Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (8 Viewers)

[clint van damme]

????
What isn't there?

Do you mean those who brought in 150 workers because there isn't anyone in the UK that would do it? Look back in his post.

It is amazing what is missed by those normally agreed with on here.

I merely pointed out we were flying in workers. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

---

[clint van damme]

The amount of money gained by the Treasury if they stop one tax-evading millionaire would account for countless ‘benefit cheats’

Think the country loses something like 3 billion to evasion and 4 billion to avoidance or it may be the other way round.
That's a fair old whack.

 

[Astute]

I merely pointed out we were flying in workers. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wasn't you that I quoted.

A company is flying in workers. We? We had people who wanted these jobs.

 

[fernandopartridge]

No what the government should of done was select 150 or however many needed of the long term dole dossing scroungers we have here and make them earn some of their universal credit.

If they're doing a job for somebody they should get paid, never mind 'earning' their UC.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Think the country loses something like 3 billion to evasion and 4 billion to avoidance or it may be the other way round.
That's a fair old whack.

It's significantly higher than that

 

[tisza]

Board and lodgings is usually taken out of what you earn from piecework too. Simple fact is that most British people won’t move temporarily to another part of the country to take home less than minimum wage (legally) when they have the option to stay at home and take home at least the minimum wage. It’s a no brainier for British people and that’s a compliment not a criticism.

Yep it's all relative.
Supermarkets set the prices and growers set wages according to that - not the other way around - or else supermarkets do what they always do and source from around the world where possible/feasible.
Romanian minimum wage around a quarter of the UK's so many Romanians "happy" to take the seasonal money and go home.

 

[Ian1779]

Exactly.

It is one way or no way. Just look at the latest.

Boomers are rich. They had all the money. Boo.

The most people that are on benefits are those of the age called boomers. But because they are poor they are suddenly not called boomers. And most lap it up.

Have tried to explain the difference between having left Labour but not getting a Labour government and taking the best parts of everything when we can and getting elected. But the excuses come out. It is a constant one sided rant. I fear we won't have a Labour government for a long time.

We get it - in fact most people generally agree with your point.

But we’re not the ones that need to be convinced. Tell us how you intend to change a mindset of people that will actively vote NOT in their own interests?

 

[skybluetony176]

Oh yes. The boomers that have had the best of everything.

Rich when needed but poor when needed. This link is closer to the truth though.

The 50-64 age group barely equates to a third of baby boomer generations.

 

[skybluetony176]

Wasn't you that I quoted.

A company is flying in workers. We? We had people who wanted these jobs.

We had people who applied for a job. Have you always took every job you’ve applied for?
You also seem to ignore that 25000 have applied but the farming industry needs 70000 seasonal workers so we’re still in trouble without the Eastern European’s.

 

[clint van damme]

It's significantly higher than that

My figures were estimates from HMRC.
Just googled it and other sources go as high as 70 billion.
I'd say it's it's pretty much nailed on that you're correct,.It's significantly higher, I wonder by how much?

 

[tisza]

I don't know why we don't go full on down the euthenasia route .
What a drag on society that generation are .
Health,housing, monetary support, what a drain and lag on the rest of society.

It does raise economic issues for the future though (not the euthanasia bit).
Companies investing billions in extending life spans = normally at the "unproducive" stages of our lives.
Getting to the situation where around half of our life spans will not be spent working (paying into the system) 18-22 years "getting ready" to join the workforce and maybe 15-20 plus years retired. Despite our best efforts we are going to be a financial issue for our kids and grandkids.

 

[tisza]

My figures were estimates from HMRC.
Just googled it and other sources go as high as 70 billion.
I'd say it's it's pretty much nailed on that you're correct,.It's significantly higher, I wonder by how much?

you've got a figure for the outright tax evasion, then there's a figure for the "legal" evasion (like Google, Amazon etc moving their daily income offshore to tax friendly environments)

 

[clint van damme]

you've got a figure for the outright tax evasion, then there's a figure for the "legal" evasion (like Google, Amazon etc moving their daily income offshore to tax friendly environments)

That's what my initial figures were for, evasion and avoidance but as FP pointed out, they're too low.

The fist google hit says 70 billion and refers solely to evasion. It comes from Patrick Cannon Barrister website.
Have no idea how credible it is or how they arrived at that figure I haven't looked beyond the headlines

A huge difference from the official HMRC figure I initially posted though.

 

[Flying Fokker]

It does raise economic issues for the future though (not the euthanasia bit).
Companies investing billions in extending life spans = normally at the "unproducive" stages of our lives.
Getting to the situation where around half of our life spans will not be spent working (paying into the system) 18-22 years "getting ready" to join the workforce and maybe 15-20 plus years retired. Despite our best efforts we are going to be a financial issue for our kids and grandkids.

1/3 of life spans maybe?

Question, why has so much been spent on improving medicine, reducing some pollution and encouraging some healthy lifestyles?

What generation will be a financial burden on the kids? The baby boomers generally pay for care if they have the means. The state picks up the tab otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the young of today are going to have a real struggle without worrying about supporting elders.

 

[clint van damme]

1/3 of life spans maybe?

Question, why has so much been spent on improving medicine, reducing some pollution and encouraging some healthy lifestyles?

What generation will be a financial burden on the kids? The baby boomers generally pay for care if they have the means. The state picks up the tab otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the young of today are going to have a real struggle without worrying about supporting elders.

Isn't that what he meant, we'll be a collective burden on the younger generations rather on on individual families specifically? That's how I read it.

Whichever way social care for the elderly is going to be a huge issue.

 

[skybluetony176]

Wasn't you that I quoted.

A company is flying in workers. We? We had people who wanted these jobs.

We need 70000 workers though. By your own admission only 25000 Brits applied. We need to fly them in regardless.

 

[Grendel]

We get it - in fact most people generally agree with your point.

But we’re not the ones that need to be convinced. Tell us how you intend to change a mindset of people that will actively vote NOT in their own interests?

Probably don’t patronise them that they should know better and you know what’s good for them

 

[TomRad85]

Probably don’t patronise them that they should know better and you know what’s good for them

Had the same thought, it's not a tactic that's been working well.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[tisza]

1/3 of life spans maybe?

Question, why has so much been spent on improving medicine, reducing some pollution and encouraging some healthy lifestyles?

What generation will be a financial burden on the kids? The baby boomers generally pay for care if they have the means. The state picks up the tab otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the young of today are going to have a real struggle without worrying about supporting elders.

1/3? Does that mean we're going to live into our 100s? That's a way a way surely.
state picking up the tab will come from higher taxes for those in work.
As to investment in medicine, healthy lifestyles - some comes from trying to reduce the burden on health services, the rest from individual desire to live longer. Govts (as entities) may like first part, not so much the 2nd

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I talked about the Coventrian living in a £500k house - are you drunk?

No you weren't

Would you want 16 year old working class school leavers to aspire to live in half million property?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I believe that society as a whole benefits from social democracy and the Tories don't stand for that

This is the thing over the years I've found harder and harder to reconcile.

Why do we want to put a party in charge of society that, fundamentally, doesn't believe society exists? It sees it as individuals and everyone for themselves. Get as much for yourself as possible and fuck everyone else.

It'd be like having a vegan in charge of McDonalds.

 

[Grendel]

No you weren't

He was talking about as a 16 year old he had no money and qualifications and achieved that and I asked is that something a vote for labour encourages.

you seem a bit slow?

 

[Astute]

We get it - in fact most people generally agree with your point.

But we’re not the ones that need to be convinced. Tell us how you intend to change a mindset of people that will actively vote NOT in their own interests?

Most on here don't seem to agree.

You have to appeal to most in some way. The Tories do it by lowering tax. That is why our services get shafted.

Hopefully when this is all over the majority will be happy to pay more tax. Frontline staff deserve much more. And this isn't just pay. The problem has always been people don't vote for tax increases. The floating voters vote for what is best for them. But maybe most will realise what is more important.

And no more free internet for all. The money raised needs to go where it is needed. To care for people that need it.

 

[Grendel]

This is the thing over the years I've found harder and harder to reconcile.

Why do we want to put a party in charge of society that, fundamentally, doesn't believe society exists? It sees it as individuals and everyone for themselves. Get as much for yourself as possible and fuck everyone else.

It'd be like having a vegan in charge of McDonalds.

Have you ever considered thats how people think?

 

[Astute]

The 50-64 age group barely equates to a third of baby boomer generations.

Are they the boomers? Did those who have reached retirement already have the same problem?

 

[Astute]

We need 70000 workers though. By your own admission only 25000 Brits applied. We need to fly them in regardless.

We? Yet again it was a private company that chartered the flight.

And we will be in recession when we open up again. Just like most of the world.

We don't need. But the company bosses who make the money will make even more money by bringing in cheap labour. You are for this until it is having a go at those making the money. Then it is bad.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

not surprising when the population has increased by over 8 million people since turn of the century. first time buyers priced out by private landlords so people revert to rent. why is that? country overpopulated too many people being allowed into the country. This puts a burden on nhs, schools, transport and housing. not difficult to work out

Not the massive increase in people living alone compared to yesteryear, when everyone left home when they got married. Plus an increasingly older population (or at least at the moment) that has meant properties that would become available 10-20 years earlier than they do now keeping the property ladder moving. In olden times when a parent got elderly they were moved in with their children to be cared for. Now it's just get the carers to look after them.

Then there is the issue of many properties being bought by a few people to be rented, so young people are priced out, have to rent preventing them putting together a deposit and thus can't get on the ladder.

Yes, immigration will put pressure on housing (although people handily forget that people do emigrate as well so you need to look at the net figure) but nothing compared to homegrown problems of our own making.

But don't let that get in the way of the 'bloody immigrants' rhetoric.

 

[Astute]

This is the thing over the years I've found harder and harder to reconcile.

Why do we want to put a party in charge of society that, fundamentally, doesn't believe society exists? It sees it as individuals and everyone for themselves. Get as much for yourself as possible and fuck everyone else.

It'd be like having a vegan in charge of McDonalds.

Lower tax.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Probably don’t patronise them that they should know better and you know what’s good for them

Ignorance is a virtue

 

[Astute]

Not the massive increase in people living alone compared to yesteryear, when everyone left home when they got married. Plus an increasingly older population (or at least at the moment) that has meant properties that would become available 10-20 years earlier than they do now keeping the property ladder moving. In olden times when a parent got elderly they were moved in with their children to be cared for. Now it's just get the carers to look after them.

Then there is the issue of many properties being bought by a few people to be rented, so young people are priced out, have to rent preventing them putting together a deposit and thus can't get on the ladder.

Yes, immigration will put pressure on housing (although people handily forget that people do emigrate as well so you need to look at the net figure) but nothing compared to homegrown problems of our own making.

But don't let that get in the way of the 'bloody immigrants' rhetoric.

You can buy a house not too far from me for less than 40k. But people still rent. Why is this?

How about what would happen if these landlords didn't buy properties to rent out. Where would those who can't buy live?

 

[skybluetony176]

Are they the boomers? Did those who have reached retirement already have the same problem?

They’re the last of the boomers, boomers were born mid 40’s to mid 60’s meaning that the majority have already retired. So when you’re talking about a percentage of 50-64 year olds struggling to find employment you can’t equate the experience to a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of boomers to all boomers. The vast majority of boomers had it good so your one minute the boomers had it good the next they didn’t so make your mind argument is flimsy.

 

[Ring Of Steel]

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

See the NHS is running out of gowns now


So the government of the world's 6th biggest economy have failed to procure enough fit for purpose testing kits, face masks, gloves and gowns during this pandemic.

What a fucking shower.

I'm pretty sure Hancock said in one of the pressers only a few days ago there wasn't an issue with the amount of PPE? They really are wasting it aren't they....

 

[clint van damme]

I'm pretty sure Hancock said in one of the pressers only a few days ago there wasn't an issue with the amount of PPE? They really are wasting it aren't they....

He's an absolute cretin. And a dangerous one

 

[Ring Of Steel]

I'm pretty sure Hancock said in one of the pressers only a few days ago there wasn't an issue with the amount of PPE? They really are wasting it aren't they....

It’s very noticeable that even on here the pro-government voices have stopped trying to pretend we’re doing well and it’s veered off to the political side of things. Not even the most ardent conservative can any longer say that in any way, shape or form this crisis has been handled well.