What's your point?
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
What's your point?
The systems broken. Badly.
That doesn't mean that people on social housing should get to pick where they want to live regardless of cost and expect the state to pick up the bill.
I hope you never fall on hard times gs.
No the private sector that they're employed by should be paying them enough to live in an area they can get to work from. The Governments not subsidizing the housing benefactor, it's subsidizing low wages by the private sector.Originally Posted by GS
Can't be the private sectors fault though. Nothing ever is.
Quite, it's easy to be okay with a broken system you've never been a part of.
Housing costs being a joke in certain places are largely (entirely) the result of successive governments [deliberately] fucking the system up, so they are mainly subsidising their own errors.
True.
Yes, the private sector that pays for public services. Which seems to be lost on people sometimes.
One assumes you're in favour of higher corporation tax and a higher minimum wage. Both would significantly squeeze free cash flow and restrict not only job creation but wage increases for full time employees. You'd end up making it worse, particularly when cost push inflation comes into play and you have less buying power. The economy is basically at full employment too, so it's not as if these companies are hoarding cash - they've invested.
That said, the company will pay to the market. Unless you propose driving wages up constantly through legislation, but that will get you nowhere because utimately a 25 year old probably doesn't need to be paid fifteen quid an hour to serve coffee.
Stopped reading after 'these companies aren't t hoarding cash'.
Unemployment is below 5% and is considered to effectively be full employment.
Try and actually think about it.
How much of the full employment are in zero hours or pay substandard wages? People being employed doesn't equal improvement of living standards.
How do those two things relate?
Try and actually think about it.
Clearly not true in all circumstances, so you're just proclaiming your ideology as fact again.
The real economy is much more complex than the simplistic models proposed by voodoo economists.
2.8% of all people in employment as per the ONS.
On wages, it pays to the market.
Because businesses creating three million jobs means three million salaries being paid out to workers and three million whacks of employer NIC making their way to the exchequer.
If they were hoarding, they wouldn't invest in staff and job creation.
You have a risible lack of understanding sometimes.
Clearly true in most circumstances, given free cash flows are a key determinant of investment decisions - whether for external acquisitions or internal investment decisions requiring board approval. External factors which can't be controlled heighten risk, and reduce the flexibility the business feels it has for staff investment or retention.
This is a part of my actual job, so you can probably spare us the contrary argument given it will be wrong.
And if those three million jobs are paying stagnant wages despite productivity increasing, they'd be hoarding, no?
PS. Stop being such a pompous condescending wank.
Productivity has been pretty flat here for years.
And wages are down against inflation so what's your point?
First, it's variable depending on company size, number of staff, company performance, sector performance.
Second, it's sometimes a choice between staff retention, promotions, pay increases etc. There's a finite pot of money.
Finally third, certain jobs won't see pay increases because the role itself is not sufficiently skilled to warrant it. That's the blunt truth. If I own a coffee shop, is it really worth Ł7.20 an hour, soon to be a tenner, for a staff member (actually higher assuming the employee earns over 8K)?
Consdering a cup of coffee costs about 15p (if you include the packaging, 8p if you don't) to make and you can then sell it for 2.50 or more. Yeah.
Is that very recently? Because otherwise it stopped being the case about three years ago, when it was somewhat understandable.
I'm sure it's gone over already how 0% contracts are often used to fiddle the statistics of these things.
Since Feb:
Inflation remains higher than the average wage growth of 2.1% year on year in the three months to March. Wage figures due on Wednesday were expected to show the gap between underlying pay growth and the inflation increase widened further in April.
You're an accountant, not an economist. You need to stop pretending that they're the same thing. It's Error #1 that people who don't know anything about economics make.
Looking only at a single company, which you are, and considering only their incomings and outgoings, as you are, increased taxes means less money to spend on things like wages.
The difference in an economy, where you consider all companies and individuals at once, is that the taxes collected get recycled back into the economy as spending, producing more activity and more demand in a feedback loop, meaning that any given company (or maybe some and not others) can obtain more revenue, potentially more than what they lost out on in the first place.
The economy is a complex, dynamic system with millions of agents performing trillions of transactions. It isn't possible to reduce relationships between any of its variables to a single line graph of the form "taxes up, wages down".
Yes, only if you overlook all overheads including rent, utilities, insurance, accounting fees, marketing; municipal taxes, national taxes like corporation tax, employer NIC and VAT; the initial investment costs, ongoing capital expenditure simply to stand still, any interest payments to banks for loan financing, any drawings to an equity partner who fronted the cash and expects a return etc etc etc
So yes, if you ignore literally every other cost bar the direct cost of sale associated with making one cup of coffee you'd have a point. Since nobody would do that, you don't.
To be fair phonics, that was a pretty fucking stupid example.
They aren't investing in job creation out of charity for fuck's sake, they do it when they think they can make more money by expanding.
The fact people are in work does not mean companies aren't making huge profits whilst paying shit wages. At all.
Edit: the folly of not refreshing.
910k people on zero hours as of early 2016:
https://www.theguardian.com/business...uk-record-high
This means anyone doing more than one (one fucking hour per week) is classed as employed. No stability, no ability to plan, no security. The job centre, help into work schemes and such are actively forcing people into this. I was told to go self employed as an IT worker as I use computers a lot. No experience in the sector whatsoever (I've since got the requisite qualifications but whoop-de-doo) competing against thousands of others within the same sector with experience out their arse, for the sake of hopefully grabbing a four hour shift each fortnight.
You work, you no doubt do well GS, pumping numbers into a database into Excel or whatever system your employers use. God forbid a severe illness strikes you down one day, you claim, and you're told you're fit for work because you're 'copacetic'. And yes, I know you agree PIP shouldn't be cut, bravo. PIP that some are forcibly being taken off whilst they're dying in hospital beds.
Be a politician, you're cut from the same tedious cloth. Zero emotion, zero empathy. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all.
I'm all for opposing views, challenge people, wake them up, but its the equivalent of the pub bore who just hammers home the same fucking shit until you're forced to concede. Determination, I'll give you that.
This may come across as rambling fucking bullshit but I'm not arsed mate. I deal with wankers like this often. I work, I contribute, the fuck you do, the fuck you offer. Zero, baseline zero human empathy outside their own little bubble.
The currency tanked mate. And it's four months. It's not particularly illustrative of whatever you think it illustrates.
I see it is time for the neoliberal economics 101 lecture again.
Yes, it's why capitalism works. If you don't like company you work for, your redress is to go and work for someone else.
Can you imagine a world withoutlawyersaccountants?
Stand down guys, the Mighty One has spoken.
I was wondering if GS had been in this thread lately. I was wondering if he'd been sacked.
Shame.
Anyway, to lighten the mood, here is a bloke crying(!) on Ed Miliband's radio programme(!!) because his mother voted leave(!!!).
I happened to hear that yesterday. There were a few strange things about it, but one was that he hadn't proofread his letter before reading it out on a radio station with millions of listeners.
So the Tories are apparently unable to do a deal with the DUP and will proceed as a minority government.
On the one hand, it appears to be because of some reluctance about the DUP bigotry and backwardness, so credit there.
On the other hand, LOL.
When's the next election? This could be voted down, couldn't it?
Don't think so, unless there are enough Tories willing to put Corbyn in power.
318 Tories is nearly a majority when you take out the shinners (322 needed) and I can't imagine the ulstermen are going to be voting it down, so even if they abstain, a Tory minority government is actually a working majority of about 5.
It'll be hard to get much legislation through though, so I imagine we'll be going again in the autumn, at which point Corbyn wins a 500 majority and I flee the country.
317 actually.
Coalition of Chaos numbers 315 at an absolute maximum, so it ain't happening unless unionists or Tories vote with Corbyn.
The electorate really have outdone themselves in terms of utter chaos this time around.
The FTPA is still in place. The power to collapse the government rests entirely with the DUP, given it would have to be a vote of no confidence.
I can't envisage them ever bringing the government down. Not only because their ten seats is a solid haul and they know they have leverage now that they might never again, but also on the principle that noted IRA sympathiser and supporter Jeremy Corbyn can't be PM.
I'm far from convinced that significant chunks of their electorate would forgive them putting Corbyn anywhere near office.
Based on what I read earlier in the week, the "confidence" aspect is sorted. The issues are over supply. The DUP won't bring them down, but they can make things very difficult on non-confidence/non-financial votes.
There's also Lady Hermon, who usually votes Labour but is unlikely to do anything that puts an IRA sympathiser nearer to being in charge given they spent several years trying to assassinate her husband.
I was going to ask about Lady Hermon, is she going to abstain or what?
You could easily have all 18 of the buggers abstaining/not taking their seats, which just about sums up the relationship between GB and NI currently.
She's on record a week before the election saying she "could never back Labour if Corbyn was leader", which is pretty unequivocal.
She may abstain given she doesn't like the Tories.
As it is, I simply don't see the 11 unionists doing anything that, in any way, helps Corbyn and McDonnell. There's a vehement and justifiable dislike there. It's one of the reasons why I reckon parliament will go longer than people think. Short of a series of by-election defeats or Tory defectors who would never be forgiven, you can't realistically get to an anti Tory majority in a confidence vote.
The IRA are probably Labour's best chance at this point, if they blow up a few Tories and cause by-elections.
Is this to suggest then that every other accountant would agree with you?
In the example specifically discussed therein?
Yes, they would. Because it's quite basic.
If I had known that a weak Conservative government would only have time to leave the European Union I would have canvassed for the Liberal Democrats.
I'd be interested to know how many of those complaining that it's going to take up a lot of time were using the argument that it would be too much effort to leave last year.
Oh sigh. I'm more lefty than you on this issue but marinate in your righteousness. I don't understand the point of a right to housing that you don't own. Intergenerational poverty becomes a reinforced circle when people can't generate wealth to pass on.
What?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote