)
If anyone here thinks that we should do this to compete with India, China, etc. - they've got a fight on their hands... >:(
No, you are right of course. Better for the factory to close down, all the jobs go to the Chinese, and our people end up stuck on a life of benefits.
You, yourself, said last week, we can't compete with the Chinese. Please tell us what ideas you have for finding employment for the 2.5 million currently unemployed, let alone anymore that may become unemplyed if the recession continues.
If you want fight, please do go ahead and gives us your solutions. I can't wait.
-
Why give employers more rights to sack people - surely that just boosts the unemployment figures.
Sorry but MP's need to get in touch with the common man/woman.
Or have I misinterpreted what he's said?
Easier to sack people, i.e. remove some workers rights of appeal and such?
Can't be right surely-people finding it hard enough to find jobs and keep them anyway.
-
No, you are right of course. Better for the factory to close down, all the jobs go to the Chinese, and our people end up stuck on a life of benefits.
You, yourself, said last week, we can't compete with the Chinese. Please tell us what ideas you have for finding employment for the 2.5 million currently unemployed, let alone anymore that may become unemplyed if the recession continues.
If you want fight, please do go ahead and gives us your solutions. I can't wait.
Your starting to sound like you don't want employee's to have any rights, and be treat like dogs.
go ahead and gives us your solutions. I can't wait.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, if members had the answers, they'd be running the country.
NOT posting on here.
Why do you constantly ask members to explain why they are wrong in their opinions ?
If you are so cock sure your opinions are better, go run the country . . . .
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
On a frequent basis I comment that I really don’t understand economics but correct me if I am wrong on this scenario.
I work for Sainsburys. I get paid a wage. My employer puts my wages up (cheers Justin!). In order to pay for this Sainsburys have to put up their prices. Slacker comes shopping to Sainsburys. He finds the prices have gone up so his standard of living has dropped. So he goes to DCC, asks for and receives a pay rise. This means my council tax is going to go up. My standard of living will drop. I need a pay rise. This scenario is played out by all the workers in the land and continues in a cycle. Correct me if I am wrong but that’s called inflation.
And Inflation is bad.
It also leads to Unemployment
Also bad
Now somebody is suggesting that the answer is paying people less. So Justin cuts my pay by 50% (In Sainsburys case I think I’m fairly safe but I will go with the scenario) Now in theory this means that Slacker will be able to get his weekly shopping for less. So he won’t mind when DCC cut his wages, which puts my council tax down, so I don’t notice so much that my wage was cut. Presumably this is reverse inflation which I assume is good and low unemployment which again I assume is good.
Now of course we get to the problem. In scenario one it is of course those nasty unions who demand higher wages and the idle worker who doesn’t produce enough that cause all the issues. Sack the lot of them!!
Except of course that in scenario 2 somebody somewhere isn’t going to play the game and instead of passing those savings on to keep everyone at the same level they are going to pocket those savings and widen the gap between the haves and the have nots.
But that won’t matter because they are the good guys, the ones who have created all these jobs and generated the wealth.
Of course the health service will collapse because people won’t be able to look after themselves properly with good diets (and they won’t be able to afford the private health care). The Police won’t be able to cope with all the crime caused by people having to steal just to feed their families not to mention the regular riots by disaffected people. Not sure how councils will cope with all the people who need re housing because the banks have foreclosed on their mortgages.
But it won’t matter because everyone will be working thanks to those nice people who generated all this wealth.
-
Chris: Isn't your scenario easily solved by a probationery period?
-
Both of you have good points, but my worry would be unscrupulous employers who didn't give a f*** about his staff. Got cancer? Sorry you're fired. Broken leg? There's plenty more where you came from. Wife died and you've had a nervous breakdown? Byeeeee...
Also, if we tried to match the recipe of China/India, who would finance the slums for the workers to live in?
-
Also, if we tried to match the recipe of China/India, who would finance the slums for the workers to live in?
Destination Chesterfield q? 8)
-
@Cc I sympathise with the situation you explain.
Non entities jumping on the employment ladder then claiming unfair dismissal etc cos they're wasters.
It's a shame this can happen, but in today's society it can.
I suppose it's all part of being an employer. Which I ain't :(
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Why do you constantly ask members to explain why they are wrong in their opinions ?
If you are so cock sure your opinions are better, go run the country . . . .
What complete bollocks....
Pete said If anyone here thinks that we should do this to compete with India, China, etc. - they've got a fight on their hands...
I have a different view to Petes / Vince Cables, it is Pete who wanted a fight, I simply asked what ideas he had to solve the problems, isn't that the point of debating on a forum,. or are we all meant to agree with Pete. IS NO ONE ALLOWED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW TO PETE WITHOUT IT BEING SEEN AS SOME SORT OF FIGHT, IS THAT PETES IDEA OF DEMOCRACY THEN, OR HAVE NONE OF YOU ACTUALLY GOT ANY BRAINS TO COME UP WITH IDEAS AND JUST HAPPY TO SPEND YOUR TIME MOANING AND WHINGING AT EVERYONE ELSES IDEAS.
So instead of turning it into some sort of personal attack on me by the mods, why don't you just answer the question about solving unemployment....or is that too much for your idea of a fight!
-
Our wages are squeezed to we buy Chinese or Indian because their products are cheaper as their labour is cheaper.
To compete the wages in our manufacturing industry (not that there's much left) would have to be lower in which case these employees still have to shop around to buy cheaper. Downward spiral.
Someone needs to get a grip on the price of essential where we are getting ripped off (water, gas, electric) which of course all became privatised to encourage people as shareholder to vote Tory.
Competition? It's a joke. They just take it in turns to put prices up.
-
and once again:
It's Maggie's fault !!!!!
-
On a frequent basis I comment that I really don’t understand economics but correct me if I am wrong on this scenario.
I work for Sainsburys. I get paid a wage. My employer puts my wages up (cheers Justin!). In order to pay for this Sainsburys have to put up their prices. Slacker comes shopping to Sainsburys. He finds the prices have gone up so his standard of living has dropped. So he goes to DCC, asks for and receives a pay rise. This means my council tax is going to go up. My standard of living will drop. I need a pay rise. This scenario is played out by all the workers in the land and continues in a cycle. Correct me if I am wrong but that’s called inflation.
And Inflation is bad.
It also leads to Unemployment
Also bad
Now somebody is suggesting that the answer is paying people less. So Justin cuts my pay by 50% (In Sainsburys case I think I’m fairly safe but I will go with the scenario) Now in theory this means that Slacker will be able to get his weekly shopping for less. So he won’t mind when DCC cut his wages, which puts my council tax down, so I don’t notice so much that my wage was cut. Presumably this is reverse inflation which I assume is good and low unemployment which again I assume is good.
Now of course we get to the problem. In scenario one it is of course those nasty unions who demand higher wages and the idle worker who doesn’t produce enough that cause all the issues. Sack the lot of them!!
Except of course that in scenario 2 somebody somewhere isn’t going to play the game and instead of passing those savings on to keep everyone at the same level they are going to pocket those savings and widen the gap between the haves and the have nots.
But that won’t matter because they are the good guys, the ones who have created all these jobs and generated the wealth.
Of course the health service will collapse because people won’t be able to look after themselves properly with good diets (and they won’t be able to afford the private health care). The Police won’t be able to cope with all the crime caused by people having to steal just to feed their families not to mention the regular riots by disaffected people. Not sure how councils will cope with all the people who need re housing because the banks have foreclosed on their mortgages.
But it won’t matter because everyone will be working thanks to those nice people who generated all this wealth.
In scenario 1, pay keeps going up. Great on the face of it. But its not just Sainsburys that have to put prices, so do all their suppliers, Hienz, Kelloggs, the milk farmers, whoever....so do all the petrol retailers, so do the gas and electric companys. To make matters worse, the factory down the road can no longer compete in a global market so closes, leading to more unemployment benefit being paid, and taxes have to go up. Before long, Jr working at Sainsburys has an extra £10.00 a week in his wage, but the cost of living has gone up by £20.00 so he's actually worse off by £10.00. That might not matter to the banker who earns £100k a year, but its a hell of a lot to the dinner lady on £100 a week. Which is why every single study into it has shown that since the introduction of the minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor has increased, the poor have become relatively poorer. And if it was a simple as just sticking a few extra quid onto someones wage, why not set the minimum wage at £20.00 an hour and eradicate all low wages. Because absolutes mean nothing, its relativity that counts.
In scenario 2, people rioting because they can't afford food??An interesting theory but I prefer to go on evidence. Before the minimum wage, under that nasty Tory woman, we didn't have people not being able to afford food, quite the opposite, we had years of sustained economic growth. In fact the closest thing we've had to the doomsday scenario described was under the previous Labour Govt in the 70s, with runaway inflation, bins not being emptied, dead laying unburied and the country being held to ransom by the unions. Unless of course, you include last years riots where the people were so starving, they couldn't help but loot all the shops for flat screen TVs and trendy trainers. And if your memory doesn't go back so far, then just look whats happening in Europe.
The whole idea of mini jobs, which is the main thing the coalition seem to be discussing and in favour of, (except Vince) originates in Germany. They started in the early 90s after east and west re-unified, putting Germany in severe financial trouble, and leading to severe austerity. So they slashed regulation and employment taxes, with the sole intention of getting people working. was there rioting on the streets, was there food shortages, no. Instead Germany has returned to the economic power house that it once was, keeping the rest of Europe afloat with its strong economic position, not only having strong growth in Germany, but also keeping Ireland, Italy and Spain afloat, not to mention the Greeks, where there has been rioting for food. So the arguments in Scenario 2 just doesn't fit in with the evidence, and its evidence I try to base my political judgments on.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
ok Chris I will go along with you.
Now answer me this.
The Government gets this legislation through.
Suddenly your company owner realises he can get away with paying the rates of 3 4 5 and 6 pounds to his workers
40 x (18) £720
NI £86.40
overheads £400
Gross profit £1293.6
tax £310.46
net profit £983.14
Now is your owner going to think Oh I'm making too much profit I can reduce the costs of my units to £22.50. Or is he going to rub his hands together in glee and order a new Porsche? So if Labour are fighting for those at the bottom (and there's 4 of them) then the Tories are fighting for the one at the top (and there's only one of him)
-
Initially, he might rub his hands in glee, until he sees that chinese imports of his product are selling for less, so to compete he has to drop his prices. He can afford to do this as his costs are lower, and still stay in business. And thats the real point of our economy that many Labour supporters don't get. They are not in competition with this countries bankers to get a better living, they are in competition with the millions of other people around the world to get a basic income.
(And isn't that the model supermarkets work too, driving down the cost of milk and if our farmerrs don't cut their margins, they will simply buy it from abroad.)
-
Nor have you mentioned the fact that as his profits have increased, so has his tax bill, benefitting the NHS, schools, etc, or allowing the employees income tax bill to be reduced.
-
Nor have you mentioned the fact that as his profits have increased, so has his tax bill, benefitting the NHS, schools, etc, or allowing the employees income tax bill to be reduced.
Chances are his tax bill won't increase because his accountant will find a way for him to pay less tax.
As to your other theory he was making £684 profit competing against the Chinese, he wasn't going to be happy making £503 profit against the Chinese imports but would be happy screwing his employess and making more profit.
-
And another thing, as his profits have increased, he thinks, "this is easy money, I'll expand the factory" so he takes on another 4 employees, there for helping those at the bottom even more.
Again I base my views on evidence, for example the business practices of Sainsburys, profits have grown, so they open more branches and hire more staff. (Or is Justin just sat there rubbing his hands with glee)
The problem with ideology is that facts often get in the way.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Given that the private sector is the only cash generator in the country, can you advise whether A, you would tax more to raise this cash (and what areas would you tax - please feel free to explain your working with examples rather than "tax the rich"), or B, cut spending in other areas. (in which case what areas, and how would these cuts release the cash required?).
Before I do would you please explain to me why 'Tax the rich' is not deemed to be a perfectly reasonable answer? Or is it simply that because they can all follow your stated example of getting on the next plane out of here this wouldn't work?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
The poor are already taxed, what's your point.
So you're saying that the 'rich', these people who will generate all this money and all these profits, will only do so if they are allowed to keep more of it and that it doesn't matter if they do this by cutting the terms and conditions of millions of others. So the 1% get richer and the 99% get poorer.
They won't make investments quote in order to maintain their current lifestyle, but they are quite willing to lessen the lifestyle of their staff in the pursuit of greater profits which you want them to be allowed to keep for themselves.
As to France theres a big difference between us and them. Go to France and spot how many people drive Renaults, Peugeots or Citroens. How many French people holiday somewhere other than France? How many French people drink Australian or Californian wine. The French work less than us, they retire sooner than us, they demand higher pensions and standards of living in retirement than us. They take a very insular view of their economy. I'd expect their 'rich' to pay up.
Finally Answer me this. If a 'rich' man came along and said I want to build a huge building costing millions and as a result I'm going to be employing hundreds of tradesmen and keeping dozens of other companies in business supplying the construction you'd presumably be on the sidelines applauding this man as generating the business needed to stimulate the country.
But if the Government says they are going to do exactly the same thing by building new roads, schools hospitals etc etc then this is a BAD thing because its coming out of the public purse and your 'rich' man isn't making vast profits.
Isn't that Hypocritical?
-
Theres nothing wrong with Govt spending on infrastructure, IF THEY'VE GOT THE MONEY. The problem is because the last Govt spend far more than they ever had, infrasttucure spending would have to come by means of debt.
Getting into debt is fine for a private individual, he may get turned down for a loan, or if he gets it and things go wrong, its his assets at risk. When Govt gets into debt, that debt is just passed onto other taxpayers in the future, with substantial amounts being paid in interest, thus causing more harm to the public purse in the long run.
Whats that saying about Jam tomorrow?
-
And going back to my Sainsburys / milk analogy.
If you are so concerned about peoples incomes, why don't you call Justin and suggest he puts up the price of milk, so the farmer can be paid more? That is what you are arguing for when you look at it in reality instead of in terms of idealism.
But Justin won't, he really wants to fight for every % of market share, so he screws down the price of milk, good for him, good for customers, good for you, his employer. But not good for the farmer, because the farmer is a self employed business man, he has no minimum wage, he has no employment rights, he gets up at 4.00am every morning, 365 days a week, investing his own money and working his udders off, but because the left see him as some sort of nasty capitalist he's buggered. He can't even spend his spare time shooting foxes anymore. But thats your idea of a fair society?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
And going back to my Sainsburys / milk analogy.
Don't fall into the same trap as Slacker. Don't make sweeping statements that the facts don't back up.
Try googling Sainsburys and the price of milk.
-
This is going to get complicated but I will try to answer in order.
Tax: we've already had this one. In relative terms for the amount of the wealth they own they don't pay the proportionate amount of tax.
Cutting earnings. In your model they are cutting others earnings to maintain or increase their own. As I said Not fair
Investment. It was you who said they won't invest because they need to maintain their lifestyle. So they are not prepared to suffer the same pain they are inflicting on others and won't invest to preserve their workers jobs.
Casa: Any idea what that strange looking top floor is? Its the offices of Mr Perez' drinks firm.So he's taken that money out of the local economy (as he's not paying it to another business) and he's using it to prop up another business to allow it to operate at a business advantage against the Chesterfield Hotel and the Ringwood.. And his core business is a case in point. It costs him pennies to make his VK drinks he makes a massive profit on them. Why didn't he take less profit so that his 'customers' could keep more of their money? Because he needs all his profits for his big boy toys such as helicopters and rally cars.
-
and once again:
It's Maggie's fault !!!!!
Are you saying utility prices AREN'T rising far faster than wages?
-
Don't fall into the same trap as Slacker. Don't make sweeping statements that the facts don't back up.
Try googling Sainsburys and the price of milk.
I don't need to google it. When I read about it, the report said that Sainsburys pay more than their competitors. But the principle still remains.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
I do however now see that your vision of "were all in this together", actually means - "were all in this mess, but I'd just like the rich to bail us out please, as the poor dont want to".
That may be true but surely your model is 'we're all in this mess but I'd like the poor to take further cuts because I still want to drive my Jag but that's ok because I'm the one generating the money so I deserve it'.
-
I don't need to google it. When I read about it, the report said that Sainsburys pay more than their competitors. But the principle still remains.
Except that it blows your analogy out of the water. We are paying MORE so that the farmer gets a FAIR deal but we are still charging the customer the same as the other supermarkets. We are doing the FAIR thing not the thing that brings the biggest profits.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Chris, there's been a public sector pay freeze for about 4 years which coupled with massive rises in essential is effectively a pay cut.
I'm not entering into a public / private debate because that's what the government and right-wing press wants worker v worker instead of the vast amount those at the top get compared with the rest of us.
I'm not saying bosses should be paid same as workforce but some are probably on 50 times as much which is obscene.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Typical left wing nonsense, letting ideaology get in the way again.
No one has tried pushing the them and us mentality than Labour, look at at this thread for example. Thats why they had to re-brand and come up with New Labour, but the message still hasn't got through. Not every boss / business owner is a wealthy, money mad capitalist, land owner aristocrat, blah blah...
There are millions of small business owners in this country, painters, plumbers and plasterers, shop keepers, delivery drivers and avon ladies...millions of people who work for themselves. They have to work long hours, after investing their own money and struggle to make any profit at all, though they would like to expand their business and hire more staff. They get no employment rights, they get no minimum wage, they get no sick pay or fancy pension paid for by someone else...but these are the people that keep the country from going under.
And no one is arguing that the poor become poorer, just more left wing nonsense because they think they have a monopoly on caring for the poor. What I am arguing for is a low price economy. Low food costs, low fuel bills, low heating bills, low taxes and the rest. Slacker seems to be arguing for the same from some of his posts, the difference is he seems to want low prices, but high wages, where I have a basic understanding of maths and know that would lead to bankruptcy. The only way to have low prices, is to have low costs, including the cost of employment.
Take Emma, for example. (Apologies for using you like this Emma, and not wanting to put words in your mouth). Here is a young girl working hard to try and find herself a job. Does she really care right now if the minimum wage is £6.00 per hour or £7.00 per hour. My guess is she couldn't care less. What she does care about is the cost of her utility bill, food costs, transport costs, housing costs, child care costs and so on. If someone thinks we can drive those costs down, while putting wages up, they really are blinkered, and clearly think their ideology is more important than really doing something for the poor.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Just remembered this that was posted 'in another place'
It describes how the owner of a business organises his finances.
Remember that as an 'employee' on £30k I'd be taking home about about £22k
First thing was without exception, they established a ‘Company’ identity for their business.
From the lets say £30000 income to the business
They employed themselves for a wage of say £7000 – under the threshold - no Income Tax paid.
They allowed themselves (the business) the notional £4000 work expenses – a further saving on Income Tax.
They paid National Insurance – at 4% 0n £7000 – not 9% of £30000
Total personal expenses are so far just under £300
They paid themselves a dividend during the year of say £18700 – and on this pay a dividend tax of not 20% but just 9%. - £1700 rounded up!
So from the £30k they got to keep £28k - £6k more than the worker.
That's why we aren't 'all in this together'
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
ok then Chris, if it isn't so cushy
1. Why do you do it?
2. How can you afford very expensive motor cars
3. How can you afford to plan to emigrate if the Labour party get back in and threaten to tax you in order to run the economy as they want?
The facts are this. Under a conservative government championing business, the few and the rich (sorry of you don't like that description but frankly .... tough) you stand to gain and as such you will argue that their approach is correct.
Under a Labour government championing the many you stand to lose so you argue that their approach is wrong.
Nothing wrong in that at all, the I'm alright Jack attitude is prevelant on both sides of the argument. Just dont expect us to believe that your beliefs are anything other than those under which you stand to gain the most.
-
Once again JR, ignoring everything that doesn't suit your pont of view.
How can bankruptng the country be good for the many as you put it.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
2 sides to every argument, I don't have a problem with Chris and Kev airing their views
-
Neither do I, But I hope they take the Obi Wan Kenobi test.
-
What's the Obi Wan Kenobi test?
-
Luke: Ben! Why didn't you tell me? You told me that Darth Vader betrayed and murdered my father.
Obi-Wan: Your father... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and "became" Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.
Luke: A certain point of view?
Obi-Wan: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
-
2 sides to every argument, I don't have a problem with Chris and Kev airing their views
Likewise. I much prefer the grwon up, debate the issues, both sides put forward an arguement approach to the silly name calling and personal attack approach that may occur from time to time.
Yes, both sides have a point of view........but mine is the correct one. So there.
-
:))
-
QED
-
:)) :)) :))
-
QED
QI..............sorry, thought this was a 'name the tv programme' thread!! >;