5 years hard labour ?

[Bper]

30 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

A lot of young, and not so young, people want everything NOW, and are loath to wait patiently if that can be avoided.  Many working people in Union membership are in this “will not wait” group - some possibly influential shop stewards -  are ready to stir up and organise strike action to force employers (particularly in the public sector) into giving pay rises which may often be in excess of reasonable.

The public sector employees form a very large percentage of the UK workforce, so exorbitant pay rises, which are financed by the taxpayer, can result in private sector employees being artificially held back in the pay scales, because their bosses have the conflict of enforced price rises causing loss of business, so they have to resist anything but minimal rises, and even give zero increases if they can get away with that.

The growing impatience for immediate rewards is seen across all age groups, including many in the workforce. This attitude is particularly evident in public sector employees, who often use their strong union power to demand pay rises, sometimes beyond what's reasonable. These demands can lead to strikes, pushing employers to meet their requests.Public sector workers, funded by taxpayers, have significant leverage, while private sector employees face tighter wage controls due to the need for businesses to stay competitive. When public sector wages rise sharply, it can put pressure on private businesses, leading to a situation where private sector workers fall behind in pay, creating inequality.This impatience for quick gains contributes to economic strain. High public sector wage increases can drive inflation, which makes it harder for private businesses to raise wages, resulting in a vicious cycle of rising costs and stagnant pay.To address this, there needs to be a balanced approach to wage negotiations that considers both sectors' needs. A cultural shift towards valuing patience and long-term planning over immediate gratification could help ease these tensions, ensuring fair wages without jeopardising economic stability.

[Cyker]

6 hours ago, AndyN01 said:

I know it's really old fashioned but.....

I was always brought up to understand that the only things you can have are those you can pay for.

I completely accept that "big" purchases, such as, say, a house cannot be funded as a single payment from normal earnings/savings but surely, day to day purchases should be paid for from day to day income?

It'd a piece of cake to take out a mortgage on a phenomenal mega £££'s property secure in the knowledge that "you" might not be responsible for funding the payments in 5 years time.

Yeah, it's quite terrifying how much debt most of the countries in the world run on and continue to acrue. The USA is particularly famous for this as they keep running out of money and close down government offices until they can pass an emergency bill to raise their maximum debt ceiling every year.

I'm curious what would happen if all the creditors called in every country's debt. Would all these countries, including ours, come under the control of a finance company?? Or more likely write off all that debt, in which case what would be the consequences?? 

I know Cameron tried to get ours under control with his austerity plan, using Canada's successful attempt as a template, but that's backfired horribly, wrecking the public sector, schools, the NHS, etc. (All of you complaining how you can't get doctors appointments, talk to anyone on the council etc., it's all because of that!) and worst of all, we've not lowered our debt appreciably so all that pain was for nothing!

I honestly don't know what they could do to dig out of this; If I played Sim City the way most countries seem to be run I would have lost the game 15 times over, and we don't have to worry about legally-distinct-Godzilla attacks!

 

 

[Bper]

13 hours ago, Cyker said:

Yeah, it's quite terrifying how much debt most of the countries in the world run on and continue to acrue. The USA is particularly famous for this as they keep running out of money and close down government offices until they can pass an emergency bill to raise their maximum debt ceiling every year.

I'm curious what would happen if all the creditors called in every country's debt. Would all these countries, including ours, come under the control of a finance company?? Or more likely write off all that debt, in which case what would be the consequences?? 

I know Cameron tried to get ours under control with his austerity plan, using Canada's successful attempt as a template, but that's backfired horribly, wrecking the public sector, schools, the NHS, etc. (All of you complaining how you can't get doctors appointments, talk to anyone on the council etc., it's all because of that!) and worst of all, we've not lowered our debt appreciably so all that pain was for nothing!

I honestly don't know what they could do to dig out of this; If I played Sim City the way most countries seem to be run I would have lost the game 15 times over, and we don't have to worry about legally-distinct-Godzilla attacks!

 

 

You’ve raised a point about global debt and how governments handle their finances. The idea of creditors suddenly calling in every country’s debt is definitely worrying, but it’s not very likely. Most creditors actually want countries to stay afloat because a major economic collapse would cause chaos worldwide and hurt their own interests.

Instead of taking over countries, creditors usually prefer to restructure the debt, extend payment terms, or renegotiate deals.As for writing off debt, that could have serious consequences too. It might shake the trust in the financial system, making it harder for countries to borrow in the future. There’s also the risk of inflation if governments start printing money to pay off the debts, which would reduce the value of currency and people’s savings.

You’re right about the austerity measures under Cameron. The aim was to reduce the deficit and control the national debt, but it ended up having a huge impact on public services like schools, the NHS, and local councils. And with the debt not really decreasing, it's like all that pain was for nothing. It shows just how difficult it is to balance the need for fiscal responsibility with maintaining essential services.Going forward, it’s clear that just cutting spending isn’t the answer. Maybe a more balanced approach is needed one that includes clever investments in growth areas, better tax collection, and reducing the wasteful spending. Like in Sim City, too many cuts without a plan to boost growth can lead to a downward spiral, but smart investments can turn things around.In the end, it’s a difficult issue with no simple solutions. Governments have to be particularly careful in how they navigate these financial issues, especially when there's so much at stake.👍

 

[AndyN01]

15 hours ago, Haliotis said:

.......because their bosses have the conflict of enforced price rises causing loss of business, so they have to resist anything but minimal rises, and even give zero increases if they can get away with that.

That reminds me of an example of "getting away with it."

Business says....sorry employees, no pay rise this year, business it tough and costs are tight.

At the next company meeting the boss turns up in a brand spanking new....Aston Martin.

For some reason the "employees" weren't too impressed and any "goodwill" evaporated.

[Eddie G]

Am waiting on the Oct budget, will the talk of the single person council tax discount of 25% be stopped? will a 5-10p increase on fuel duty come in? at this rate it will be hard to tell that the Tories are not in power still! time will tell......

Edited September 4 by Eddie G
Added information

[Bper]

3 hours ago, Eddie G said:

Am waiting on the Oct budget, will the talk of the single person council tax discount of 25% be stopped? will a 5-10p increase on fuel duty come in? at this rate it will be hard to tell that the Tories are not in power still! time will tell......

You're likely right, Eddie. The scrapping of the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners suggests that a fuel duty increase of 10p is quite possible. Howard Cox from Fair Fuel UK has mentioned hearing from various sources that this increase is on the way. Given the government's focus on cost-cutting, it's also possible they might review the 25% single-person discount on council tax. If they’re willing to cut benefits for pensioners, other financial supports could be at risk too.😠

[Cyker]

9 hours ago, Eddie G said:

Am waiting on the Oct budget, will the talk of the single person council tax discount of 25% be stopped? will a 5-10p increase on fuel duty come in? at this rate it will be hard to tell that the Tories are not in power still! time will tell......

To be fair, this sort of thing is *exactly* what people should have expected from Labour.

Broadly speaking, Labour are the socialist party, so high taxes but the state looks after you; Free schools and NHS and such are traditional Labour institutions.

Conservatives are all about minimal taxes and let the free market have at it, so you take more home but it's every one for themselves.

That's why I wish they'd co-operate with each other more as what we want is a balance of the two philosophies - If the Conservatives had their way we'd have to pay for ambulance services and childbirth like the Americans do, but if Labour had their way most of what you earn'd go to the state.

IMHO though the biggest mistake was the conservatives privatising so much public infrastructure - Public money built all those things, but they sold them for a song and all the profits now go to private companies, but when they break down due to lack of investment for some reason we get the bill again - it's insane. If they hadn't made such a short-sighted choice to all all that stuff off to make a quick buck, we'd all be better off now.

[Bper]

25 minutes ago, Cyker said:

To be fair, this sort of thing is *exactly* what people should have expected from Labour.

Broadly speaking, Labour are the socialist party, so high taxes but the state looks after you; Free schools and NHS and such are traditional Labour institutions.

Conservatives are all about minimal taxes and let the free market have at it, so you take more home but it's every one for themselves.

That's why I wish they'd co-operate with each other more as what we want is a balance of the two philosophies - If the Conservatives had their way we'd have to pay for ambulance services and childbirth like the Americans do, but if Labour had their way most of what you earn'd go to the state.

IMHO though the biggest mistake was the conservatives privatising so much public infrastructure - Public money built all those things, but they sold them for a song and all the profits now go to private companies, but when they break down due to lack of investment for some reason we get the bill again - it's insane. If they hadn't made such a short-sighted choice to all all that stuff off to make a quick buck, we'd all be better off now.

You’re right about the key differences between Labour and the Conservatives. Labour generally supports higher taxes to fund public services like the NHS and free schools, while the Conservatives prefer lower taxes and letting the free market take charge. Ideally, we’d strike a balance between the two well funded public services without overly high taxes.The privatisation of public infrastructure by the Conservatives has been a major issue. They sold off assets that public money built for short-term gain, and now, when things go wrong, it’s the public who ends up paying the price. If those assets had stayed public, we might not be facing some of the problems we have today.😠

 

[Cyker]

Are you training an AI off our posts!?!?   

 

[Rhymes with Paris]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

Broadly speaking, Labour are the socialist party, so high taxes but the state looks after you; Free schools and NHS and such are traditional Labour institutions.

Aye Cyker,in theory, but in practice, not so much, I fear the worst for people in my position.

But I have just finished reading a book about the Danish socialist system, apparently most do not mind one bit paying very high taxes,as the state really does look after you, and family in return.

Instead of the fake system of less, but still high taxes, but no actual care or workable solutions to anything.

 

 

[Cyker]

This is why I was saying co-operation is desperately needed - The conservatives have been slowly dismantling the NHS, schools etc. to stealth-privatise them (e.g. academies, public-private partnerships) the entire time they were in power which is why they're all so badly underfunded and substandard now. That damage is going to cost a metric ****ton of money to put them back where they should be, but is it worth bothering if, when the conservatives get back in power, they just undo all that work again?

They both need to agree to a long term plan of what services to support and what to scrap instead of this stupid money-wasting cycle where all they do is keep spending vast amounts of *our* money to undo each other's work instead of *actually* improving the country.

But I can't see that ever happening unless there is a major change in how politics work - It's why I was positing that idea about abolishing political parties altogether so there's no defined "sides".

 

[Rhymes with Paris]

Ah yes, billions of £ "improving" things, and changing things, instead of actually making things that already are in place actually work properly.

Ah well, I don't usually comment on politics.

But a few of us on here probably could constitute a common sense party.

 

[Cyker]

Hmm, would a Grumpy Old Men party get a surprisingly lot of support  do we think...?  

 

[Big_D]

I think the Grumpy Old Men Party would be a huge improvement. 

 

 

[AndyN01]

9 hours ago, Big_D said:

I think the Grumpy Old Men Party would be a huge improvement. 

 

 

Are there some application forms somewhere on the forum.... Please

I've posted already that infrastructure should be well away from politicians. They wouldn't know or care about the long term.

 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, AndyN01 said:

Are there some application forms somewhere on the forum.... Please

I've posted already that infrastructure should be well away from politicians. They wouldn't know or care about the long term.

 

Andy, Official forms are available on the Grumpy old man (The things I hate). In order to be considered for leadership please submit your manifesto for consideration by the members.😂😂

[Mjolinor]

7 hours ago, Bper said:

Andy, Official forms are available on the Grumpy old man (The things I hate). In order to be considered for leadership please submit your manifesto for consideration by the members.😂😂

Bah, humbug, he aint suitable, none of you are.

[Bper]

The Treasury expects the new full state pension to increase by more than £400 a year in cash terms, outpacing inflation. This is largely due to the near certainty that the state pension will be boosted by the average earnings figures set to be released next week. 

Under the triple lock system, the state pension rises each April by whichever is highest: inflation, the average UK wage increase, or 2.5%. 

This increase will push many pensioners into paying tax, as it will take their pension above the £12,570 tax threshold. Surely, the tax threshold should be raised to at least £15,000 to reflect this change.🙁

 

[AndyN01]

2 hours ago, Bper said:

.........Surely, the tax threshold should be raised to at least £15,000 to reflect this change.🙁

 

If the "minimum wage" is £11.44 an hour then for a 40 hour week that makes about £22K a year with 4 weeks holiday.

So wouldn't it make sense to put the tax threshold at say, £20K if that's the "minimum" that you can live on?

He giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other 😜

[Moleman]

41 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

If the "minimum wage" is £11.44 an hour then for a 40 hour week that makes about £22K a year with 4 weeks holiday.

So wouldn't it make sense to put the tax threshold at say, £20K if that's the "minimum" that you can live on?

He giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other 😜

Stop it!

Logic does not work!

[Bper]

5 hours ago, AndyN01 said:

If the "minimum wage" is £11.44 an hour then for a 40 hour week that makes about £22K a year with 4 weeks holiday.

So wouldn't it make sense to put the tax threshold at say, £20K if that's the "minimum" that you can live on?

He giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other 😜

I think the threshold should be raised to 20k but the problem with raising it to this level would be the loss of tax revenue which they already receive from pensioners who are above the £12,570.

£15k may be more acceptable in the short term but it must be raised and soon.

[Primus1]

Raise the threshold to a minimum of 20k, impose a windfall tax on the utility and fuel companies, make the non doms pay the correct tax rates, that would go some way to ease the poverty problem for many..

[Bper]

Royal Mail has announced it will hike the price of first class stamps by 30p due to "very real and urgent" financial challenges.

The increase, which will kick in from 7 October, will see the price of a first class stamp rise to £1.65, while second class stamps will remain at 85p. Not a small rise but 30p on a bl**dy stamp. What next £5 a stamp.🤬

[Cyker]

This is why they should never have been privatised - Their use inevitably becomes less and less in the face of electronic communications, esp. e-mail, but they still have to provide the same levels of service by law, and it's just not tenable with socialist-level pricing, so we're going to see increasing rises as use dwindles since they can't downsize the service.

I worry price rises are just going to increase the death spiral of them and then the people who DO rely on the service will get screwed.

That said, this will make 1st and 2nd stamps increasingly valuable - I bought a load several hikes and last had them exchanged for the new barcode ones; Reckon they've near-doubled in value in the time I've had them!!  

[Mjolinor]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

This is why they should never have been privatised - Their use inevitably becomes less and less in the face of electronic communications, esp. e-mail, but they still have to provide the same levels of service by law, and it's just not tenable with socialist-level pricing, so we're going to see increasing rises as use dwindles since they can't downsize the service.

I worry price rises are just going to increase the death spiral of them and then the people who DO rely on the service will get screwed.

That said, this will make 1st and 2nd stamps increasingly valuable - I bought a load several hikes and last had them exchanged for the new barcode ones; Reckon they've near-doubled in value in the time I've had them!!  

Are you allowed to exchange them for cash still at the PO? You used to be able to.