|
|
Post by stuartB on Jan 23, 2012 20:41:43 GMT
I could not believe my ears earlier. I know there will be sensationalising on both sides of the argument but how is £26,000 take home pay the limit/cap for benefits? I do not take that home and I work 50 to 60 hours a week!!!  What world do these people live in? a luxurious one obviously. there was a woman on the news saying that she was a single parent, no family in the country and no job. the limit of £26,000 would mean she could not afford the rent. Well welcome to the real world! i can't afford to live in a big house, so should I get the tax payer to pay it for me because it's my right? BS Simple fact if you can't afford it, don't buy it or move. What incentive is there for that lady to even go and get a job? she would need a job of a minimum of £42,000 a year just to stand still. the benefits system stinks and the hard working are not rewarded fairly rant over |
|
davethegull
TFF member
Posts: 1,094
Favourite Player: Dave Caldwell
|
Post by davethegull on Jan 24, 2012 8:39:38 GMT
Completely agree Stuart. It's crazy that working families have to work thro til August just to pay the Tax bill while scroungers are up on Jan 1. It's about time the British people demanded value for money from thier Tax payments rather than profligate waste from top heavy big Gov't populated by unaccountable/unsackable/union protected public servants. To start with they should sack anyone with "green" "eco" "enviro" or "equal" in thier job title. Here's something crazy....how about paying people to empty bins rather than inspect them? The over-regulated H&S rules should be scrapped and common sense allowed to prevail......case in point, the yellow lines on the pop, just stupid....it's PLAINMOOR not fecking Heysel!
The entitlement society and the socialist experiment should be kicked to the kerb along with the idiots who think it's ok to use taxpayers money to protect the interests of the jewish banking cartels rather than the people they were elected to serve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Budleigh on Jan 24, 2012 9:30:38 GMT
I would imagine far, far more people agree with the above sentiments than is realised...
|
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jan 24, 2012 11:52:41 GMT
Benefits are about creating a caste of lumpen, unemployables who are easier to pay off than negotiate with as unionised workers.
Far better to employ hundreds of thousands of un-unionised foreign workers, who in many cases will work for below minimum wage.
A rent strike by the propertyless would be a more honourable and empowering course of action than waving the means-tested begging bowl.
|
|
|
|
Post by the92ndfish on Jan 25, 2012 18:22:02 GMT
The entitlement society and the socialist experiment should be kicked to the kerb along with the idiots who think it's ok to use taxpayers money to protect the interests of the jewish banking cartels rather than the people they were elected to serve. 'Jewish banking cartels'....really?  I'll never get the people that rail against bailing out the banks. If it hadn't have been done the UK economy would have totally tanked, if you think the credit crunch was bad, that would have been nothing if Lloyds, HBOS and RBS were allowed to collapse. The economic losses would have been devastating, these weren't just investment banks like Lehman, they were depositing bank aswell. Millions of people would have lost savings, companies would have loss their working capital, companies that rely on credit to operate would have gone under. The whole economy would have been totally wrecked. Of course many people just believe the nonsese that is spewing out about 'bailing out the bankers' because they don't have any economic knowledge of their own. Which is a shame because if they tried to learn something new and learned some macroeconomics they'd have understood why it was necessary to bail out the banks even if it was distasteful. |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jan 25, 2012 19:15:52 GMT
The entitlement society and the socialist experiment should be kicked to the kerb along with the idiots who think it's ok to use taxpayers money to protect the interests of the jewish banking cartels rather than the people they were elected to serve. 'Jewish banking cartels'....really? . This was discussed in another thread. The crux of DTG's argument is that the sheeple need to wake up. There's videos on youtube explaining it all and everything. I'm well schooled in economics btw. And I didn't support the bailouts. "The passion for destruction is a creative passion"...  |
|
davethegull
TFF member
Posts: 1,094
Favourite Player: Dave Caldwell
|
Post by davethegull on Jan 26, 2012 2:50:48 GMT
The entitlement society and the socialist experiment should be kicked to the kerb along with the idiots who think it's ok to use taxpayers money to protect the interests of the jewish banking cartels rather than the people they were elected to serve. 'Jewish banking cartels'....really? I'll never get the people that rail against bailing out the banks. If it hadn't have been done the UK economy would have totally tanked, if you think the credit crunch was bad, that would have been nothing if Lloyds, HBOS and RBS were allowed to collapse. The economic losses would have been devastating, these weren't just investment banks like Lehman, they were depositing bank aswell. Millions of people would have lost savings, companies would have loss their working capital, companies that rely on credit to operate would have gone under. The whole economy would have been totally wrecked. Of course many people just believe the nonsese that is spewing out about 'bailing out the bankers' because they don't have any economic knowledge of their own. Which is a shame because if they tried to learn something new and learned some macroeconomics they'd have understood why it was necessary to bail out the banks even if it was distasteful. Do you work for Goldman Sachs? I suggest you take your head out of JMK's textbook and take a look around. The Taxpayer is paying for the Banks reckless gambling with the knowledge that they couldn't lose because the Politicians are in their pocket. I suppose you are quite happy for your grandchildren to lumbered with a debt they didn't create. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2012 14:39:35 GMT
Some of those big banks failing certainly would have resulted in a severe depression. But after a couple of years things would be starting to look up again & the economy would probably be organised on a much sounder footing than it is now.
The alternative that the politicians have chosen for us could drag on for a decade or more before things finally collapse into a bigger depression than we would have had in the first place.
The92ndfish tells us millions of people would have lost their savings. If the nanny state didn't want that to happen then bail out the savers. The state could have made sure the savers didn't lose a penny & it wouldn't have cost a fraction of the astronomical amount of taxpayers money given to keep those banks in existance.
There would probably have been more winners than losers anyway, as I don't think as a nation we're particularly into saving.
I reckon Brits probably owed more to the banks via all their various loans than was tucked away in savings accounts.
Less reckless banks such as HSBC & others who could stand on their own two feet without government bailouts would have picked up the good businesses....& the basket case businesses that owed a fortune would be thankful to see their debts disappear along with the broke banks.
So instead of letting them fail what are we left with ?... Zombie banks on life support from the state. Interest rates allowed to find their natural level would be a start in the right direction, but of course we can't let that happen as it would kill off the banks that we've spent billions of taxpayers money trying to keep afloat.
A hike in interest rates to the level needed would finish off the zombie banks. The amount of mortgage defaults would rocket...the price of housing would fall to a sensible level & the banks 'assets' (all those mortgages they hold) would be shown as the overvalued sham they are....their false (state supported) over-valuation would be exposed.
So we stagger on with the Government desperately doing all it can to keep house prices unrealistically high to mask the over valuation of the zombie banks 'assets'... and we'll probably continue with this low or zero interest rate policy for a good few years yet combined with several more doses of money printing.
You'll see your double dip recession, followed by your triple dip & your quadruple dip. We'll blame the Royal Wedding, the European Union, capitalism, Iran, greedy bankers or Paul Buckle.
But in the end, as DTG says, unless the politicians stop listening to their Keynsian advisers, & instead let a system that allows prosperity & economic growth to flourish, we must prepare our selves for even tougher times ahead as the big western governments regulate us all into poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jan 26, 2012 20:20:20 GMT
You'll see your double dip recession, followed by your triple dip & your quadruple dip. We'll blame the Royal Wedding, the European Union, capitalism, Iran, greedy bankers or Paul Buckle. But in the end, as DTG says, unless the politicians stop listening to their Keynsian advisers, & instead let a system that allows prosperity & economic growth to flourish, we must prepare our selves for even tougher times ahead as the big western governments regulate us all into poverty. Recessions and depressions were a feature of capitalism long before John Maynard Keynes. It was the social effects and instability created by such events which led to the adoption of Keynesian economics and the development of the welfare state. These developments were not about overthrowing or 'transcending' capitalism (much less about introducing 'socialism') but about 'taming' the social effects caused by economic crisis. They were the state's response to the fate of other states where the inequalities and deprivation caused by economic crises led to revolution and the overthrow of the existing order. Like DTG and Alpine Joe, I have no time for Keynesian economics or welfarism. This is not because they are unsustainable (though they are) but because they are fundamentally dishonest – they (temporarily) address some of the impact and effects of capitalism whilst protecting and preserving the vested interests which led to them in the first place! But unlike Dave and Joe I also reject capitalism and the axioms on which it supposedly rests. The Austrian economists and so-called 'libertarians' like Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard beloved by the likes of US Presidential candidate Ron Paul (of whom DTG is such a fan) are fundamentally mistaken. Though 'libertarian' criticisms of the state are valid in some respects, their worship of individual property rights is not accompanied by a convincing explanation of how these rights would or could be freely contested. Capitalism must be allowed to run its course. Statist intervention must be resisted. False friends such as state-sanctioned trade unions and social democrats must be sidelined and authoritarians (of left and right) reminded of where their 'solutions' led in the previous century. Examples of where this was understood and embodied can be found in the anarchist movements and revolution in Catalonia between 1900 and 1937, in the Ukraine between 1918 and 1922 and in left-wing opposition to the Bolsheviks in post-revolutionary Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by the92ndfish on Jan 29, 2012 22:10:24 GMT
The92ndfish tells us millions of people would have lost their savings. If the nanny state didn't want that to happen then bail out the savers. The state could have made sure the savers didn't lose a penny & it wouldn't have cost a fraction of the astronomical amount of taxpayers money given to keep those banks in existance. There would probably have been more winners than losers anyway, as I don't think as a nation we're particularly into saving. I reckon Brits probably owed more to the banks via all their various loans than was tucked away in savings accounts. The state would only have covered savings up to £85k, any businessmen that had savings over that amount in one bank would have suffered a large financial hit. Considering these people are the ones that provide most of the employment outside of the large multinational corporations it would have been rather damaging for the economy. That wouldn't have been the main problem though, the main problem would have been the lack of short and medium term capital for businesses. The average citizen wouldn't have seen much a loss if any (I think I only know one person that would have savings of over that amount) but then when dealing with the national economy the average citizen is pretty insignificant. If you destroy a large chunk of the wealth of those that provide jobs you're going to harm the economy. If you compound this by eliminating a large source of the credit businesses operate on (as much as HSBC was well run, it can't keep the entire nation afloat) then you're in trouble. Zombie banks? I think you'll find that RBS is actually making a profit now - £2bn at that in 2011. Which is a hefty profit by anyone's standards. In 5-10 years if the economy picks up then the government will be able to sell it's stakes at a profit to the taxpayer. Whether that profit will be in the form of a tax rebate, a gift to every citizen, increased investment in other services or subsisided share purchases depends on the government that will be in power at the time. You're forgetting that the recession we're looking likely to enter now isn't because of the banks, it's because of feckless European nations like Greece, Ireland and Spain who have spent years borrowing beyond their means and are locked into an uncompetitive currency union. Also because of the inherant problems within the Euro framework, which should never have existed in the first place, and were only masked by the good times. The current problems were caused by the Eurozone not the banking collapse, it's just our problem that the world economy is so integrated now that things beyond our control effect our economy massively. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2013 14:35:23 GMT
With the annual results of RBS hitting the headlines today it's time for our first check in regarding the92ndfish's bold prediction issued just over a year ago: And in fairness to him, despite the alarming headline figure showing a loss of £5.2 billion the bank has again made an operating profit. Whereas fish gave a rather generous time frame of up to 10 years, RBS Chief Executive Stephen Hester is already claiming ""the light at the end of the tunnel is coming much closer". So how close are we to knowing whether fish has called it right and the Government is on track to sell at a profit? Well discounting clever accounting , the effects of inflation etc it's still tantalisingly close to call. Back to Mr.Hester again for an answer on that one: "He also told the BBC that the bank would be in a "condition fit to sell" before the next election in 2015, but added: "There is no guarantee that the shares will be worth more than the government paid for them by that time." Fish would be off the hook (hahahahaha) in any case on that one by invoking his 10 year rule, or a possible 'the economy didn't really pick up' get out clause. My view remains the same that many of the worlds banks are basket cases whose balance sheets and their very survival would be under threat if the value of the mortgages on their books were properly re-evaluated in a housing market subject to market forces. While the Government here, and on the other side of the atlantic, are able to keep interest rates suppressed, while offering all sorts of cheap cash from the state to try and get homes sold at their current high prices,things will limp along. It's not sustainable, reality will set in, and the dam will burst forcing up interest rates , what mortgage business there is will dry up and the value of the property on bank's book will deserve a proper downgrade. I think Fish is still in with a chance of being right, but probably needs the sale to come sooner rather than later before the inevitable economic reality hits home, and any light at the end of the tunnel has been long extinguished. RBS Annual results |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2013 21:24:50 GMT
Bless you, Alpine Joe. This is the first time I have come across this thread and your posting is simply an example of why capitalism is so flawed. What concerns me more is that the thread began with a reaction to what was almost certainly a story in the Mail or Express intended to stir up hatred of claimants, planted there by the Government to soften up public opinion before the £500 pw benefit cap became a reality.
As we have seen on the national news this evening the £26000 figure is almost exclusive to London and the South East where rents are so high that people on means tested JSA or ESA would have needed to claim four figure sums in Housing Benefit. Now that the benefit cap is being imposed many London councils have responded by desperately trying to rehouse tenants in towns and cities many miles to the North and West. For those claimants still in London, they are looking at a shortfall of anything up to and around £100 a week in their rent and it is children in poorer families who will suffer the consequences.
The vast majority of the £26000 did not end up in the pockets of claimants but in the bank accounts of landlords, which is, indeed a scandal but a different one to that portrayed in the original story. Today the Government's position is that reducing benefits is an incentive to claimants to find work, an argument which is the exact opposite to its policy of opposing European policy aimed at limiting bankers' bonuses. It has always been the case that to incentivise the working class you take their money away whereas to incentivise the rich you throw yet more money in their direction, and here we see a classic exapmle of just that. The aspect of all this that depresses me most is that ordinary people lap up lies and insinuations against their fellows, swallowing whole the divide and rule tactics of the right wing press, and the original postings on this thread, I am sad to say, illustrate that point perfectly.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Mar 2, 2013 7:14:36 GMT
Some of those big banks failing certainly would have resulted in a severe depression. But after a couple of years things would be starting to look up again & the economy would probably be organised on a much sounder footing than it is now. The alternative that the politicians have chosen for us could drag on for a decade or more before things finally collapse into a bigger depression than we would have had in the first place. The92ndfish tells us millions of people would have lost their savings. If the nanny state didn't want that to happen then bail out the savers. The state could have made sure the savers didn't lose a penny & it wouldn't have cost a fraction of the astronomical amount of taxpayers money given to keep those banks in existance. There would probably have been more winners than losers anyway, as I don't think as a nation we're particularly into saving. I reckon Brits probably owed more to the banks via all their various loans than was tucked away in savings accounts. Less reckless banks such as HSBC & others who could stand on their own two feet without government bailouts would have picked up the good businesses....& the basket case businesses that owed a fortune would be thankful to see their debts disappear along with the broke banks. So instead of letting them fail what are we left with ?... Zombie banks on life support from the state. Interest rates allowed to find their natural level would be a start in the right direction, but of course we can't let that happen as it would kill off the banks that we've spent billions of taxpayers money trying to keep afloat. A hike in interest rates to the level needed would finish off the zombie banks. The amount of mortgage defaults would rocket...the price of housing would fall to a sensible level & the banks 'assets' (all those mortgages they hold) would be shown as the overvalued sham they are....their false (state supported) over-valuation would be exposed. So we stagger on with the Government desperately doing all it can to keep house prices unrealistically high to mask the over valuation of the zombie banks 'assets'... and we'll probably continue with this low or zero interest rate policy for a good few years yet combined with several more doses of money printing. You'll see your double dip recession, followed by your triple dip & your quadruple dip. We'll blame the Royal Wedding, the European Union, capitalism, Iran, greedy bankers or Paul Buckle. But in the end, as DTG says, unless the politicians stop listening to their Keynsian advisers, & instead let a system that allows prosperity & economic growth to flourish, we must prepare our selves for even tougher times ahead as the big western governments regulate us all into poverty. Fifteen months on from when Joe made the above post and he sure got it right in my book. I think people simply can’t understand how a bank can lose over five billion and yet pay out over 6oo hundred million in bonuses to its staff. What is not hard to understand is how working people feel when they learn that some who are not working can take home far more than they are able to do without having to lift a finger to do so. But I have leaned recently that most on benefits are not in that position and as a result of recent changes made to the benefits system are getting squeezed very hard indeed. I’m also starting to think there is something in what Lambie has said in the past about dividing people and wonder if such stories as the one we heard last week about a woman on benefits with eleven children having a £440.000 home specially built for her is just another example. I have not changed my mind about the benefit cheats, those working the system so they do not have to go to work etc, but another recent change that has been made I do feel is very unfair and should never have been allowed to happen. I’m taking about the so called bedroom tax and after listening to a debate on it recently and what a certain government person was saying, It came home to me just how low life those on benefits seem to some and how there seemed little concern that they are human beings rather than some other type of animal you can treat has badly as you want. During the debate the minister was asked if a single mother with two young girls was living in a three bedroom house, would she be a victim of the bedroom tax. Yes said the minister as the two very young girls could share one bedroom until they were 16 years old. She was asked what this single mother should do and the reply was move to a two bedroom property instead. When asked what she needed to do when the girls was sixteen the answer was move back to a three bedroom house. Asked again what she should do when one of the girls leaves home, the same answer came back, move to a two bedroom home. Then when the other girl leaves move to a one bedroom flat or something. The answers all made me very angry to be honest, to me an English mans home is his castle and the person being told they need to keep moving is being asked to give up their home. They may well have spent what money they had putting down carpets, spent money on decorating etc and also be very happy where they are living. How the hell could such a person afford to be able to keep having to move? Why should they have too? Is there going to be any houses for them even to move into? The answer is NO and I think this bedroom tax is very unfair and has showed me what the government thinks of the lower classes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 16:58:48 GMT
With RBS reporting losses of £2billion for the first six months of the year, it's a good time to re-visit this thread, particularly as time has passed so quickly that we're now not many months away from entering the time frame given for that possible 'windfall for the taxpayer' we'd gladly accept. the92ndfish (January 2012) Sadly, it's looking as if we'll need to remain patient, as no profit sharing bonanza for the British public is currently on the horizon. Even worse, there might not even be one after 10 years, as we find that Alpine Joe's words of a few days earlier in January 2012, have proved to be a better prediction of the intervening years Alpine Joe (January 2012) Lower interest rates and more money printing announced yesterday. RBS's multi billion losses announced today. Change Governments as much as you like, change Bank of England Governors as often as you like...these policies will never work, but will only continue to stoke up bigger problems for the future. link- RBS report £2 billion loss |
|
|
|
Post by glostergull on Oct 16, 2016 14:04:43 GMT
With RBS reporting losses of £2billion for the first six months of the year, it's a good time to re-visit this thread, particularly as time has passed so quickly that we're now not many months away from entering the time frame given for that possible 'windfall for the taxpayer' we'd gladly accept. the92ndfish (January 2012) Sadly, it's looking as if we'll need to remain patient, as no profit sharing bonanza for the British public is currently on the horizon. Even worse, there might not even be one after 10 years, as we find that Alpine Joe's words of a few days earlier in January 2012, have proved to be a better prediction of the intervening years Alpine Joe (January 2012) Lower interest rates and more money printing announced yesterday. RBS's multi billion losses announced today. Change Governments as much as you like, change Bank of England Governors as often as you like...these policies will never work, but will only continue to stoke up bigger problems for the future. link- RBS report £2 billion lossI would love to know from Alpine Joe what would he survive with if he had a stroke tomorrow or his wife (assuming he had one) had one and he had to give up work to look after her. I would love an answer from him as to what I am meant to do as according to him I am a scrounger living on benefits while coping with a serious brain condition caused by Doctors who administered a drug that caused me damage which left me unable to drive or even be sure of walking without falling over. (due to serious balance issue) and will they admit what they have done. will they heck. I'm the one left to find for myself with little income beyond my £80 a week to live off. No health back up worth squat and a system that says somehow I'm fit for work because they don't want to pay me anything else so that i can even consider a job outside of the home. I didn't ask for what happened to me , neither did I ask for sympathy. But what i don't expect is some arrogant idiot coming along telling me Im a scrounger and reinforcing the attitude I have to get a job along with the rest without recourse to the responsibility that came with causing me such serious pain on a daily basis. I would love to know how you would cope with that. how would you cope with a serious lung condition or a heart attack. or stroke. how would you cope with a mental impairment or is it an attitude that I'm alright jack until something happens to me and then i expect all the support in the world. I have never had a high paying job and now I'm never likely to so can't and never could afford high fees for extra health insurance. (and yes I did look at that years ago. they wanted half of what i could earn) I paid my tax but it seems I only paid it for the benefit of Alpine joe, |
|
I'll never get the people that rail against bailing out the banks. If it hadn't have been done the UK economy would have totally tanked, if you think the credit crunch was bad, that would have been nothing if Lloyds, HBOS and RBS were allowed to collapse. The economic losses would have been devastating, these weren't just investment banks like Lehman, they were depositing bank aswell. Millions of people would have lost savings, companies would have loss their working capital, companies that rely on credit to operate would have gone under. The whole economy would have been totally wrecked.