chrisdalott:
Is that the same Johnson who briefly appeared in 2016 after his victory?
This one, with his distinctive “watermelon smile”?
theguardian.com/politics/20 … -of-brexit
Carryfast:
Winseer:
Since Possession is nine-tenths of the law at all times, there needs to be some kind of taxation where the asset doesn’t become yours to START with - unless you toe the line, and cough up.Taxing assets in hand - has always been politically different. The wealthy simply move on, taking their money with them.
Taxing incomes and nothing else though? If you “move on” - then you also lose the income source that would require one to pay that tax…
It is clearly wrong then that Benefits are not taxed. Nothing keeps people in the same place like “living off the state”. once “taxually immobilized” in this way - what’s wrong with benefit claimants paying stamp and income taxes in the normal way, so that people who get less than £12,500 per year STILL pay no taxes for being “below the threshold” - but those getting the more lucrative benefits - pay their way like everyone else?
Because that benefit claimant is already paying tax - there is less disincentive to carry on being “workshy” - not now that you’re already paying taxes, so won’t refuse a job on account of “being made to pay them when you were not beforehand”…
If we are to keep the NHS “free at the point of sale” - then EVERYONE needs to chip in to pay for it.
Taxing Benefits - also hammers the underground economy as well of course, as it is less easy to “disappear off the radar”.
Woe betide people ON benefits who’ve over-borrowed - and then try to “run away”, not realizing that their benefit money trail - snags onto them like a limpet wherever they go…How the zb do you tax someone’s unemployment or incapacity ‘benefits’ when those benefits don’t even reach anywhere near their tax allowance.You know the same tax allowance that everyone else has.Let me guess you want a double standards taxation regime between employed v non employed.
Yes I get it you’re a mixture of Tory and Bolshevik as it suits you.You’re in work so you want to keep all your wages and not pay any taxes.You want anyone with property to be forced to effectively give it to you in the form of below inflation price limits.Assuming they don’t sell then you’ll force them to sell by hitting them with a property tax of more than that which you’re prepared to pay them.You want the National income protection insurance system and pensions system closed down but obviously not for yourself and you don’t want to re imburse all previous contributors for their lost cover in that regard.You’re avin a larf.
Income tax and corporation tax is the right tax if you’re earning it then you can pay it.Every other form of regressive tax is just a type of theft like all your other economic ideas.
This is where we disagree entirely. Taxes should be payable by “those that can afford them” - they should be paid by those living a life of luxury, because as it stands - they clearly have too much disposable income!
If benfits become fully taxable, then getting the more lucrative things like Housing Benefit ends up counting against you like a Company Car now does.
There’s too many people that have so much “paid for them” - that they’ll never WANT to get a job! Sitting on their arses forever - has become a way of life.
It isn’t what they get handed as cash in their pockets - it is all the OVERHEADS that get paid for them!
I spend around £500pm on the food shops for instance. Benefit scroungers get to use Food Banks and then MOAN about having to do that!
I spend around £165 per month on Council Tax. Benefit scroungers get this paid for them.
Rents around here are around £950pcm for the type of house I live in. As far as I know, a capped £520pw in housing benefits - fully covers that.
I only spend around £27 pm on prescription charges. Benefit scroungers pay nowt.
The way I would have it is that all THOSE benefits - count towards one’s income. This would put a lot of the london buggers claiming over £2k per month in housing benefits in particular into higher rate taxes, if you work it out!
If I wanted to take home £500pm+£165pm+£950pm+£27pm= £1632pm - I would have to earn the national average wage, which I of course exceed at this time.
That doesn’t leave me much for “luxury” however. I run an old banger car, have not taken a foreign holiday since 9/11, have not been on a booze cruise for 7 years, don’t own an Iphone, or spend much socializing. I cannot afford it. “Working Poor” category, that Labour could have done something about - but chose NOT to, thinking that Benefit Scroungers are more likely to be their core voters than WORKING workers! FFS how could they possibly make THAT mistake? - And yet they have! Labour are still appealing to the workforce that got laid off DECADES Ago, like the Miners, Dock workers, Police, or even some of Gordon Brown’s “belly fat” - off the Public Sector since 2010…
Income taxes - don’t work the way they should all the while we have “Offsetting” that allows a higher earner to pay less tax than a lower earner - on account of being Self-Employed rather than PAYE.
No one is talking about “confiscating properties” from their owners, except in the case of places where the Owners are wealthy, not british, and have already allowed their UK-based properties to fall into ruin, rather than rent them out on the cheap. I’d confiscate THESE properties - and that’s about it. “Not lived in for a year and a day” - would seem an obvious trigger to stop these foreign buggers from upholding our property market at unsustainable levels, by using un-lived in properties as a “market punt” or “moneybox”.
Well folks - it is rather difficult to “run away abroad” should a more enlightened government one day decide to “take that back” and ONLY that back.
No one need extend it to taking Granny’s £250k semi away from her - and yet we see THAT going on already via the so-called “Care Sector”.
I would stop the first million of assets being touched AT ALL, and then subject ONLY millionaires to the draconian taxes that follow.
“Keeping inflation low” after that, would actually then become a national concern, as the middle earners “wouldn’t want to one day go just over the million mark, and get clouted by them taxes” - right??
People saving hard for … What? Latest 4x4, Iphone, Fancy house, Foreign Holidays etc… might approach 900k in total wealth - and then decide they’d better “vent some” - or else end up paying those taxes. People would start to give out their legacies to their kids whilst still alive, as a few already do, when worried about “death duties”, just on a wider scale.
I’ve heard NOTHING like this from Labour in my lifetime however.
Not so much “tax the rich” but “tax the rich that are continuing to get richer” - leave everyone else alone. The medium-rich now treading water, the climbing middle classes, the aspiring worker. - ALL left alone by draconian taxation.
Do it via Property though - and there’s no running away from it.
“Capital Gains” - needs to be classified as INCOME as it is already by the Council Taxes regime:
Buy a £500k house these days - and the community charge will be astronomical compared to the same kind of house you’re still continuing to live in since the 1990’s and earlier…
…Taxes are NO GOOD though - if people can get out of paying them, despite earning more, or hiding stuff away.
You can’t hide a house!!
…I’d confiscate THIS lot for starters!
…Then rent them out to British people paying British taxes, such as up-and-coming entrepeneurs.
The rents would be reasonable. How about it? Why can’t British millionaires have a £2000pw council house too eh?
If you run away abroad - the house reverts to the council, and can be let out to some OTHER newly-wealthy patron…
Such properties being taken AWAY from the foreign millionaire “delinquants” - can only do the British General Public a FAVOUR in the long run.
…Why knock it all down, and build crappy condomoniums on the site instead, that no one can afford to rent?? 
Winseer:
Carryfast:
How the zb do you tax someone’s unemployment or incapacity ‘benefits’ when those benefits don’t even reach anywhere near their tax allowance.You know the same tax allowance that everyone else has.Let me guess you want a double standards taxation regime between employed v non employed.Yes I get it you’re a mixture of Tory and Bolshevik as it suits you.You’re in work so you want to keep all your wages and not pay any taxes.You want anyone with property to be forced to effectively give it to you in the form of below inflation price limits.Assuming they don’t sell then you’ll force them to sell by hitting them with a property tax of more than that which you’re prepared to pay them.You want the National income protection insurance system and pensions system closed down but obviously not for yourself and you don’t want to re imburse all previous contributors for their lost cover in that regard.You’re avin a larf.
Income tax and corporation tax is the right tax if you’re earning it then you can pay it.Every other form of regressive tax is just a type of theft like all your other economic ideas.
This is where we disagree entirely. Taxes should be payable by “those that can afford them” - they should be paid by those living a life of luxury, because as it stands - they clearly have too much disposable income!
If benfits become fully taxable, then getting the more lucrative things like Housing Benefit ends up counting against you like a Company Car now does.
There’s too many people that have so much “paid for them” - that they’ll never WANT to get a job! Sitting on their arses forever - has become a way of life.
It isn’t what they get handed as cash in their pockets - it is all the OVERHEADS that get paid for them!
I spend around £500pm on the food shops for instance. Benefit scroungers get to use Food Banks and then MOAN about having to do that!
I spend around £165 per month on Council Tax. Benefit scroungers get this paid for them.
Rents around here are around £950pcm for the type of house I live in. As far as I know, a capped £520pw in housing benefits - fully covers that.
I only spend around £27 pm on prescription charges. Benefit scroungers pay nowt.The way I would have it is that all THOSE benefits - count towards one’s income. This would put a lot of the london buggers claiming over £2k per month in housing benefits in particular into higher rate taxes, if you work it out!
If I wanted to take home £500pm+£165pm+£950pm+£27pm= £1632pm - I would have to earn the national average wage, which I of course exceed at this time.
That doesn’t leave me much for “luxury” however. I run an old banger car, have not taken a foreign holiday since 9/11, have not been on a booze cruise for 7 years, don’t own an Iphone, or spend much socializing. I cannot afford it. “Working Poor” category, that Labour could have done something about - but chose NOT to, thinking that Benefit Scroungers are more likely to be their core voters than WORKING workers! FFS how could they possibly make THAT mistake? - And yet they have! Labour are still appealing to the workforce that got laid off DECADES Ago, like the Miners, Dock workers, Police, or even some of Gordon Brown’s “belly fat” - off the Public Sector since 2010…
Let’s get this right someone loses their job they also lose their house because you want to remove their housing benefit.All because you don’t want to pay any income tax.So what happens in the case of private income insurance payouts ?.Why should National insurance based payouts be any different.
While your idea of a fair taxation regime is to remove income tax because as it stands that suits you personally while calling redundant miners scroungers and taxing their income replacement payouts instead even if those payouts are below their personal tax allowance.While also wanting to introduce the precedent that property theft is ok.That about sums up your anarchic selfish bs.Also being a perfect example of the link between Thatcherism and Communism.Be careful what you wish for.
Carryfast wrote " Let’s get this right someone loses their job they also lose their house because you want to remove their housing benefit.All because you don’t want to pay any income tax.So what happens in the case of private income insurance payouts ?.Why should National insurance based payouts be any different.
While your idea of a fair taxation regime is to remove income tax because as it stands that suits you personally while calling redundant miners scroungers and taxing their income replacement payouts instead even if those payouts are below their personal tax allowance.While also wanting to introduce the precedent that property theft is ok.That about sums up your anarchic selfish bs.Also being a perfect example of the link between Thatcherism and Communism.Be careful what you wish for. "
Why would a person with a job be on housing benefit? When I say “Benefit scrounger on housing benefit” - I wasn’t implying in any way that the person in question “had a job”.
I object to paying more tax than those who have a higher income than I do. That mainly cosists of Benefit Scroungers who take home their NET income, with lots of freebies thrown in on top AND SELF EMPLOYED tax evaders who might be the proverbial tradespeople (working class!) grossing 80-90k - but only paying themselves minimum wage through the books, and offsetting anything and everything else for tax, such as “using the firm vehicle for family trips” and “getting the family shop in” under “catering expenses”…
In my mind, White Man Van who fills up at a MSA paying 20p/litre over the odds “because the taxman pays that - not me” - is no better than the workshy, who at least are facing some benefit capping under the Tories. As far as I know - there is NO LIMIT as to how much WASTE can be “claimed back for tax” when Self-Employed. Show me any SE worker grossing the same as me aggregate total everywhere who pays the same or more taxes than me - and I’ll show you a goddamned liar and tax evading crook! 
The entire SE system ENCOURAGES bent behaviour - and should be stopped, with everyone on PAYE, rather than this folly of “pretending that abolishing ZHC” will somehow plug the gaps in the nation’s finances and public’s pocket at the same time… 
I don’t object to paying taxes, ever at all - just paying more than my higher-earning peers. Reform to the taxation system means making it harder to get OUT of paying taxes - NOT reducing my own necessarily, nor increasing everyone’s at once.
Redundant miners should all be re-trained, retired, or dead by this point. WTF is this country running some kind of legacy support thing for, when there are people being made redundant in industry NOW who get little or no help from anyone, not least of all the state? Handouts should be reserved for those too old/ill for a “career switch”, rather than those who merely cannot be bothered to re-train. I wanted to be a scientist when I left education with qualifications along those lines. Firms were shutting down in the 80’s recession though, so I re-trained in Computers. That went sour in the late 80’s post-Big Bang world that had employed me for a short while, so I ended up re-training as a Truck Driver. I had NO idea just five years before I got my licence - that one day I’d be making a career out of trucking" ffs. Now if I can “re-train” in a manner that completely compromised my entire educational skill set - then so can everyone else who’s told “Sorry bud, we’re shutting down - here’s your redundancy cheque” rather than moaning at Government to somehow save a money-losing industry that needed to be let go anyways…
Let’s see how happy the British Steel crew are - now that the Chinese have taken them over as an “alternative” to being laid off… Not holding my breath until T&Cs get CRUSHED there! Folk might yearn for a redundancy package by the time they’re finished indeed… 
Winseer:
Carryfast wrote " Let’s get this right someone loses their job they also lose their house because you want to remove their housing benefit.All because you don’t want to pay any income tax.So what happens in the case of private income insurance payouts ?.Why should National insurance based payouts be any different.
While your idea of a fair taxation regime is to remove income tax because as it stands that suits you personally while calling redundant miners scroungers and taxing their income replacement payouts instead even if those payouts are below their personal tax allowance.While also wanting to introduce the precedent that property theft is ok.That about sums up your anarchic selfish bs.Also being a perfect example of the link between Thatcherism and Communism.Be careful what you wish for. "Why would a person with a job be on housing benefit? When I say “Benefit scrounger on housing benefit” - I wasn’t implying in any way that the person in question “had a job”.
I object to paying more tax than those who have a higher income than I do. That mainly cosists of Benefit Scroungers who take home their NET income, with lots of freebies thrown in on top AND SELF EMPLOYED tax evaders who might be the proverbial tradespeople (working class!) grossing 80-90k - but only paying themselves minimum wage through the books, and offsetting anything and everything else for tax, such as “using the firm vehicle for family trips” and “getting the family shop in” under “catering expenses”…
In my mind, White Man Van who fills up at a MSA paying 20p/litre over the odds “because the taxman pays that - not me” - is no better than the workshy, who at least are facing some benefit capping under the Tories. As far as I know - there is NO LIMIT as to how much WASTE can be “claimed back for tax” when Self-Employed. Show me any SE worker grossing the same as me aggregate total everywhere who pays the same or more taxes than me - and I’ll show you a goddamned liar and tax evading crook!I don’t object to paying taxes, ever at all - just paying more than my higher-earning peers. Reform to the taxation system means making it harder to get OUT of paying taxes - NOT reducing my own necessarily, nor increasing everyone’s at once.
Redundant miners should all be re-trained, retired, or dead by this point. WTF is this country running some kind of legacy support thing for, when there are people being made redundant in industry NOW who get little or no help from anyone, not least of all the state? Handouts should be reserved for those too old/ill for a “career switch”, rather than those who merely cannot be bothered to re-train. I wanted to be a scientist when I left education with qualifications along those lines. Firms were shutting down in the 80’s recession though, so I re-trained in Computers. That went sour in the late 80’s post-Big Bang world that had employed me for a short while, so I ended up re-training as a Truck Driver. I had NO idea just five years before I got my licence - that one day I’d be making a career out of trucking" ffs. Now if I can “re-train” in a manner that completely compromised my entire educational skill set - then so can everyone else who’s told “Sorry bud, we’re shutting down - here’s your redundancy cheque” rather than moaning at Government to somehow save a money-losing industry that needed to be let go anyways…
Let’s see how happy the British Steel crew are - now that the Chinese have taken them over as an “alternative” to being laid off… Not holding my breath until T&Cs get CRUSHED there! Folk might yearn for a redundancy package by the time they’re finished indeed…
You went from Scientist to truck driver so that obviously means that a truck driver,or miner,can retrain as a Scientist.If they don’t make the grade and shape up then stop their ‘benefits’.Which you’re going to tax anyway even if they get them.
As for taxing benefits give us some figures that would justify the bs idea.IE you think that claimants are being paid more in benefits than their previous net wage after personal tax allowance.On that note you do know that private income protection benefits are tax free and based on specific occupation so why should National Insurance payouts be any different.Also bearing in mind that income tax has already been paid on the premiums in both cases.
If we don’t tax benefits - there’s no incentive once ON them to ever get another job… There’s the “Poverty Gap Chasm” to get across in one leap.
CONCEPT:
You’re currently without a job, and get 30k in benefits, paid tax free as it stands…
You see a job for 30k out there - which pays enough to have those benefits stopped, “national average wage”-ish and well above the minimum wage for the 5x8 hour shifts you’re expected to work. It looks a very nice prospect this job indeed…
You TAKE that job then, only to find that now you are paying TAXES on that 30k income - you’re around 3-4k worse off per year as a result.
SO… You wait for a job that gives you a TAKEHOME pay of the 30k instead - and that’s just to “break even”, before taking into account the extra costs of commuting to that otherwise benefit-leaving job…
Thus, if you pay taxes on the benefits like you would on the job - the poverty gap is narrowed enough so that one doesn’t have to aim quite so high for the “dream job that allows you to give up the benefits once on them”.
Got that?
Taking a job - should NOT make one poorer, especially if the benefits one gets for not working at all - end up exceeding an honest wage for what would be classed as a pretty good job in my example (30k gross for a 40 hour week) simply because the benefits are currently non-taxed.
Winseer:
If we don’t tax benefits - there’s no incentive once ON them to ever get another job… There’s the “Poverty Gap Chasm” to get across in one leap.CONCEPT:
You’re currently without a job, and get 30k in benefits, paid tax free as it stands…
You see a job for 30k out there - which pays enough to have those benefits stopped, “national average wage”-ish and well above the minimum wage for the 5x8 hour shifts you’re expected to work. It looks a very nice prospect this job indeed…
You TAKE that job then, only to find that now you are paying TAXES on that 30k income - you’re around 3-4k worse off per year as a result.
SO… You wait for a job that gives you a TAKEHOME pay of the 30k instead - and that’s just to “break even”, before taking into account the extra costs of commuting to that otherwise benefit-leaving job…
Thus, if you pay taxes on the benefits like you would on the job - the poverty gap is narrowed enough so that one doesn’t have to aim quite so high for the “dream job that allows you to give up the benefits once on them”.Got that?
Taking a job - should NOT make one poorer, especially if the benefits one gets for not working at all - end up exceeding an honest wage for what would be classed as a pretty good job in my example (30k gross for a 40 hour week) simply because the benefits are currently non-taxed.
Tell us which state benefits will pay anyone 30k.
So a train driver or pilot on 30 k net basic is declared medically unfit or redundant and claims private income protection insurance to cover his net wage.The benefit level is calculated on his net pay and paid tax free and no compulsion to find an alternative occupation.The politics of envy applies both ways.While since when didn’t state benefits also apply a compulsion to seek employment including alternative employment and not taking a minimum wage job because you want 30k doesn’t fit that description.Oh and minimum wage is less than 20k for 40 hours.So you want loads of desperate workers willing if not forced to under cut you.You sound like a turkey voting for Christmas to me.When you’re not acting like a Bolshevik wanting to thieve the property or capital of anyone who you think is less deserving than you.
Carryfast:
Winseer:
If we don’t tax benefits - there’s no incentive once ON them to ever get another job… There’s the “Poverty Gap Chasm” to get across in one leap.CONCEPT:
You’re currently without a job, and get 30k in benefits, paid tax free as it stands…
You see a job for 30k out there - which pays enough to have those benefits stopped, “national average wage”-ish and well above the minimum wage for the 5x8 hour shifts you’re expected to work. It looks a very nice prospect this job indeed…
You TAKE that job then, only to find that now you are paying TAXES on that 30k income - you’re around 3-4k worse off per year as a result.
SO… You wait for a job that gives you a TAKEHOME pay of the 30k instead - and that’s just to “break even”, before taking into account the extra costs of commuting to that otherwise benefit-leaving job…
Thus, if you pay taxes on the benefits like you would on the job - the poverty gap is narrowed enough so that one doesn’t have to aim quite so high for the “dream job that allows you to give up the benefits once on them”.Got that?
Taking a job - should NOT make one poorer, especially if the benefits one gets for not working at all - end up exceeding an honest wage for what would be classed as a pretty good job in my example (30k gross for a 40 hour week) simply because the benefits are currently non-taxed.
Tell us which state benefits will pay anyone 30k.
So a train driver or pilot on 30 k net basic is declared medically unfit or redundant and claims private income protection insurance to cover his net wage.The benefit level is calculated on his net pay and paid tax free and no compulsion to find an alternative occupation.The politics of envy applies both ways.While since when didn’t state benefits also apply a compulsion to seek employment including alternative employment and not taking a minimum wage job because you want 30k doesn’t fit that description.Oh and minimum wage is less than 20k for 40 hours.So you want loads of desperate workers willing if not forced to under cut you.You sound like a turkey voting for Christmas to me.When you’re not acting like a Bolshevik wanting to thieve the property or capital of anyone who you think is less deserving than you.
Anyone on Housing Benefit is getting a national average of £960 per month - the cost of the average rent these days, and certainly in line with rents for other 3-bedroomed places up my street in particular. Landlords set that - not the council. There has been a shortage of council accommodation for decades. Housing Benefits - is sticking plaster over the deeper wound that we simply don’t have enough accommodation for the increasing numbers of people on benefits, 'cos successive UK governments have been daft enough to let people in “without a job lined up”. You won’t be getting £960pcm in housing benefits (upto £520 per week with the cap, so ‘within that’) IF you are holding down a £30k job.
Council Tax: I’m paying £165 per month, and I understand that is very average for the country atm. If you’re on benefits - that cost is covered for you. If you’re NOT on benefits, then that cost must be met out of income AFTER tax, as one doesn’t get tax relief on it.
Prescriptions: This household has three regular prescriptions per month. They currently cost me £27 in prescription charges. That’s another £27 to be paid out of my “net income” then.
Anyone on even the most basic of benefits - pays zero.
Job Seeker’s Allowance: You have to actually be “available for work” to do this. My wife doesn’t have transport, and there are no jobs available for her within walking distance, or reasonable public transport links. As such, she is NOT available for work, and has received ZERO in JSA since her maternity payments ended quite some time ago.
The JSA in my mind - should be re-named the “Liar’s Benefit” since all those people who queue up down the office for such payments - must be turning down jobs left, right, and center - there are so many ZHC jobs out there that ANYONE can do, such as working at recycling units, where the agency sending you in there - even rounds people up on street corners @ £1 per shift to get people to work. That’s another job my missus could have done, but chose not to. SHE lost all benefits as a result. OTHERS THOUGH? - There’s still over a million people on JSA in this country, and there can’t be very many of them that truly “cannot find a job” eh?
Food Banks: You have to plead poverty to get on these “I’m on benefits” seems to be a golden bloody ticket to get access to “free stuff” that would, after all - be useful for EVERYONE feeling the financial pinch in our overpriced food EU marketplace we have yet to leave…
When you get that lot thrown at you for starters, - it then must be measured up very carefully when taking a job, since the firm is all too keen to kick people off these (De) Means Tested benefits that should really be “contributions based” for ALL except the Disabled in my mind.
“Carer’s Allowance” is another aspect. A benefit that tapers off IF the person claiming the benefit is also trying to hold down any kind of “other” job.
“Free NHS kit” - like Wheelchairs, Wheelchair-equipped Vehicles, access ramps, crutches, etc. are supposedly on “permanent loan”, but I don’t like the way that “people in work” seem to get less access to the “free stuff” as if “being treated on the NHS” has somehow BECOME “Another Means-Tested Benefit” these days.
“What you don’t spend” is as good as “income”.
The person who has an income of £30k, pays £5k in deductions, and a cost of living of £26k - is always in debt, going up by £1000 per year, plus any compounded interest at that.
The person who gets £25k in “tax-free benefits” but gets to spend £10k less from “lower overheads” like “Going to work” in particular - is going to be a lot happier, despite that lower income.
I would argue that if you cannot gross around £40k in your job, that is no more than 45 minutes drive away from where you live…
You’d be better off working 30 hours per week on minimum wage across the street, which would pay you:-
£246.30 pw which then lines you up for a working/child tax credit payment of £636.71 per month based on being over age 21 and having 2 kids under 16.
You’ll take home ALL of that wage, and get it topped up with “tax credit money” that you pay no taxes on as well.
A total NET income of around £400pw then, or around about the same take home pay in this example as a £500pw trucker - who won’t qualify for all the freebies one gets when “on benefits”…
Thus, it is actually more lucrative these days to be SLIGHTLY employed, rather than “unemployed”.
I must confess I don’t actually know anyone that bothers with “Jobseeker’s Allowance” any more.
You either make up a job for yourself, minimize it to maximize the tax credit element, and then bob’s your uncle.
or…
you look for a “Unicorn” job that’ll never come - and stay on the far LOWER JSA, which might suit student-aged youngsters living with mum & dad - but not someone who’s already got a family, already established at an address, but fallen upon hard times, perhaps due to non-disabling injury, or hard times at the firm they used to work for…
Winseer:
I would argue that if you cannot gross around £40k in your job, that is no more than 45 minutes drive away from where you live…You’d be better off working 30 hours per week on minimum wage across the street, which would pay you:-
£246.30 pw which then lines you up for a working/child tax credit payment of £636.71 per month based on being over age 21 and having 2 kids under 16.
You’ll take home ALL of that wage, and get it topped up with “tax credit money” that you pay no taxes on as well.A total NET income of around £400pw then, or around about the same take home pay in this example as a £500pw trucker - who won’t qualify for all the freebies one gets when “on benefits”…
Thus, it is actually more lucrative these days to be SLIGHTLY employed, rather than “unemployed”.
I must confess I don’t actually know anyone that bothers with “Jobseeker’s Allowance” any more.
You either make up a job for yourself, minimize it to maximize the tax credit element, and then bob’s your uncle.
or…
you look for a “Unicorn” job that’ll never come - and stay on the far LOWER JSA, which might suit student-aged youngsters living with mum & dad - but not someone who’s already got a family, already established at an address, but fallen upon hard times, perhaps due to non-disabling injury, or hard times at the firm they used to work for…
You won’t be looking for any Unicorn job on JSA or any other job based benefit.You’ll be under a strict job search regime with no ability in that to say no to full time 40 hours.There’s also no ability to turn down minimum wage work.So you’re saying remove/tax the in work benefits attached to that creating a desperate workforce who’ll do the 500 pw job for 350 pw.Especially in the case of the single worker living with parents who won’t get anything like your bs in work benefits and who can obviously under cut the zb out of the job even further in that case,bearing mind personal tax allowance,if that’s what you really want.While there is a point in that where they say why bother getting on the family//mortgage/rent treadmill at all might as well just help to pay off the parents’ mortgage faster.
Who’s side are you on the employers or the workers.As I said turkeys voting for Christmas.
Carryfast:
Winseer:
I would argue that if you cannot gross around £40k in your job, that is no more than 45 minutes drive away from where you live…You’d be better off working 30 hours per week on minimum wage across the street, which would pay you:-
£246.30 pw which then lines you up for a working/child tax credit payment of £636.71 per month based on being over age 21 and having 2 kids under 16.
You’ll take home ALL of that wage, and get it topped up with “tax credit money” that you pay no taxes on as well.A total NET income of around £400pw then, or around about the same take home pay in this example as a £500pw trucker - who won’t qualify for all the freebies one gets when “on benefits”…
Thus, it is actually more lucrative these days to be SLIGHTLY employed, rather than “unemployed”.
I must confess I don’t actually know anyone that bothers with “Jobseeker’s Allowance” any more.
You either make up a job for yourself, minimize it to maximize the tax credit element, and then bob’s your uncle.
or…
you look for a “Unicorn” job that’ll never come - and stay on the far LOWER JSA, which might suit student-aged youngsters living with mum & dad - but not someone who’s already got a family, already established at an address, but fallen upon hard times, perhaps due to non-disabling injury, or hard times at the firm they used to work for…You won’t be looking for any Unicorn job on JSA or any other job based benefit.You’ll be under a strict job search regime with no ability in that to say no to full time 40 hours.There’s also no ability to turn down minimum wage work.So you’re saying remove/tax the in work benefits attached to that creating a desperate workforce who’ll do the 500 pw job for 350 pw.Especially in the case of the single worker living with parents who won’t get anything like your bs in work benefits and who can obviously under cut the zb out of the job even further in that case,bearing mind personal tax allowance,if that’s what you really want.While there is a point in that where they say why bother getting on the family//mortgage/rent treadmill at all might as well just help to pay off the parents’ mortgage faster.
Who’s side are you on the employers or the workers.As I said turkeys voting for Christmas.
There is no regime in place that forces people to work for 40+ hours a week for an agency.
There would only be pressure to sign up with said agency, who then might give you bits and pieces for a long period of time, which would be FINE of course - if you’re on the tax credit top-up.
Only the most terminally workshy - would turn down an agency position that runs a minibus around to run you into the out-of-town workplace.
There’s no obligation once there - to do “maxed out hours”.
Indeed, 30 hours - is what sets up the maximum amounts of tax credits. NOT 16-25 hours, nor 40+ hours per week.
Now… It is going to be easier to get 30 hours on agency than at a full time venue with a contract - isn’t it?
…Especially when the tax office accepts this “30 hours” as an AVERAGE over the entire working tax year!
I was only getting bitty work at agency in 2011-12 for example, a year of that qualified me for tax credits 2012-13, and then this amount gradually tapered down as I began to get increasing hours on agency going into 2015… Then when I took a full time 30k job in 2015 - I was horrified to be told that the tax credits I’d already received for the PREVIOUS tax year - had to be paid back, as "My income for THIS tax year - now exceeded the level at which I got any at all.
…SO… You go without for a full tax year to QUALIFY in the first place,
THEN you have to stay ON that low income - as not to have the “benefit” be flipped over into a LOAN.
Get a job taking you straight out of tax credits/benefits then? - A dreadful situation that I had to tell myself “No WONDER the workshy CHOOSE to stay on benefits…”
Winseer:
Carryfast:
You won’t be looking for any Unicorn job on JSA or any other job based benefit.You’ll be under a strict job search regime with no ability in that to say no to full time 40 hours.There’s also no ability to turn down minimum wage work.So you’re saying remove/tax the in work benefits attached to that creating a desperate workforce who’ll do the 500 pw job for 350 pw.Especially in the case of the single worker living with parents who won’t get anything like your bs in work benefits and who can obviously under cut the zb out of the job even further in that case,bearing mind personal tax allowance,if that’s what you really want.While there is a point in that where they say why bother getting on the family//mortgage/rent treadmill at all might as well just help to pay off the parents’ mortgage faster.Who’s side are you on the employers or the workers.As I said turkeys voting for Christmas.
There is no regime in place that forces people to work for 40+ hours a week for an agency.
There would only be pressure to sign up with said agency, who then might give you bits and pieces for a long period of time, which would be FINE of course - if you’re on the tax credit top-up.
Only the most terminally workshy - would turn down an agency position that runs a minibus around to run you into the out-of-town workplace.There’s no obligation once there - to do “maxed out hours”.
Indeed, 30 hours - is what sets up the maximum amounts of tax credits. NOT 16-25 hours, nor 40+ hours per week.Now… It is going to be easier to get 30 hours on agency than at a full time venue with a contract - isn’t it?
…Especially when the tax office accepts this “30 hours” as an AVERAGE over the entire working tax year!I was only getting bitty work at agency in 2011-12 for example, a year of that qualified me for tax credits 2012-13, and then this amount gradually tapered down as I began to get increasing hours on agency going into 2015… Then when I took a full time 30k job in 2015 - I was horrified to be told that the tax credits I’d already received for the PREVIOUS tax year - had to be paid back, as "My income for THIS tax year - now exceeded the level at which I got any at all.
…SO… You go without for a full tax year to QUALIFY in the first place,
THEN you have to stay ON that low income - as not to have the “benefit” be flipped over into a LOAN.Get a job taking you straight out of tax credits/benefits then? - A dreadful situation that I had to tell myself “No WONDER the workshy CHOOSE to stay on benefits…”
There is a ‘regime’ in place which says that job based ‘benefits’ are dependent on taking full time 40 hours pw at least if offered and possibly even enforced overtime according to operational requirements.So no you don’t get any bs ‘choice’ to stay on benefits.
As I said so you effectively want the removal of in work benefits.As I said what could possibly go wrong when you’ve suddenly got an army of desperate workers all looking for as many hours as they can get to compensate for a low hourly wage.Especially single living with parents or immigrant labour living 10 to a house.Good luck with maintaining your 25k wage example in that environment.
While also calling all benefits claimants scroungers including sick/retired/redundant workers.When benefits are just a form of nationalised income protection insurance.So what next private income protection insurance,house insurance,vehicle insurance etc etc claimants also all scroungers in your view.So your house burns down or you’re made redundant or you suffer a medical problem or involved in an accident which makes you homeless that’s tough in your utopia.But you obviously still want the premiums to be paid for a worthless insurance policy as a form of tax to minimise your income tax exposure.As I said who’s side are you on.
Also no I don’t buy the bs that a truck driver can retrain as a computer expert,brain surgeon,retail management,or lawyer.Just as in the case of a pilot or a train driver.Suggest you call them scroungers for claiming on their forged steel income protection policies.
Carryfast Said: " There is a ‘regime’ in place which says that job based ‘benefits’ are dependent on taking full time 40 hours pw at least if offered and possibly even enforced overtime according to operational requirements.So no you don’t get any bs ‘choice’ to stay on benefits.
As I said so you effectively want the removal of in work benefits.As I said what could possibly go wrong when you’ve suddenly got an army of desperate workers all looking for as many hours as they can get to compensate for a low hourly wage.Especially single living with parents or immigrant labour living 10 to a house.Good luck with maintaining your 25k wage example in that environment.
While also calling all benefits claimants scroungers including sick/retired/redundant workers.When benefits are just a form of nationalised income protection insurance.So what next private income protection insurance,house insurance,vehicle insurance etc etc claimants also all scroungers in your view.So your house burns down or you’re made redundant or you suffer a medical problem or involved in an accident which makes you homeless that’s tough in your utopia.But you obviously still want the premiums to be paid for a worthless insurance policy as a form of tax to minimise your income tax exposure.As I said who’s side are you on.
Also no I don’t buy the bs that a truck driver can retrain as a computer expert,brain surgeon,retail management,or lawyer.Just as in the case of a pilot or a train driver.Suggest you call them scroungers for claiming on their forged steel income protection policies. "
Are you trying to tell me that there are agencies out there that guarantee offers of 40 hours per week? - That is, “guaranteed hours, ongoingly” which is the more common agency guff I’m sure most on here that avoid agencies - would use as their excuse as to why that happens to be the case…
If agencies actually DID guarantee 40 hours per week to ever single new sign-up - then there would be so many people on agency books - that there wouldn’t be any work left to give ANYONE anything other than “clean the toilets for 7 hours one day per week” type stuff.
A paradox.
The likelihood of signing up with an agency then and getting kicked off tax credits straight away - has got to be negligable.
NOT the same with JSA though, where if you turned down a single SHIFT - you’d have your benefit stopped.
Better then to sign OFF JSA outright, and just cross your fingers that you can get at least 16 hours every single week on some agency without fail, 30 hours average, and not more than that so often that the tax credits tapers back off again.
Getting 16 hours per week work on an agency - DOES come with a small risk attached then “If you don’t get it, you are temporarily unemployed, stamp not paid for that week” - which will affect your state pension in years to come. - but Agencies force-feeding everyone on their books 40+ hours - just ain’t gonna happen!!
You need to get ENOUGH hours per week, every week. NOT “Maxed out at minimum wages forever”.
I think that’s just a “propaganda curtain” designed to stop people from ditching full time work for higher pay on agency… “Keep the fear factor going - keep the staff”.
Abolishing ZHC (which I’m dead against, remember…) would make it much HARDER for people to “manage their hours” as close to 30 hours per week as possible.
The LAST thing you want to be doing @ minimum wages - is “doing so many hours your benefits get stopped ANYWAYS”.
Genuinely disabled people - I’d like to see get MORE benefits. It is the standard patter of the far left towards those like me who think that I’m at any stage “grouping the genuine disabled with the benefit scrounger”.
Let’s define “Benefit scroungers” to be clear:
“A person who refuses to take a full time contract, refuses to join an agency, and refuses to pay taxes” - resorting instead to “maximize those benefits they can get to do no work at all.”
AKA “Workshy”.
There’s nothing wrong with them medically, so are not disabled. They just don’t want to go out and get a job, even a low paid one that gets massive tax credit top-ups.
In that regard, I’ve always found it rather ODD how foreigners coming here “get it” - when it comes to deliberately aiming for this 30hour per week @ minimum wage “optimum” to keep their menagerie going. How come we don’t see loads of workshy UK-born Youngsters at work on Farms, or as interns in our offices, or anywhere else where there’s actual job vacancies and a good enough turnover of staff at all times?
“Youngsters” - they cannot possibly all be “disabled” can they?
“Youngsters” - What was their reason for “not taking a local job” again??
“Youngsters” - What did they want to do after leaving full time education with that crappy non-useful qualification again?
MIGRANTS - Work hard for what they get, Eastern Europeans far more than those from outside both the EU and commonwealth countries., such as middle easterners and Africans…
DISABLED people are the only ones who should get an income for doing no work at all. There’s an entire army of “Fake Disabled” people out there though, giving the genuine disabled - a bad name.
WORKSHY - Are perfectly fit and able to do just about any job that there are agencies to get them to if need be. So how come I see so few LOCAL born people hanging around street corners waiting for their “agency” minibus to pick them up and take them into whatever of many places will be employing them at or near to minimum wages?
Benefit Scoungers - are the WORKSHY here. Perhaps I’ll just have to stop using the term “benefit scrounger” and just use “workshy” from now on then, just to avoid the confusion in future…
The benefits one gets for doing “Nothing at all” such as “JSA” - would be served better if starting out at a HIGH level, and then tapering off over TIME rather than “according to one’s newly gained higher income”.
That would mean for instance, that one could take the first job going, then apply to move sideways into other jobs, perhaps changing employers several times in the first year after “coming off JSA” - knowing that the benefit now NOT “means tested” means you won’t then be persecuted for being “rather too keen to take that job” eh?
Means testing - stinks. It means that those who paid in the most - get the least back. It means that those who paid in the least - get to take out by FAR - the most.
It acts as shackles around the legs of the would-be hard worker, dead keen to take any job going because their benefits get stopped the moment they act thus.
It acts as an inventive to act dishonestly to the WORKSHY on the other hand, who need to come up with a new pantheon of lies each and every time they go to sign on for their benefits…
“Trainee Politicians” there, perhaps. What’s the optic of an otherwise able-bodied person at the sign-on office - when they explain “why they didn’t and couldn’t get any work, not even a single shift since last time they signed…”
LABOUR - seem to serve these “workshy” types, as they have NOTHING for those who work hard, only to find their benefits being stopped for “taking that job” and “having that strong work ethic”.
The Tories - are the party of Tax cuts though, and that alone - is still enough to keep many a working class brit on-board, regardless of them even being a Remainer or Brexiteer. 
Winseer:
Carryfast Said: " There is a ‘regime’ in place which says that job based ‘benefits’ are dependent on taking full time 40 hours pw at least if offered and possibly even enforced overtime according to operational requirements.So no you don’t get any bs ‘choice’ to stay on benefits.
As I said so you effectively want the removal of in work benefits.As I said what could possibly go wrong when you’ve suddenly got an army of desperate workers all looking for as many hours as they can get to compensate for a low hourly wage.Especially single living with parents or immigrant labour living 10 to a house.Good luck with maintaining your 25k wage example in that environment.
While also calling all benefits claimants scroungers including sick/retired/redundant workers.When benefits are just a form of nationalised income protection insurance.So what next private income protection insurance,house insurance,vehicle insurance etc etc claimants also all scroungers in your view.So your house burns down or you’re made redundant or you suffer a medical problem or involved in an accident which makes you homeless that’s tough in your utopia.But you obviously still want the premiums to be paid for a worthless insurance policy as a form of tax to minimise your income tax exposure.As I said who’s side are you on.
Also no I don’t buy the bs that a truck driver can retrain as a computer expert,brain surgeon,retail management,or lawyer.Just as in the case of a pilot or a train driver.Suggest you call them scroungers for claiming on their forged steel income protection policies. "Are you trying to tell me that there are agencies out there that guarantee offers of 40 hours per week? - That is, “guaranteed hours, ongoingly” which is the more common agency guff I’m sure most on here that avoid agencies - would use as their excuse as to why that happens to be the case…
If agencies actually DID guarantee 40 hours per week to ever single new sign-up - then there would be so many people on agency books - that there wouldn’t be any work left to give ANYONE anything other than “clean the toilets for 7 hours one day per week” type stuff.
A paradox.
The likelihood of signing up with an agency then and getting kicked off tax credits straight away - has got to be negligable.
NOT the same with JSA though, where if you turned down a single SHIFT - you’d have your benefit stopped.Better then to sign OFF JSA outright, and just cross your fingers that you can get at least 16 hours every single week on some agency without fail, 30 hours average, and not more than that so often that the tax credits tapers back off again.
Getting 16 hours per week work on an agency - DOES come with a small risk attached then “If you don’t get it, you are temporarily unemployed, stamp not paid for that week” - which will affect your state pension in years to come. - but Agencies force-feeding everyone on their books 40+ hours - just ain’t gonna happen!!
You need to get ENOUGH hours per week, every week. NOT “Maxed out at minimum wages forever”.
I think that’s just a “propaganda curtain” designed to stop people from ditching full time work for higher pay on agency… “Keep the fear factor going - keep the staff”.Abolishing ZHC (which I’m dead against, remember…) would make it much HARDER for people to “manage their hours” as close to 30 hours per week as possible.
The LAST thing you want to be doing @ minimum wages - is “doing so many hours your benefits get stopped ANYWAYS”.
Genuinely disabled people - I’d like to see get MORE benefits. It is the standard patter of the far left towards those like me who think that I’m at any stage “grouping the genuine disabled with the benefit scrounger”.
Let’s define “Benefit scroungers” to be clear:“A person who refuses to take a full time contract, refuses to join an agency, and refuses to pay taxes” - resorting instead to “maximize those benefits they can get to do no work at all.”
AKA “Workshy”.There’s nothing wrong with them medically, so are not disabled. They just don’t want to go out and get a job, even a low paid one that gets massive tax credit top-ups.
In that regard, I’ve always found it rather ODD how foreigners coming here “get it” - when it comes to deliberately aiming for this 30hour per week @ minimum wage “optimum” to keep their menagerie going. How come we don’t see loads of workshy UK-born Youngsters at work on Farms, or as interns in our offices, or anywhere else where there’s actual job vacancies and a good enough turnover of staff at all times?
“Youngsters” - they cannot possibly all be “disabled” can they?
“Youngsters” - What was their reason for “not taking a local job” again??
“Youngsters” - What did they want to do after leaving full time education with that crappy non-useful qualification again?MIGRANTS - Work hard for what they get, Eastern Europeans far more than those from outside both the EU and commonwealth countries., such as middle easterners and Africans…
DISABLED people are the only ones who should get an income for doing no work at all. There’s an entire army of “Fake Disabled” people out there though, giving the genuine disabled - a bad name.
WORKSHY - Are perfectly fit and able to do just about any job that there are agencies to get them to if need be. So how come I see so few LOCAL born people hanging around street corners waiting for their “agency” minibus to pick them up and take them into whatever of many places will be employing them at or near to minimum wages?Benefit Scoungers - are the WORKSHY here. Perhaps I’ll just have to stop using the term “benefit scrounger” and just use “workshy” from now on then, just to avoid the confusion in future…
The benefits one gets for doing “Nothing at all” such as “JSA” - would be served better if starting out at a HIGH level, and then tapering off over TIME rather than “according to one’s newly gained higher income”.
That would mean for instance, that one could take the first job going, then apply to move sideways into other jobs, perhaps changing employers several times in the first year after “coming off JSA” - knowing that the benefit now NOT “means tested” means you won’t then be persecuted for being “rather too keen to take that job” eh?Means testing - stinks. It means that those who paid in the most - get the least back. It means that those who paid in the least - get to take out by FAR - the most.
It acts as shackles around the legs of the would-be hard worker, dead keen to take any job going because their benefits get stopped the moment they act thus.
It acts as an inventive to act dishonestly to the WORKSHY on the other hand, who need to come up with a new pantheon of lies each and every time they go to sign on for their benefits…
“Trainee Politicians” there, perhaps. What’s the optic of an otherwise able-bodied person at the sign-on office - when they explain “why they didn’t and couldn’t get any work, not even a single shift since last time they signed…”LABOUR - seem to serve these “workshy” types, as they have NOTHING for those who work hard, only to find their benefits being stopped for “taking that job” and “having that strong work ethic”.
The Tories - are the party of Tax cuts though, and that alone - is still enough to keep many a working class brit on-board, regardless of them even being a Remainer or Brexiteer.
Have you got any idea of the criterea which have to met to be categorised as ‘unfit to work’.Let’s just say that it’s a worthless junk insurance policy which effectively only covers being paralysed from the neck down.Disabled and Workshy bs.When the National Insurance/Social Security contract which I took on and payed in for from when I started work stated ‘sickness’ preventing employment in my own job for whatever reason.Oh and retirement at 65 not 66 +.As I said zb Tory to Bolshevik as and when it suits you and your own personal circumstances.
Ever asked the question "How come there is such a thing as a champagne socialist at all?
How did they MAKE their money - if it wasn’t off the backs of the working poor, those hapless fools that think the champagne socialist politician, union leader, or company boss - has their collective interests at heard…
A big workforce - is a champagne socialist’s cash cow.
That’s it.
Have a look at WHO came up with things like you describe:
Insurance policies that don’t pay out
Cover that doesn’t work on the things in life that actually happen to people.
sick pay that doesn’t automatically pay out when you are taken into hospital as an emergency, let alone for a routine operation that’ll have you off work for weeks.
sick pay that is manager’s discretion, meaning that the company can say “We pay it” - when in actual fact “Just the mates of the managers get it”.
Unemployment benefits that encourage people to STAY on benefits - once on them.
Means Testing that does the least for the people that pay in the most, and encourages people to deliberately STAY as “not paying in” - because it is a freeroll.
If I could re-write the system for example, it would be as follows:
If you take ill, you get sick pay for each day or part thereof you spend at Hospital. One day, One Week, One month, One Year - you get paid.
If you take ill, and stay at home for the day, without booking at a hospital for even a casualty patient - then you don’t get paid for that day off sick.
Sick pay is one’s FULL AVERAGE pay, reflecting any regular overtime one might work.
Critical Illness Cover - paid out the moment you are diagnosed by a GP as being “unfit to work”. NOT an ATOS-type doctor, paid to sign people as fit when they’re at deaths door FFS…
No “second opinions” to be ever saught by insurance companies. If the worker’s GP signs them off as “Unfit” - then they do NOT pay some ATOS-type doctor again to “Overrule that first GP’s decision” - thus suggesting that everyone’s GP is effectively a quack!! How DARE they!
Make “discretionary sick pay” illegal. It is a form of “workplace abuse”.
Make unemployment benefits start at a high level, that quickly taper down if no job is gotten after say, three months. NO able bodied person has an excuse “not to sign up to an agency”, bearing in mind the tax credit top-ups far exceed any JSA as I’ve mentioned before.
Bring in a “National Work Service” - a new government agency that runs “work towns” where homeless people can just walk in, get free accommodation, and a minimum waged job. They are free to leave for “something better” - the moment they can. “Going sick” in such an environment - gives access to the best NHS care that way, and quickly weeds out all those types that are merely “Workshy, trying it on”… Thus, there would be no such thing as “able bodied people not working” any longer. Everyone pulled off the street in this manner - would be better off than JSA, as they’d get the tax credit top-up again. This is NOT a “Victorian-style Workhouse” environment I describe here. It should have been done by the socialists YEARS ago, but apparently we’ve still got the right to be shifty work-dodging liars in order to get benefits that we should NOT have an automatic right to.
Stop pretending that we lose all our worker’s rights if we leave the EU. It was the UK’s enshrined workers rights transferred to the EU books in the FIRST place as I recall…
Winseer:
Stop pretending that we lose all our worker’s rights if we leave the EU.
If your attitudes are representative of the Tories, then workers have everything to fear from re-electing the Tories to leave the EU.
You post nothing but pages of tirades against the “workshy” because they refuse to work under sweatshop conditions for a pittance, yet presumably as a Tory you’d also be explaining to us that the very reason the pay is low, and must remain low, is because there is already a surfeit of workers able and willing to do those roles, so there isn’t a need for any additional workers of that sort (if there was, then pay would increase).
It’s one thing expecting a man to do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. If you want him to labour casually on a farm then you’ve got to be prepared to pay him generously - it’s always been the case that men employed in heavy outdoor labour are paid relatively well for it, and casual workers have to be paid more in hourly terms than someone with a steady wage and job security.
It’s another thing entirely to be demanding he work for a pittance then complaining that he refuses. That’s why workers pay for social security, so that they don’t face bosses who demand they slave or die, and they don’t face ruinous competition from those whose heads will otherwise be underwater. Same reason why they pay into strike funds and moderate their financial obligations, so that they aren’t bent over the barrel when they have to strike or are locked out.
And that’s why the Tories keep importing more migrants and they keep attacking social security, because they want your wages, the wages of the man who works, down.
It’s one thing to demand that every man does his bit and works to the extent that he can. But workers don’t control their employment. Bosses do. And even the bosses are subject to economic conditions that aren’t entirely under their control. If nobody is to be unemployed against their will, then you have to maintain manning levels and ensure that the available work is shared out equally, and that means exercising self-control over overtime. If you’re not doing that, then you have to accept that many will be unemployed against their will and then have to be carried.
The last time a sitting PM lost their seat was Arthur Henderson in the 1931 general election…
Whilst I can’t see the same thing happening to Corbyn at THIS upcoming election - I would have to be very wary of anyone who thinks that Labour seriously have a chance to do something similar to Boris Johnson…
I’ve already heard rumours that McDonnell is going to get some of his core Labour voters (probably Momentum activists as well.) to go “live with their grans for a few weeks” and thus vote Labour in Uxbridge constituency on the other side of town from Hayes and Harlington seat…
Whilst this increases the chance that Boris Johnson might be toppled from his seat - it should be pointed out that it will also decrease McDonnel’s majority by the number of “flying picket voters” acting in the way described.
That in turn then opens up the possibility, no matter how small - that local predominantly Hindu voters - might decide they’ve had ENOUGH of Labour, and deliver a shock result of turfing McDonnel out of what he thinks is his “Safe seat”… Hehehe…
Boris - has had plenty of opportunity to “stand somewhere else” - but it is possible he is baiting momentum in Uxbridge - to bring exactly that kind of result about!!
Oh I wish!! 
Rjan:
Winseer:
Stop pretending that we lose all our worker’s rights if we leave the EU.If your attitudes are representative of the Tories, then workers have everything to fear from re-electing the Tories to leave the EU.
You post nothing but pages of tirades against the “workshy” because they refuse to work under sweatshop conditions for a pittance, yet presumably as a Tory you’d also be explaining to us that the very reason the pay is low, and must remain low, is because there is already a surfeit of workers able and willing to do those roles, so there isn’t a need for any additional workers of that sort (if there was, then pay would increase).
It’s one thing expecting a man to do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. If you want him to labour casually on a farm then you’ve got to be prepared to pay him generously - it’s always been the case that men employed in heavy outdoor labour are paid relatively well for it, and casual workers have to be paid more in hourly terms than someone with a steady wage and job security.
It’s another thing entirely to be demanding he work for a pittance then complaining that he refuses. That’s why workers pay for social security, so that they don’t face bosses who demand they slave or die, and they don’t face ruinous competition from those whose heads will otherwise be underwater. Same reason why they pay into strike funds and moderate their financial obligations, so that they aren’t bent over the barrel when they have to strike or are locked out.
And that’s why the Tories keep importing more migrants and they keep attacking social security, because they want your wages, the wages of the man who works, down.
It’s one thing to demand that every man does his bit and works to the extent that he can. But workers don’t control their employment. Bosses do. And even the bosses are subject to economic conditions that aren’t entirely under their control. If nobody is to be unemployed against their will, then you have to maintain manning levels and ensure that the available work is shared out equally, and that means exercising self-control over overtime. If you’re not doing that, then you have to accept that many will be unemployed against their will and then have to be carried.
Ironically all this convenient workshy nonsense and excuse for the corresponding decimation of the Social Security system under Thatcher’s regime all happened on the EU’s watch.As it stands the whole system is just a tax scam to keep income tax levels down for the rich by flogging a now effectively worthless National Income Protection Insurance scheme.In addition to maximising the supply of desperate labour.Which we have no choice to say no to and no way of getting back the contributions we’ve paid in on grounds of breach of contract.Oh wait because for some reason the ‘Labour’ Party decided that the Social ‘Security’ System shouldn’t be a contractual arrangement like any other private income protection Insurance policy.For Winseer’s information that doesn’t mean ‘critical illness’ cover or retraining a truck driver to be a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon or a lawyer or a retail manager if his health or his job goes ■■■■ up.