Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

*shrugs*

I wasn't paying attention to what the argument was. You wanted some evidence. I put some up.

That's about it.

I was looking for some sort of overview on the national picture on these points. Anyone can pick examples from the media as these are often given a high profile but does not mean they are the rule. Could well be the exception, hence the angle of my request.

It was in any event asked of mamba who was totally unable to do so and seemed to 'go off one one' as a result. Can't see how we can have a decent debate without someone being able to substantiate a key assumption in his argument, but hey, what does reason count for in left wing political emotive issues?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

In related news - curious to see the thinking behind Tory lobbying to keep Bermuda off an EU tax-haven blacklist.

Depends what the black list is based on. If it's purely rate based then that's one thing. If it is based on cooperation and entering into exchange of information agreements then that is different.

Link?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let's see how this idea is regarded outside of Labours political circles.

I am surprised that people have fallen for a simplistiic piece of left wing posturing. As I said before, he should just increase the minimum wage rather the appealing to hard left knuckle draggers who assume that all shareholders are rich. Seems the view is the same elsewhere:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c67da79a-bc49-11e5-846f-79b0e3d20eaf.html#axzz3yoOHKCsc
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-17/corbyns-living-wage-proposal-would-create-perverse-incentives-for-companies/
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1379746/corbyns-living-wage-folly/

The busted flush are the lefties who think that this sort of naïve left wing policy making is ever going to going to get put into practice. Even Neil Kinnock came out publically this week and said that Corbyn is unelectable

i didnt ask for a policy from you or whether any policy would ever become law, i asked what YOU think, about companies relying on state aid to boost their profits - you cant bring your self to answer, because deep down, you know its wrong and doesnt fit comfortably in any free market thinking you have.

biggest prob with raising min wage is that it narrows differentials to those semi and skilled workers who earn slightly above any min or living wage, they ll be asking for wage rises too.

the Kinnocks ? you mean those scroungers who have made a small fortune from the EU and failed to win a GE ? i m surprised you take notice of that idiot, talking of idiots, why do you ignore the 2 sectors that pay low wages, employ large numbers and that i linked too? not only do you pay through the nose for your morning StarBucks, the girl serving you will no doubt be claiming WTC as well, whilst paying FA in corporation tax

But in regards to those left wing knuckle draggers who run Whitbread(Costa/premier inn) they are going to start paying the living wage from 2016 Good on them!

Stevo_666

Even Labour's own business spokesperson says that 'it's not a runner'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35454109

But its a free country and people like JC are free to live in leftie la-la land if they want to

slowmart

Stevo 666 wrote:

Even Labour's own business spokesperson says that 'it's not a runner'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35454109

But its a free country and people like JC are free to live in leftie la-la land if they want to

Left wing/masterbation and visualisation of equality of everyone is dead. Just look at Russia. Market economy. Human nature makes it unviable.

Then taking North Korea & China to one side the only communist based economies that are still in existence are Vietnam and Laos with the latter holding the unenviable title of most bombed country.Ever.

Capitalism is far from perfect in fact it's fundamentally flawed on so many levels, just take the global dispersal of wealth, as a spotlight on the screwed nature of the philosophy ....

pblakeney

Slowmart wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Even Labour's own business spokesperson says that 'it's not a runner'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35454109

But its a free country and people like JC are free to live in leftie la-la land if they want to

Left wing/masterbation and visualisation of equality of everyone is dead. Just look at Russia. Market economy. Human nature makes it unviable.

Then taking North Korea & China to one side the only communist based economies that are still in existence are Vietnam and Laos with the latter holding the unenviable title of most bombed country.Ever.

Capitalism is far from perfect in fact it's fundamentally flawed on so many levels, just take the global dispersal of wealth, as a spotlight on the screwed nature of the philosophy ....

So, in summary -
Communism doesn't work and capitalism is broken?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

In related news - curious to see the thinking behind Tory lobbying to keep Bermuda off an EU tax-haven blacklist.

Depends what the black list is based on. If it's purely rate based then that's one thing. If it is based on cooperation and entering into exchange of information agreements then that is different.

Link?

EU blacklist as far as I understand is related to adherence to anti-money laundering policy, exchanging tax information etc.

It's a repetition thing.

Bermuda complains it does more than most of those on the blacklist.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-a ... hypocrites

Just curious what the Tory rationale with regard to the lobbying to keep bermuda off the list - for a couple of reasons.


A) why lobby for that at all? If they're making a song & dance about austerity and needing tax receipts to 'fix the roof while the sun is shining', why would they be lobbying to assist tax havens?

why specifically Bermuda? It's a US territory after all.

pinno

Please answer the question Stevo:

"...should a cash rich profitable company, award its directors and shareholders, whilst expecting the tax payer to pay part of their wage bill?"

rick_chasey

Pinno wrote:

Please answer the question Stevo:

"...should a cash rich profitable company, award its directors and shareholders, whilst expecting the tax payer to pay part of their wage bill?"

Fairly sure the fiduciary duty of the management is to maximise profits.

In which case, it should be reasonable to expect them to do so.

So the solution is to change the rules so they're incentivised not to do so!

slowmart

Pinno wrote:

Please answer the question Stevo:

"...should a cash rich profitable company, award its directors and shareholders, whilst expecting the tax payer to pay part of their wage bill?"

The directors are under an obligation from the articles of association to legally maximise the profits of a company to enable a higher return for the shareholders.

And so companies aren't cash rich and profit is subjective with the the legal ways to minimise tax.

It's simply a lack of political will and vested interest that the situation persists.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Please answer the question Stevo:

"...should a cash rich profitable company, award its directors and shareholders, whilst expecting the tax payer to pay part of their wage bill?"

RTFT. Already answered it. Looks like mamba isn't the only one with selective blindness.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Please answer the question Stevo:

"...should a cash rich profitable company, award its directors and shareholders, whilst expecting the tax payer to pay part of their wage bill?"

RTFT. Already answered it. Looks like mamba isn't the only one with selective blindness.

Just quote it and i'll read it again.

(Do you feel more and more like a politician? )

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

The large majority of countries pay in work benefits - see my link. Question is where the split lies. A companys obligation is to follow the law on minimum wage and to should aim to pay the market rate to get the right staff: they are not charities. The minimum wage is there as a backstop for those jobs at the bottom of the pile.

Here you go.

Just to be clear and address the new wording that you have added about companies expecting the state to top up wages: companies do not expect this. They just offer what they see as a market rate of pay for the job based on supply and demand and the prospective employee then is free to accept, decline or negotiate. I have never once when recruiting someone thought that I can offer less because the state might pick up part of the tab. Seem to recall slowmart said the same thing, speaking as a business owner.

Companies don't determine benefits, the state does. What you will find is that the existence of these in work benefits lessens prospective employees wage demands as they know that they will receive top ups. I have already showed evidence that UK in work benefits are relatively generous within the EU So logically to solve your problem, the answer is to cut in-work benefits then wages paid by companies will rise to compensate as impacted employees will ask for more pay. Is this what you want?

mamba80

double post....

mamba80

You are answering a question i never asked, all you ve done is stated the bleeding obvious and defended the current system.
how is it defensible to expect the state to subsidise wages? whilst those very same companies make large profits?

this so called market rate you keep quoting is artificially low because of WTC people in work should not be collecting handouts, that was never the reason the welfare state was set up, it was supposed to be for people who couldnt work, not for people who do...... companies have just gotten greedy, awarding themselves, at the expensive of the tax payer.

£30bn is spent on WTC alone, think how many pot holes that would fill? new hospitals, schools, road safety, policing - it would be in every cyclists interests if more were spent in these areas.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

You are answering a question i never asked, all you ve done is stated the bleeding obvious and defended the current system.
how is it defensible to expect the state to subsidise wages? whilst those very same companies make large profits?

this so called market rate you keep quoting is artificially low because of WTC people in work should not be collecting handouts, that was never the reason the welfare state was set up, it was supposed to be for people who couldnt work, not for people who do...... companies have just gotten greedy, awarding themselves, at the expensive of the tax payer.

£30bn is spent on WTC alone, think how many pot holes that would fill? new hospitals, schools, road safety, policing - it would be in every cyclists interests if more were spent in these areas.

You have answered your own question. If wages are too low due to working tax credits, reduce the credits and wages will rise. As I explained in my post above - which you don't appear to have read. Again.

If that isn't the answer in your view, tell us what you think is the answer.

No point moaning about my answers if you have no alternative to put forward.

mamba80

As your not going to answer, have to move on.

As to your question........ i d have a contributions based benefits system, crazy that should you or i, 40% tax payers for many years, will get exactly the same benefits should we become ill or unemployed, as some who has contributed little or nothing, same with state pension, now SERPS has gone.
the welfare state was never designed to support the lazy or to boost company profits.

So, any form of income support or HB, above a certain level would be earn't, rather than a right, would need phasing in and over a long period but the £30bn per year WTC bill is unsustainable.

would also help stop the UK becoming a magnet for low skilled workers from EU - i think all other EU countries operate such systems.

Stevo_666

I've already answered more than once - see above. You mean that you are not going to answer. Good try to wriggle off the hook.

What's the alternative?

rick_chasey

Good news Londoners

http://gu.com/p/4gcte?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Biggest TfL union recommends its members accept the new proposal.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've already answered more than once - see above. You mean that you are not going to answer. Good try to wriggle off the hook.

What's the alternative?

i ve just told you, get your reading glasses.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've already answered more than once - see above. You mean that you are not going to answer. Good try to wriggle off the hook.

What's the alternative?

i ve just told you, get your reading glasses.

Fair point, in my defence I read the bit about 'have to move on' while suffering from some horrid lergy and assumed you were trying to open up a new line of argument, so didn't look at that next bit...

That is actually a good idea - and one that I think we will move to at some point. As you say most of Europe do this I think and I only realised a week or two ago that we are different in that respect. Although in the end what you are proposing is a cut in benefits - and there will be some on here who will be moaning that it's not fair on the low paid. There, we can agree on something :shock:

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've already answered more than once - see above. You mean that you are not going to answer. Good try to wriggle off the hook.

What's the alternative?

i ve just told you, get your reading glasses.

Fair point, in my defence I read the bit about 'have to move on' while suffering from some horrid lergy and assumed you were trying to open up a new line of argument, so didn't look at that next bit...

That is actually a good idea - and one that I think we will move to at some point. As you say most of Europe do this I think and I only realised a week or two ago that we are different in that respect. Although in the end what you are proposing is a cut in benefits - and there will be some on here who will be moaning that it's not fair on the low paid. There, we can agree on something :shock:

Whilst I realise that it is subjective, as long as the low paid are not below the poverty line.

Stevo_666

Corbyn and Nellist - a match made in heaven:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/jeremy-corbyn-plays-down-labour-10951817

ballysmate

My father in law was a miner who was on strike for the entire length of the dispute in the 80s. I went to a do that celebrated the 25 anniversary of its end. The guest speaker was Nellist. My father in law was ashamed and embarrassed that he had taken his family as guests to hear such bilious shite.
The man is a disgrace.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

My father in law was a miner who was on strike for the entire length of the dispute in the 80s. I went to a do that celebrated the 25 anniversary of its end. The guest speaker was Nellist. My father in law was ashamed and embarrassed that he had taken his family as guests to hear such bilious shite.
The man is a disgrace.

As I said, a match maee in heaven.

Quote from the link:
"Dave and I worked very well together in Parliament together in the past, I have a lot of respect for him as a good community-minded person and I hope that we will get support from him in all quarters in the future."

Stevo_666

No wonder Labour are a bit quiet on the EU debate:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12184405/Jeremy-Corbyn-accused-of-rewriting-history-after-deleting-hundreds-of-outspoken-articles-and-speeches-from-his-website.html

ballysmate

Not even got the sense to learn from their mistakes of the past. Labour would borrow billions more. Even lefties are dumbstruck by the plans.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... competence

vimfuego

That's hilarious.
So, the Labour Govt apparently didn't overspend in the run up to the financial crisis ( :shock: ) it was de-regulation of the city (under Labour) to blame. Oh and those greedy bankers, they're responsible for everything, lets mention them again that'll distract the masses.

So they're still anti-austerity but will borrow billions more to throw at public services (that'll keep the public happy and win votes right) and at the same time exercise "iron discipline" on spending ( ).

Typical politicians really. Not honest enough to admit to any involvement in past mistakes and would rather try and score points off the other side than build some genuine credibility. Nobody likes the uncomfortable truth of current economic reality, so in opposition we'll take the easy option of finger pointing at the current government, doling out pleasing soundbites about ending austerity and "saving" public services, but as we're playing student union politics we have no clue how we'll fund it all and actually deliver it.

Still, could be worse.....

mr_goo

I would rather Trump than these two running my country.





Oh! Wait one. I think one of them might already be pulling strings at Westminster.

vimfuego

:-)