[Closed] No wonder our great nation is skint

Do it.

No wonder our great nation is skint

Britain's skint because we pay low wages ? ......................I like your thinking brother 8)

which is more useful 100,000 babies or Trident ?

Well I'm not sure what use you would have for 100,000 babies Barnesy, so I'll go for the weapon of mass destruction.............cause it lets us hang about with the big boys on the world scene 8)

[img] [/img]

Yeeeehaaa!!!

Errrmmm - that does not reduce the amount of money in the economy - it just moves it around a bit

Well I'm not sure what use you would have for 100,000 babies Barnesy, so I'll go for the weapon of mass destruction

they become citizens and our hope for the future... whereas weapons mostly result in destruction and misery 🙁

I wasn't saying it's a bad thing, but I know of people who work only 16 hrs a week or else the tax credit drops. Taxpayers pay him to sit on his arse the rest of the week. They'd be quite happy to work a full week, but end up worse off. Seems a bit crazy that the incentive to go out and work is taken away.

It would make a hell of a big baby chilli. We'd feed tens of thousands. Going to need quite a bit of chopped tomatoes though. Maybe if we combine the mass cook-out with the tomato squashing festival in Spain....can someone put a bit of thought into how we're going to get [i]that[/i] much beef stock.

Cooking.
Doesn't.
Get.
Much.
Bigger.
Than.
This.

To be fair, nukes don't really result in much direct destruction and misery or at least not recently and let's hope things stay that way!

£14K a year plus £12 benefits (no tax I presume) is what £20 to £22k take home? Not a lot for a family to live on and hardly cushy though clearly would give you decent time with your kid(s)

they become citizens and our hope for the future...

What if they die before becoming citizens ? Or there's no hope for the future.................seems like a waste to me 😐

Let's get back to WMDs - cause there is where the future lies................and cause they rock 8)

in this country stuff like this means there's no incentive for people to work

on the other hand there are a lot more problems that this country has which is keeping the country skint - the gap between rich and poor is getting wider and while there is help financially for the poorer and tax breaks for the richer, the poor bloke in the middle (goes out to work every day for way less money than he should be making and generally bullied by a manager with an inferiority complex) gets shat on the most.

he's the poor guy who brings home just about enough to live on but not much else while the chavs in their Mitsi L200's are road raging the toffs in their astons

If those 100,000 babies squandered their educational oppurtunities, turned to crime, drink and drugs; wasted their time on the dole, developing long term physical and mental health conditions, spending time in prison, tossing their lives away on internet forums and spreading sti's and banging out thousands of more children to carry out there misreable gloomy legacies; then I'd probably go with a trident tbh

totally agree, wheres the incentive to go out and get better at what you do? So now I have to pay 40% tax to keep the fraggle rock brigade in pushchairs! Fantastic!

Lost of ways you guysa are wrong. One of the main issues is for people in receipt of some benefits the marginal tax rate is very high - far higher than you pay in that for every £1 extra they earn they ony keep a few pennies - thats what disincentivises people not the level of benefits.

keeping children out of poverty saves money for the country in the long term as the kids are more likely to grow up to be useful members of society

Of course its nice for you comfy middleclass clowns to have someone to sneer at isn't it.

Most of these stories are made up by the tory press and simply do not actually exist ont eh ground.

Muppets

keeping children out of poverty saves money for the country in the long term

Well they're not doing a very good job - 19% of kids in London are living in poverty.

Pay decent wages - don't use taxpayer's money to subsidise greedy employers.

With you 100% there ernie - keep ratcheting the minimum wage up.

Ooh - yes please!

totally agree, wheres the incentive to go out and get better at what you do? So now I have to pay 40% tax to keep the fraggle rock brigade in pushchairs! Fantastic!

I pay 40% as well, but we decided that the sort of jobs that these people would normally do have been exported to other countries because its cheaper, its created a long term benefit dependency culture that has actually cost us more in the long run. I blame Thatcha. 😉

Give people the skills and pay them a decent wage.

Of course its nice for you comfy middleclass clowns to have someone to sneer at isn't it.

Unfortunately this country is full of them, which is why it's in a sh*T state politically.

the poor bloke in the middle (goes out to work every day for way less money than he should be making and generally bullied by a manager with an inferiority complex) gets shat on the most.

The whole political system is geared towards the middle classes, as for making less money, well we still have the largest disposable income generally after deductions in Europe. But with the high prices we are paying and house prices...

As for being bullied, thats certainly a British management disease and I'm sure some will lament the decline of Unions.

Let's get back to WMDs - cause there is where the future lies................and cause they rock

Glad you're coming round to my point of view Ernie. 😉

also I can hardly believe you're whingeing on about these pittances when the bankers have cost us hundreds of billions 🙁

It's interesting however that the Tories are now quietly thinking about the possibilities of something called manufacturing and interventionism. This has the possibility of providing jobs for some of those people who don't wish to become a middle aged IT manager. Certainly makes a nice change from the Market rules policies prevalent for the last 30 years.
I've always found it strange that putting entire communities out of work and then pretending that the City will provide for all was such a short sighted policy.

Be cushy if you lived in a council dwelling

also I can hardly believe you're whingeing on about these pittances when the bankers have cost us hundreds of billions

OK - My name is igm and I'm a middle-class manager.

I don't need to bully my staff - if I ask them nicely they tend to do what I ask. Even better if I make clear the kinds of things I value then frequently I don't need to ask them to do things, they ask me.

And as for benefits, (one never sneer, there but for the grace of god...) if you are going to have a benefits system, and most civilised places do, the key is surely to taper it such that you are always better off by doing a few more hours or earning a higher wage. Sharp cut offs incentivise people not to earn more in the short term, which in the long term has the effect of keeping them poor.

Bankers? A performance bonus is nothing to be ashamed of - I get a new mountain bike's worth myself most years - but keep it in proportion lads. And when you have performed to the level that you need billions of the countries taxes to bail you out, I don't think you (or at least your organisation) have earned your bonus. The guy who owns our company would have knocked bonuses on the head in that situation.

And unions? I carry the card brothers, and my union rep is one of the managers who reports to me. Good innit?

Think that's everything.

The reason that benefits need to be at this level is the sheer cost of actually living in the UK, even on the bread-line. For example if rents were controlled and at a half of their current level, then the benefit/credit savings would be astronomical. And no this isn't left-wing crap, but practised here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York

We have to get away from this "benefits enable people to do bugger all", and understand that if we can control prices as a nation, then we should, to the benefit of all.

And also while we are at it, get rid of tax-credits and just lower the actual tax paid. Other ways that could reduce the cost of government (and lower taxes) include the removal of car-tax and just put a levy on petrol, no more grants for anything to people who can actually afford to do whatever it is they want to do; e.g cycle-to-work, solar panels...

the bankers were the only ones making us any money

Making money ? ........you sure you're not mixing up 'making' with 'taking' ? 😕
Because only someone with a hopelessly romantic view of capitalism, would believe that bankers make money.

Bankers simply shuffle other people's money around the economy - whilst helping themselves and filling their own pockets. IE, they offer to look after your money, and then lend it to someone else ..... for a fee of course.

They don't actually make any money, and the whole business is based on the fact they don't have any money. That is why when there is a run on a bank and people ask for their money back, the consequences are so disastrous - they simply don't have the money to give back.

And ironically, it is the activities of the banks, which tend to devalue money. During periods of intense activity by the banking sector, ie boom periods, money devalues and inflation invariably occurs. Whilst during periods of little or no activity by the banks, ie when they won't lend, then there is a real risk of deflation as money increases in value.

The people who make the material wealth in a society, eg, your car, home, tv, etc, are the productive forces - without someone producing something somewhere, there can be no material wealth. They extract the raw materials which have no [i]"practical"[/i] value, and through their labours, transform them into products with value.
And whether the productive forces are based in Coventry or Shanghai, makes no difference - they are still the ones which produce the material wealth in society.

This however, does not mean that bankers do not play an important and vital role. Indeed like other service industries, the financial institutions are hugely important in the smooth and effective running of the productive forces.

In fact they are [i]so[/i] important to smooth and effective running of the productive forces, that they cannot simply be left to the whimsical fancies of the mythical laissez-faire free-market - and allowed to fail. This is why democratic control of the banks through common ownership is so important.

And why an arch right-wing neo-conservative such as George Bush, was prepared without a moment's hesitation, to carry out the wholesale nationalisation of US financial institutions. IIRC, the majority of mortgages in the US are now owned by the US government.

Live or die at the mercy of the free-market is not an option for banks.

Has anyone ever seen ernie_lynch and Karl Marx in the same room at the same time?! 😉

The people who make the material wealth in a society, eg, your car, home, tv, etc, are the productive forces.

And in terms of making money, they pay taxes - making up the bulk of it alongside the oil companies and Tesco - which makes money for the government who will consequently piss it up the wall [for us].

40% Tax! It's c-r-a-z-y. I mean fair, but crazy.

Ernie, tell that to every small businessman that ever got a startup loan, every large business that ever got a capital injection to stay afloat or to expand, every builder who ever built a house which was sold to someone who needed a mortgage to pay for it...

Tell them what Northwind ?

That this .....[i]"does not mean that bankers do not play an important and vital role. Indeed like other service industries, the financial institutions are hugely important.....In fact they are so important to smooth and effective running of the productive forces, that they cannot simply be left to the whimsical fancies of the mythical laissez-faire free-market - and allowed to fail. "[/i] ❓

......well maybe they'll read my post on here and save me the bother of going round to tell them all personally 💡

RBS profits for the 5 years 2003-2007 came to over £40Bn. Much of that made its way to the Treasury in the form of various taxes (Corporation Tax, Income tax on the earnings of the workers, VAT on the money they spent etc). In addition, RBS would have been engaging the services of thousands of ancillary workers for a number of services, thereby creating employment there too. Multiply those figures to take account of the various other Banks and you start to get some idea of how much money they've been pumping into the economy for years.

You're talking about profit and accumulation of money druidh - all very nice, but misses the point. Accumulation is not the same as making - it suggests taking. And money is worthless without goods.

Ernie, don't play the wilful misunderstanding game, we know you're good at it but it's not very productive.

Banks categorically do create wealth, by resourcing others. If a bank funds a company and the company subsequently "makes material wealth", then the bank has played as important a part in the process as a welder on a factory floor. Likewise if the bank funds the buyer that creates the market for the company. Take the bank out of the equation, and in many cases you stop "making material wealth"- either the market or the opportunity goes away, and you need both. It's an integral and inseperable part of the system as it stands.

Ernie, don't play the wilful misunderstanding game

That's funny ............cause I thought that was the game [i]you[/i] were playing 😕

By pretending that you hadn't seen the bit where I said that banks play an extremely important and vital role.

Aye, very good 🙄 Not going to waste any more time on this nonsense.

It's just a shame that in the UK the tail wags the dog.

There is a big difference between making profits - which banks do and creating wealth which they don't. They move wealth around but do not create any. They sometimes even import wealth - but they still are not creating any. Its manufacturing that creates wealth.. Money is just a symbol - wealth is in things you can hold -houses, cars washing machines

There is a big difference between making profits - which banks do and creating wealth which they don't. They move wealth around but do not create any.

Accumulation is not the same as making - it suggests taking. And money is worthless without goods.

Both wrong. Your interpretation of "goods" is too limited, it needs to include services. They are not "manufactured" as such but still raise revenue and hence wealth. Wealth (money) can be spent on other things which may or may not be tangible. The fact that we (in the UK) make less widgits doesnt mean we are less wealthy. It just means we "suck" in imports from other countries that do manufacture.
We may also expend wealth on non tangible goods such as "theatre" trips to the countryside etc. All life enhancing stuff but neither manufactured.

To get back to the OP;if it was not for the family tax credits neither of us would have been able to re-train.So I am kind of in favour of them.

Both wrong. Your interpretation of "goods" is too limited, it needs to include services.

No, "services" are not "goods". There are three main areas of economic activity - production, distribution, and exchange. They are not all the same. And the production of goods is not the same as distributing or exchanging them, although the latter might be described as providing a service, as indeed banks do. But they do not create the material wealth.

The buying and selling of houses might well result in an accumulation of large amounts of money, but it does not in itself, result in material wealth - nothing has been produced. Banks etc, provide an important and vital service, but it is absurd to suggest that providing a mortgage for a house, is more important than the [i]actual[/i] construction of the house.

And it is the house itself, which is the material wealth ..... £300k in used twenties, would provide very poor accommodation for a family of three - the best you could expect would be to burn it an attempt to stay warm for a couple of hours. Therefore the banker who provides the mortgage, is not more important the construction worker who builds the house. All that bankers do, is to facilitate the easy exchange of material wealth created by others.
And in the process of doing so, they retain a percentage of the value for themselves. In other words, bankers exploit the wealth created by others.

And whilst on the subject of bankers and construction workers, here is an other example of bankers being elevated to special status within society, which they clearly do not deserve :

RBS profits for the 5 years 2003-2007 came to over £40Bn. Much of that made its way to the Treasury in the form of.....blah...blah

Now of course when the RBS went tits up in 2008 it wasn't because something went every wrong that particular week. It was because something had been very wrong for a very long time. Making large amounts of money due to negligent practices is hardly a commendable achievement. But this is conveniently ignored because bankers are special and "make" lots of money.

And yet if there occurred a catastrophic failure of a house which I, as a construction worker, had worked on, leading to it's complete collapse due to gross professional negligence on my part - how responsible would I be held ?

Could I exonerate myself by claiming that I was an excellent worker ? And the proof of this was in the fact that when I had worked on the house three years previously, I had earned vast amounts of money on price work ....... due to my stunningly impressive speed.

And of course also helped along, by self-serving greed, a cavalier attitude to risks, and a complete lack of regulation ❓

TJ wrote, "There is a big difference between making profits - which banks do and creating wealth which they don't. They move wealth around but do not create any. They sometimes even import wealth - but they still are not creating any. Its manufacturing that creates wealth.. "

But banks can create the opportunity for others to create wealth, as in the examples I made above. If a builder builds a house and nobody buys it, he's not creating wealth but if a builder builds a house and a bank lends someone money to buy it, then wealth is created due to the builder AND the bank. Likewise if someone has an idea but can't fund putting it into production and a bank gives them startup capital, the bank is creating wealth by supporting the manufacturer.

Northwind - you are making the basic mistake of confusing money with wealth. Wealth is material things - the house you refer to above is wealth no matter if it is sold or not.

Bankz can create the conditions for people to create wealth but that do not create any of their own.

Money is not wealth.

basic economics.

So presumably the chauffeur who drives the banker to work so that he secure his lucrative deals, is responsible for the banker's wealth ?

"Northwind - you are making the basic mistake of confusing money with wealth. Wealth is material things - the house you refer to above is wealth no matter if it is sold or not.

Bankz can create the conditions for people to create wealth but that do not create any of their own."

I'm really not. Money is not the same as wealth but if you're producing a product exclusively for sale then the sale must take place in order for the product to realise its worth. (obviously production for resale is only one way to create wealth, but currently it's the only way the builder creates any wealth for himself, and so it's the only one which we need consider) The unsold empty house is not an asset unless there's a buyer, in fact it's a liability.

Your logical flaw is in failing to take into account that all the conditions for a situation to occur have to be fulfilled in order for it to give the results. Factory without funding = no wealth created, bank without factory = no wealth created. Factory + bank funding = wealth created. It's clearly incorrect to state that the factory is the only part in that process which is creating wealth, since if you take away the other ingredients it produces nothing.

This reminds me of an old business joke... Nike's directors get together one day and say "What business are we in?"
"Well, we make and sell shoes"
"But how do we sell those shoes?"
"We make people want to buy our shoes more than the competition"
"But how do we do that?"
"Through advertising and sports sponsorship"

At the end of the meeting, Nike stops making shoes and goes exclusively into making adverts, because it's the advertising that makes them money.

But if TJ's argument is correct, it would go something like this:

"Well, we make and sell shoes"
"But how do we sell those shoes?"
"We make people want to buy our shoes more than the competition"
"But how do we do that?"
"Well, mainly because of advertising and sports sponsorship"
"Ah, but our advertising men make no shoes, therefore they create no wealth... And wealth is created when we make a shoe whether or not anyone buys it, because wealth isn't the same as money. So lets sack them all"
"Great!"
"While we're at it, sack the people who put the shoes in boxes, and the truck drivers, and close down the shops, they don't create wealth either"
"Fantastic, we're going to save a fortune and create the exact same amount of wealth!"

I'm not touching Ernie's ridiculous and prejudiced straw man with a 10 foot pole.

I'm not touching Ernie's ridiculous and prejudiced straw man with a 10 foot pole.

Ignoring my posts is almost certainly your best strategy. Specially if the Nike joke represents the best you can come up with.

But of course just by commenting on my post, you have [i]touched[/i] it, so here's a tip : for maximum effect just make no comment at all.

I have no problem paying tax because I am comfortably off, for now. But the way it is spent is frustrating.

Benefits seem based on a low total income. If your total income varies, it's recalculated. I you make an effort to work a bit more, the benefit goes down.

What if benefit level was based on hourly-rate? It's less variable than total income. The recipient is encourage to work and earn more without losing the benefit. I wont be paying any more tax, but the country is gaining a more productive worker.

Errrmmm - that does not reduce the amount of money in the economy - it just moves it around a bit

Surely if more people are claiming benefits then paying taxes then we are just generating debt?

If a stock, say, is worth £1 when I buy it, and £1.50 when I sell it, is that not created wealth?

If you think benefits would be better jack your job in and do it and stop moaning on here... Anyway they real problem is labour hasnt had the stones to go after the rich, whilst trying to help the poor which has squeezed those in the middle. I would expect the original poster my find his retirement will be better than those on low incomes.