Currently reading:
Befits street

Discuss Befits street in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Ermintrude

Really is this the future?

Sorry no tabs no kids and no more booze. I just paid hmrc a lot of money for these lazy scroungers. I'm going on a social cleansing spree. Basically going to block flues and let co do the world a favour. These people cannot be allowed to have children and ruin there lives.
 
I'm not going to disagree the benifits system is out of control. However that program is so one sided its untrue. I work for a social housing firm in Liverpool I see the most poverty stricken people day in day out and I'm telling you straight the examples on that program are not an everyday occurance.

It's all well and good shouting the odds about the cost of the benifit system but it is needed and until job vacancies outnumber people then it's here to stay.

The program reeks of classic divide and conquer Tory tactics. Why are people annoyed by this program/ bEnifits in General when the real crooks go unpunished. The goverment say they need to cut 2.1 billion more next year when there was 25 billion lost in unpaid tax. Close the loop holes and tax the banks. Don't punish the poor further , food banks are fit to burst while politicians get a £400 a month food allowance!

You ou wouldn't see channel making a program on this .....

Parasite Street
 
i see benefit scroungers everyday namely because i live in proximity to 3 councils estates. but for everyone that i think should be cut loose and left to fend for themselves there is another who is deserving of help. That said as much as these people who don't deserve to be on benefits irritate me. people who are millionaires billionaires irritate even more. they have so much money that it is obscene beyond comprehension. nobody who makes over 1 billion quid needs to dodge tax and in my opinion should be publicly shamed and birched just as much as the benefit cheat.

one day i feel this will come to a point where the poor and working class will rise up and not take this anymore and anarchy will reign over supreme. it may not happen in my lifetime but it will happen if the divide the between the super rich and poor keeps expanding. im already preparing for that day. just in case
 
i see benefit scroungers everyday namely because i live in proximity to 3 councils estates. but for everyone that i think should be cut loose and left to fend for themselves there is another who is deserving of help. That said as much as these people who don't deserve to be on benefits irritate me. people who are millionaires billionaires irritate even more. they have so much money that it is obscene beyond comprehension. nobody who makes over 1 billion quid needs to dodge tax and in my opinion should be publicly shamed and birched just as much as the benefit cheat.

one day i feel this will come to a point where the poor and working class will rise up and not take this anymore and anarchy will reign over supreme. it may not happen in my lifetime but it will happen if the divide the between the super rich and poor keeps expanding. im already preparing for that day. just in case

The revolution is coming friend. It will be televised and I will be at the front!
 
The only way this country will change is if we all draw all our money out of the banks and refuse to pay any tax, which would mean not going to work. The country would grind to a halt.

only then will any of these political jackass's think about listening to what the average joe has got to say. Until then we are all just pawns to their fun and games.

The country is corrupt through and through, and anyone unfortunate enough to have to work to survive is getting robbed every day.

Sometimes I wonder if these benefit claimers have got it all right. We go to work thinking we are making something of our lives but in reality we are spending 50% of our time in this world paying into the system?

This lot might not have the posh car or own their own home but they have all the time in the world to do as they please, a roof over their head and food on the table. There's a large proportion of working families having to go to the food banks? How does that work?
 
My wife worked all her life, no breaks, full NI contributions, and got made redundant at 60. Thought ok I will claim for something. Absolute night mare not entitled to jack. Its really is quite disturbing. That is not quite what I would like to express, but would get banded and probably investigated by political investigation and IT police if I said it as it was.
 
There's a large proportion of working families having to go to the food banks? How does that work?

Its quite simple. Running food banks have become the middle class "charity-de-jour".

Think about it - if I set up beer banks (free beer for anyone who came through the door) - I would be over-run wouldn't I? If you give away something of value for free, of course there will be takers. Those takers are likely to be those on lowest incomes to be sure, but it doesn't prove anything except that people like free stuff.
 
It's all well and good shouting the odds about the cost of the benifit system but it is needed and until job vacancies outnumber people then it's here to stay.

2 points.

1) what about all the jobs that have been created in the last few years, but have been filled by immigrants?

2) the supply of jobs is neither finite, nor fixed, but depends upon the level of economic activity and productivity of everyone in society.

Imagine a completely empty country - plenty of natural resources, but no people. Then parachute in 100 people. There are no jobs, but 100 people - so they all have to go on benefits, right? Oh. Hang on. There are no productive, tax paying people to pay those benefits.

In the absence of the benefit options, the 100 people start to grow crops, or cut timber, or fish. For a while they exchange goods in barter economy, but eventually a money system arises. After a few generations, there are thousands of people, some specialising in building houses, others in food production, still others in brewing beer, or (eventually) even acting in plays, or playing professional sport.

So where have all these jobs come from? Who created them? The answer is that no one created them - human society naturally creates "employment" (ie doing something to assist survival) in the absence of any other option. As long as productivity is greater than is required for bare subsistence, everyone benefits, and since the industrial revolution, collective productivity has massively outstripped the requirements of subsistence - at least in the developed world.

So having a benefits system at a level above subsistence for people who COULD be productive (so I am excluding the geniunely disabled and the elderly) actually works against the interests of the whole in two different ways. It destroys the incentive for the "idle" to become economically active, and, by taxing the productive people to get the money to pay benefits, it reduces their incentive to continue working - thus making it more likely that they will join the ranks of the idle.

It is entirely different if we return to the old system where what you receive in benefits is tied to what you paid in by way of contributions. That is a simple insurance contract - no different in essence to any other insurance contract.
 
I'm not going to disagree the benifits system is out of control. However that program is so one sided its untrue. I work for a social housing firm in Liverpool I see the most poverty stricken people day in day out and I'm telling you straight the examples on that program are not an everyday occurance.

It's all well and good shouting the odds about the cost of the benifit system but it is needed and until job vacancies outnumber people then it's here to stay.

The program reeks of classic divide and conquer Tory tactics. Why are people annoyed by this program/ bEnifits in General when the real crooks go unpunished. The goverment say they need to cut 2.1 billion more next year when there was 25 billion lost in unpaid tax. Close the loop holes and tax the banks. Don't punish the poor further , food banks are fit to burst while politicians get a £400 a month food allowance!

You ou wouldn't see channel making a program on this .....

Parasite Street
im on social housing work as well and agree it is an eye opener how poor some people are sitting in the dark when they have no electric in the cold when they have no gas beds with very little in the way of bed clothes ,bare floors and little furniture
on the other hand ive been to houses with enough shoes to start a shop usually stored in the cupbord i need to get in
 
I think you probably should consider running for local elections at least.

I prefer to do my stealing over the tradecounter, like an honest highwayman. :)

highwayman2.jpg
 
one day i feel this will come to a point where the poor and working class will rise up and not take this anymore and anarchy will reign over supreme. it may not happen in my lifetime but it will happen if the divide the between the super rich and poor keeps expanding. im already preparing for that day. just in case

Russia tried that 97 years ago but it never turned out too well. There will always be winners and loser's, haves and have nots, doers and idlers in any society.

Ray makes some really good points
 
Its quite simple. Running food banks have become the middle class "charity-de-jour".

Think about it - if I set up beer banks (free beer for anyone who came through the door) - I would be over-run wouldn't I? If you give away something of value for free, of course there will be takers. Those takers are likely to be those on lowest incomes to be sure, but it doesn't prove anything except that people like free stuff.

For once there ray you're wrong. You have to be referred to the food banks by either social services or the dole office. Refferals are hard to get and only supposed to be once every 3 months.
 
2 points.

1) what about all the jobs that have been created in the last few years, but have been filled by immigrants?

2) the supply of jobs is neither finite, nor fixed, but depends upon the level of economic activity and productivity of everyone in society.

Imagine a completely empty country - plenty of natural resources, but no people. Then parachute in 100 people. There are no jobs, but 100 people - so they all have to go on benefits, right? Oh. Hang on. There are no productive, tax paying people to pay those benefits.

In the absence of the benefit options, the 100 people start to grow crops, or cut timber, or fish. For a while they exchange goods in barter economy, but eventually a money system arises. After a few generations, there are thousands of people, some specialising in building houses, others in food production, still others in brewing beer, or (eventually) even acting in plays, or playing professional sport.

So where have all these jobs come from? Who created them? The answer is that no one created them - human society naturally creates "employment" (ie doing something to assist survival) in the absence of any other option. As long as productivity is greater than is required for bare subsistence, everyone benefits, and since the industrial revolution, collective productivity has massively outstripped the requirements of subsistence - at least in the developed world.

So having a benefits system at a level above subsistence for people who COULD be productive (so I am excluding the geniunely disabled and the elderly) actually works against the interests of the whole in two different ways. It destroys the incentive for the "idle" to become economically active, and, by taxing the productive people to get the money to pay benefits, it reduces their incentive to continue working - thus making it more likely that they will join the ranks of the idle.

It is entirely different if we return to the old system where what you receive in benefits is tied to what you paid in by way of contributions. That is a simple insurance contract - no different in essence to any other insurance contract.

However that system becomes falwed through greed. Classic example is tescos. They are making billons in profit yet refuse to pay there staff the living wage! You say humans create jobs to assist survial. These people cant survive on minimum wage they are turning to food banks whilst the tesco fat cats sip champagne and eat caviar! The system has become badly unbalanced. Im not saying benifits are they are nothing but however why work and not even be able to feed the kids to make someone rich! Boll ocks to that!
 
For once there ray you're wrong. You have to be referred to the food banks by either social services or the dole office. Refferals are hard to get and only supposed to be once every 3 months.

Fair point Zeb, but the basic thrust of my post still applies. I just went on my local foodbank's website, and there is a big article about how every church should consider establishing one. The point is that foodbanks are "trendy" - just as a few years ago adopting an orphan in africa was trendy.

As for the referral system, its just the same principles, but through the proxy of the social worker. If you give the social worker or dole office a resource that they can use, that has no cost to them, then they will use it!
 
These people cant survive on minimum wage they are turning to food banks whilst the tesco fat cats sip champagne and eat caviar!

Mate, you have been reading way too much Karl Marx (or the daily mirror) :)

Our nation is incomparably better off because of the activities of its business sector, imperfect and flawed though that may be. Tesco's and the other supermarkets have made an unbelievably positive contribution to the well being of the nation.

If you don't believe me, just take a trip to a country that doesn't have a well developed business sector, and in particular those that lack good food distribution and retailing infrastructures, and see what those people do for "survival".
 
Mate, you have been reading way too much Karl Marx (or the daily mirror) :)

Our nation is incomparably better off because of the activities of its business sector, imperfect and flawed though that may be. Tesco's and the other supermarkets have made an unbelievably positive contribution to the well being of the nation.

If you don't believe me, just take a trip to a country that doesn't have a well developed business sector, and in particular those that lack good food distribution and retailing infrastructures, and see what those people do for "survival".

Then why the food banks? Why such poverty? Why is there such a gap between rich and poor and why is it growing? Would you say its right that a single mum working as a cashier in tescos cant make ends meet because minimum wage is so low when tescos make such massive profits?
 
Hi Zeb.

I think we have such way different world views that we will never meet in the middle, but I will try anyway.

Firstly, lets take poverty. So long as you define poverty as a percentage of median income (which is how we define it in britain) then there will always be poverty - its a statistical certaintly. In fact, because of the way that we calculate the poverty line, if lots of middle income people suddenly got a payrise, then another 100,000 would drop below the poverty line, even though their situation would not have changed.

My Grandmother talked to me about life in the 1920s, during the general strike. There was a lady who knew what poverty was. If she were still alive, she would look at people "in poverty" today and mutter "don't know they're bl00dy born".

And whats wrong with inequality, and why shouldn't it grow?

If you work longer hours, or do a better job than the next guy, don't you deserve more money? If the guy running one of my competitors makes twice as much profit as me, doesn't he deserve twice as much pay?

I could go on, but I won't. I will leave you with this short anecdote about tax and wealth.

oldstory said:
How Taxes Work . . .

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

Just as an aside, did you know that the top 1% of earners (thats people with incomes over £160,000) will pay 30% of all income tax in the UK in 2013/14. B@st@rd fat-cats. Better off without them.


 
Of course people deserve better pay for a better job that goes without saying but how does relate to the fact the national minimum wage is far too low? Im not saying profit is evil but it is evil when its at the expensive of others. Tescos could pay a higher wage so the single mum can afford to feed her kids and still make a profit however greed takes over.

There are 2 sides to that tax system story if the lads stopped working for a rubbish wage who would make him rich? That is classic tory nonsense to brainwash people that there is no other way of working things. The system should be mutually beneficial to all not just the elite few!
 
Zeb, if the national minimum wage goes up in a huge jump as it's way too low, what do you think will happen to the cost of food in our supermarkets? Energy supplied to us? Many of the people working in these organisations are on national minimum wage.

I'll tell you what will happen - prices will go up to recover the cost of wages. In a large jump. Suddenly the national minimum wage will be too low again.

Large jumps in national minimum wage won't solve anything in my opinion.
 
See thats the mentality we have in this country we are led to belive these firms have to recoup the cost elsewhere. Why do they? Why cant they just make less profits? Do they really need them extra 0's on that screen!
 
See thats the mentality we have in this country we are led to belive these firms have to recoup the cost elsewhere. Why do they? Why cant they just make less profits? Do they really need them extra 0's on that screen!
Do you work just to cover your costs zeeb? Or do you make profit on any materials you buy?
 
See thats the mentality we have in this country we are led to belive these firms have to recoup the cost elsewhere. Why do they? Why cant they just make less profits? Do they really need them extra 0's on that screen!

Thats a good question, and the answer is complex.


The managers of large businesses run them on behalf of the absentee owners (shareholders). They have a legal duty to run them as profitably as they can on behalf of those shareholders.

We normally portray shareholders as cigar-chomping fatcats, swilling champers and grinding the widows and orphans under their expensive boot heels.

Most large businesses are owned by institutional shareholders - thats pension funds, insurance companies and unit trusts etc. Basically, everyone's savings. The people running those institutions have a legal duty to try to maximise their returns.

When you retire and buy an annuity with your pension lump sum, you will shop around for the best rate. Similarly if you are looking for a unit trust for your ISA savings, you will look for the best return you can find. The pension/unit trust company that pays the best rate will be the one with the best performing investment strategy. It will have to invest in the most profitable businesses paying big dividends.

If Tesco were to announce that they were going to reduce profits, and therefore dividends in order to boost pay above the industry average, then your pension company, WORKING ON YOUR BEHALF, AND IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS, would drop Tesco shares like a hot brick. This is a powerful disincentive for Tesco managers to consider this strategy.

Eventually, if Tesco persisted in this strategy, their shares would eventually descend in value to the point where Lidl (or someone else with a lower wage policy) could simply buy them, and return them to full profit by cutting wage costs.
 
Incidentally, I don't think that Tesco pay National Minimum Wage. According to salary comparison site Glass Door, they pay £6.78 per hour at entry level jobs, which is about 7.5% more than NMW. Not sure how reliable that is though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Reply to Befits street in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net

Back
Top