Forum menu
can i have a numerical value to many as I dont think many really are able to just stop being PAYE and become consultants who do less and earn more.many others would do the same
PS your maths is still wrong re tax - you sure you would be better off if you did this 😉
Time to go ride! Adios!
So you won't explain your tax dodge then?
Thats a good question, next time I see Mrs Strong and Stable I'll ask her about her working teachers and nurses.
[url= https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/adult-nurse ]https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/adult-nurse[/url]
Fully qualified nurses start on salaries of £21,692 rising to £28,180 on Band 5 of the NHS Agenda for Change Pay Rates. Salaries in London attract a high-cost area supplement.
With experience, in positions such as nurse team leader on Band 6, salaries progress to £26,041 to £34,876.
At more senior levels such as nurse advanced, modern matron and nurse consultant (Bands 7 to 8c) salaries range from £31,072 to £67,805.
Assuming the linked data is correct it seems like nurses do just fine.
I'll not persuade you, you won't persuade me. We'll keep sharing the trails and nowt will change in the grand scheme of things.
That depends if you want a fairer society and don't want to continue taking more than your fair share and then bitching and moaning when asked to pay some of back.
You can either accept that you get paid very well and are very lucky to be in that position so can spread some of that around or you take a selfish view, dodge taxes etc,. to make sure you have more money than you actually need while those around you live in poverty.
A Staff Nurse earns an average salary of £23,137 per year.
http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Staff_Nurse/Salary
the avergae wages is £27 , 5K iirc
So doing fine means most earn less than the average
Though of course we would like gov policies to be immediately costed against income, I wouldn't mind if the gov borrowed to pay for value-adding policies like reversing austerity and spending on infrastructure, or if money was spent on schemes to increase gov income directly, without making money for businesses who are out to extort and exploit. This is not just because it is the priority of the gov to take care of the lives of our fellow citizens on our behalf, but because, as we have seen in America, there is economic gain to be had in nurture, rather aggression and greed.
When we play the 'how are they going to afford it' game with labour we have to remember that the tories' income is based on incredible short termism, a strategy of slash and burn, selling off everything they can get away with and ruining people's lives, communities, and the working of the country in the process. The idea that becoming a 'more efficient place to do (only a select few kinds of) business', which is how they justify their economic policies of deregulation, crushing labour rights, lowering taxes and privatisation, is pure speculation, especially with Brexit on the horizon. Labour are so much on the back foot about costing, and the fear in the media is about how things might be if labour borrowed rather than what is actually going on now. (I am saying this NOT out of skepticism about the manifesto but because of what I think would be a fairer representation of what is going on.)
All this is especially rich coming from the tories because the borrowing figures have increased under the tories, not decreased, but the emphasis on the deficit (which is much easier to fiddle and puts short against long term effects) instead of borrowing, has obscured this.
The other thing I think is very unfair about representations in the media is the description of policies of re-making public, of taking back royal mail, for example, as 'radical'. Presumably re-making public those areas of the NHS (or the whole of it, or the education system as things are going) that are already private would be described as radical too? Why wouldn't it be described the other way around? Here is a load of great things that people have paid for together over a long history, that no one party owns, that WE own, and which people have grafted at all their lives at because they believe helping others and doing good: wouldn't it be pretty radical for an group of aristocrats and businessmen to sell those things to their mates?
Most people that earn big money work really hard for it, as if they didn't theres a queue of people behind them ready to take their jobs. Why shouldn't hard work be rewarded?
They work harder than a nurse or a teacher? Why shouldn't the nurse or teacher get rewarded? How does a nurse or teacher get to earn big money? (And no £21 - £40k per year is not big money)
A lot of people do the jobs they do because they can (via good parenting, schooling, genetics - intelligence, ability) and it has little to do with working harder than anyone else. I.e. they have been lucky in life.
So why should people who are lucky and have a good life set from the start get rewarded more than those that don't?
Overtime pushes me well into higher tax bracket but I don't end up with less money because of it
mikertroid - MemberThe point is if I went 50% part time and did 25% consultancy I'd earn more gross than I do now, pay WAY less tax
Why aren't you doing that now if it's higher gross? 😐
Meanwhile, Mummy's been on LBC lying about the EU again, and today will be in the NE talking about "patriotic" working class people.
While making damn sure that she never runs the remotest risk of actually coming into contact with any of these frightful working class people, patriotic or otherwise.
More of this then....
[img] 
[/img]
The same old bussed-in Tory sycophants waving their little placards. She says she's in the north east. She could be in Syria, Acapulco, or the surface of the ****ing moon
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
Strong and stable.....
The same old bussed-in Tory sycophants waving their little placards
That's not really a Tory thing though is it, pretty sure most political parties the world over are doing that.
It would be good if the media chose not to report this type of shite.
fifeandy - Member
That's not really a Tory thing though is it, pretty sure most political parties the world over are doing that.
well farrons keeping it real or those ranty OAP brexies are slipping through the lib dem checks 😉
Corbs gets mobbed by the local mommentum cell every time hes out and about
Maybot has taken this to new extremes with a hermitcaly sealed campaign, selectively targeting specific groups
also very interesting to note that Johnson is being very tightly controlled, hes like a MOAB deployed only in very specific circumstances lest he incurs significant collateral damage
It would be good if the media chose not to report this type of shite.
It would be even better if the media completely stayed out of politics. Reporting is one thing, putting forward biased/one-sided opinion as fact is another....
It would be even better if the media completely stayed out of politics. Reporting is one thing, putting forward biased/one-sided opinion as fact is another....
+1
I'm very saddened by the current state of the BBC.
Terrified to rock the boat, the commitment to equality of representation has been abandoned.
During the Thatcher years her governments were held to account, even Blair was pilloried over God, war and dossiers.
indeed we tightly regulate* the spoken media - radio and tv- yet the written press is free to the point it can just print polemic to the point of lies/distortion
* what they say must be actually a true reflection of the events, essentially its regulated to be unbiased.
Maybot has taken this to new extremes with a hermitcaly sealed campaign, selectively targeting specific groups
You may not like it, but that's smart. Happens all the time look at companies like Apple who spend millions & millions on controlling the message.
I'm very saddened by the current state of the BBC.
Its tragic! The death of proper journalism at the BBC. They are totally cowed and neutered. They went the whole EU referendum giving a mouthpiece to people who were lying through their teeth, without daring to question any of it, and they're letting the Maybot off the hook in exactly the same manner now.
Chanel 4 news is the only one worth watching. The BBC should be ashamed when they look in the gulf in the quality of political coverage
I am sure many at the BBC despair at the state of the Labour Party. Like Binners if you want to see a Labour Government its desperately hard to be impartial about Corbyn.
The quotes coming out from Labour MPs and senior figures are pretty damning. Disowning the leader and the Manifesto. Corbyn is getting a dose of his own medicine.
During the Thatcher years her governments were held to account, even Blair was pilloried over God, war and dossiers.
It was the enquiry into Dr Kelly's death that cut the BBC's balls off. That was the point when they could have stood up against the blatant political hatchet job being directed at them, but instead uncle Greg decided to lead them meekly into servitude.
^^^ And speaking of
putting forward biased/one-sided opinion as fact is another....
Jamba enters the thread. 😆
Mummmmmyyyyy
and just as we are discussing biased/selective media you come along with a Telegraph article....
The quotes coming out from Labour MPs and senior figures are pretty damning.
I am not a big fan of Corbyn but to link to a Torygraph article that doesn't actually "quote" a Labour MP condemning or disowning Corbyn is a joke.
That article is pathetic.
[quote=deadlydarcy ]^^^ And speaking of
putting forward biased/one-sided opinion as fact is another....
Jamba enters the thread.
Mummmmmyyyyy
not one Labour MP quoted nor named in the article and all the telegraph references[ proof??] are links to itself*
That is the sort of gibberish we should not be peddaling as its just biased tosh
A little left or right of centre may be ok but just making things up is not something the free press should be allowed to do
* at least the unsourced and unevdidenced link does include names - whilst being clear to admit they are [s]making it all up[/s] not at all involved in the [s]made up[/s] plot
Dan Jarvis, Yvette Cooper and Sir Keir Starmer could be asked to lead the group, although there is no suggestion they have been approached or been involved in the talks.
I am sure many at the BBC despair at the state of the Labour Party.
Really? Cameron dinner guest Sara Montague? OU Conservative Association president Nick Robinson? Is that the BBC we're talking about?
Lol at the 'BBC are Tory biased' comments above.
Watch the news recently, the BBC's cheif political commentator Laura Keunsberg (?sp) shows more bias than is professional for her position.
If it's the Tories she's reporting on then she looks like a sourpuss, the questions are barbed and she's the model of persistent questioning, almost Paxman like...but if it's labour (or more pertinently Corbyn in particular) she's questioning then she comes over all smiles, powder puff questions and gooey like their head cheer leader.
It's nauseating to watch and if she can't do the job with impartiality then she should hand over to someone who can.
That link from Jamby is classic.
A Telegraph article quoting May 🙂
deviant - That's truly hilarious.
Don't worry it get's better :))
Jeremy Corbyn isn't a pacifist because he backed the IRA, Labour MPs have claimed, as the party's leader delivers a major speech in London to try and bolster his defence and foreign policy credentials.
Corbyn is delivering an even bigger catastrophe than I hoped for
Well you're certainly jot a pacifist jamba. You're on record as quite happy that children playing are sometimes killed.
Labour MPs have claimed
Unfortunately I am not a subscriber to the Torygraph so can't read the article you have quoted. Which Labour MP's are these then?
Lol at the 'BBC are Tory biased' comments above.
Watch the news recently, the BBC's cheif political commentator Laura Keunsberg (?sp) shows more bias than is professional for her position.
LOL at deviant living in fantasy land.
[i]In January 2017 the BBC Trust ruled that a report in November 2015 by Kuenssberg broke the broadcaster’s impartiality and accuracy guidelines. A viewer had complained about her item, which featured an interview with Jeremy Corbyn on the BBC News at Six which was edited to give the incorrect impression that Corbyn disagreed with the use of firearms by police in incidents such as that month's terrorist attacks in Paris. His purported answer to a question as broadcast in the report was in fact his reply to a different (unbroadcast) question, not specifically about that terrorist attack.[21] The BBC Trust said that the inaccuracy was "compounded" when Kuenssberg went on to state that Corbyn's message "couldn't be more different" to that of the prime minister Theresa May, who was about to publish anti-terrorism proposals. The Trust said that accuracy was particularly important when dealing "with a critical question at a time of extreme national concern".[21][/i]
I think deviant's hit the beers a bit early. 😆
AlexSimon.....she was the same with Trump, if she can't hide her disdain from public view then she shouldnt be in front of the camera.
Nobody cares what her personal political views are so why the need to be so obvious with her dislike when questioning politicians she disagrees with.
There were plenty of journos present who I'm sure found Trump as repulsive as a snake but you couldn't see it on their faces or hear it in their tone because they were consomethinge professionals.....not our Laura, she made it perfectly clear who she'd wanted to win the US election and what she thought of Trump, it was embarrassing.
There was a time BBC reporters were seen as the best in the world, you'd never guess their political allegiance, all politicians were given a hard time etc....not anymore, the Keunsberg has decided to appoint herself head of labour campaigning for this election.
Hahaha - here is Kuenssberg being "biased towards Corbyn"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2017-39861259/in-full-kuenssberg-interview-with-corbyn
😯
Hopefully its just what DD said
not a fan of Kuenssberg. Shes seems to be trying to be the story rather than report it. Shes seems to cock up with all parties.
Life's complicated. I'd like the media to give more space to allow Politians to give complicated answers to questions.
A side effect would be that something would have to come after 'strong and stable'... and the what comes after is far more interesting.
We've had spin under blair and project fear under cameron, then fake news with brexit. Maybe the next innovation for elections is an actual flippin debate with some actual policies. 😕
Deviant FYI Labour are the red team and Tories the blue team.
And she showed restraint with Trump by not throwing up all over him.
and thats why we cant have nice things
[img] 
[/img]
I wish I could laugh
fifeandy - Member
lol @kimbers.
Democracy is great isn't it
we get the politicians we deserve after all!
Enjoying the new wave of positive lefty land banter on here.
Do we need to draft in some angry insecure right-wing motorists from pistonheads to spice things up a bit ? As the sense of debate over there is pretty wicked.
Nah, on seconds thoughts this week has been good.
Just a few days ago Labour where telling us they'd reverse the Tory "tax cuts for the rich" on Inheritance Tax to pay for all sorts if things including the Diane Abbott additional policing.
Except now they are not reversing the tax cuts for the rich !!!
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59157f27e4b0031e737cc4a9?ir=UK