[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

Hexx wrote:

Ookami wrote:I’m glad you’ve worked out the answer, Hexx.

So you agree it isn't working, but it shouldn't be lowered or highered? Right then. Let's get rid of it!

There are better ways to support the lower income families, making it harder for them to get work doesn’t help, as I can see.

Commander Jameson wrote:

Eighthours wrote:Expanding on my "this'll help employment" reason, the decision to take on a new member of staff is usually based on risk-reward, where you increase your costs in order to hopefully make more money in return. Often this isn't based on an "I've got an extra £20,000 so let's go for it" kind of reason - the margins between going for it and not are usually much smaller, with a tipping point as to when you think you can comfortably afford to take the risk.

For this reason, a saving of 3% on Corporation Tax will be awesome. Let's say that your company makes a taxable profit of £50,000. Presently you'd be paying £10,500 in CT (it actually went up 1% in April: thanks a bunch, Labour). With this new policy, you'd be paying £9,000 instead. Now, that saving may not sound like much to you, but to a small business the extra money could prove to be the tipping point to allow expansion.

For a larger business, the money saving will be significant and this effect will be amplified still further. At all levels of the economy, it's a really good move.

That's one way of looking at it, certainly.

What's the other way of looking at it, out of interest?

Ookami wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Ookami wrote:I’m glad you’ve worked out the answer, Hexx.

So you agree it isn't working, but it shouldn't be lowered or highered? Right then. Let's get rid of it!

There are better ways to support the lower income families, making it harder for them to get work doesn’t help, as I can see.

But that's what raising the minimum wage will do, and it's what the minimum wage already does to some extend (if you don't make the company at least 5.75per hour (actually more if you included employers NI contribution), you aren't getting hired.

But then again...it does stop employees being "abused"

(Not sure there is a "right" answer, joking aside...the best bet would be try increase the "earning" power of the poor through training/learning/self improvement. But that's a two way street and there's an element of personal accountability.)

Hexx wrote:

Ookami wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Ookami wrote:I’m glad you’ve worked out the answer, Hexx.

So you agree it isn't working, but it shouldn't be lowered or highered? Right then. Let's get rid of it!

There are better ways to support the lower income families, making it harder for them to get work doesn’t help, as I can see.

But that's what raising the minimum wage will do, and it's what the minimum wage already does to some extend (if you don't make the company at least 5.75per hour (actually more if you included employers NI contribution), you aren't getting hired.

But then again...it does stop employees being "abused"

(Not sure there is a "right" answer, joking aside...the best bet would be try increase the "earning" power of the poor through training/learning/self improvement. But that's a two way street and there's an element of personal accountability.)

You keep missing my arguments, Hexx

Eighthours wrote:

Ookami wrote:I feel minimum wage isn’t helping the poorest families because I’m in a poor family surrounded by other, poorer families; I can see for myself that it is too low because I know the problems they face, with bills and payments and all that, whether they have a breadwinner or make do with benefits.

Trouble is, if it gets raised significantly then more people will be unemployed or prices will have to be raised. Neither scenario would be good for poorer families either. Unfortunately, the answer is for the lower paid to acquire the skills and experience to become better paid. I know that's far easier to write down than actually do, and Government could certainly assist more in this than they are at the moment, but there is an element of personal responsibility here.

There are plenty of people out there with skills and experience, but who are unable to find work - I'm one of them. The problem is that the longer you are unemployed, the less employable you become. To take an example of my home region, we had plenty of skilled workers in the steel, coal and ship building industries. These industries were destroyed not for any valid economic reasons (the nations now in the forefront of these commodities heavily subsidise their own industries), but because a certain party wanted to destroy the unions, and the people who live in these areas are natural Labour voters.

Essentially, we are paying the price for Thatcherite policies in the 80's, and its simply restitution for previous bad decisions.

Hexx wrote: (if you don't make the company at least 5.75per hour (actually more if you included employers NI contribution)

Now that I'm actually paying attention to the company's wages as well as that of my clients, the employers' NI is a real killer.

Eighthours wrote:

Hexx wrote: (if you don't make the company at least 5.75per hour (actually more if you included employers NI contribution)

Now that I'm actually paying attention to the company's wages as well as that of my clients, the employers' NI is a real killer.

You should be more worried about the cost of Personal Accounts in 2012

I find it amusing the global economy is failing and british MPs are still on holiday.

Eighthours wrote:

Commander Jameson wrote:

Eighthours wrote:Expanding on my "this'll help employment" reason, the decision to take on a new member of staff is usually based on risk-reward, where you increase your costs in order to hopefully make more money in return. Often this isn't based on an "I've got an extra £20,000 so let's go for it" kind of reason - the margins between going for it and not are usually much smaller, with a tipping point as to when you think you can comfortably afford to take the risk.

For this reason, a saving of 3% on Corporation Tax will be awesome. Let's say that your company makes a taxable profit of £50,000. Presently you'd be paying £10,500 in CT (it actually went up 1% in April: thanks a bunch, Labour). With this new policy, you'd be paying £9,000 instead. Now, that saving may not sound like much to you, but to a small business the extra money could prove to be the tipping point to allow expansion.

For a larger business, the money saving will be significant and this effect will be amplified still further. At all levels of the economy, it's a really good move.

That's one way of looking at it, certainly.

What's the other way of looking at it, out of interest?

That it will lead to greater profits that lead to bigger bonuses for those at the top of the pile. It won't help those at the bottom or the middle - it never does. Any sort of social policy that big businesses have falls well below the bottom line of a P & L sheet in terms of importance.

Eighthours wrote:

new*allusion wrote: Oh come on... Exaggerating, again?!

I wish I was!

Seriously!

Holy crap - I thought you were doing it for jokes - I've just been through the last month of videos on the unions on the BBC website and the representatives cannot be classed as coming close to your description. In fact many of them were arguing for things that did makes sense and arguing against bureaucracy. Seems they may have a few things in common with the Conservatives afterall.

Unions are needed by today's society, particularly those in low pay sectors. You only need to look at what happens where unions do not exist. My brother worked in a SportsDirect.com shop during his break from university, as he has done for the past 3 years. Despite his long service and good work he is still getting paid under £5 per hour - he even wrote a letter to the senior management asking them if a payrise would be possible. Nope. Furthermore, it transpired that the company has been deliberately breaking Sunday trading rules by having its stores open for too many hours - when asked why the store manager said "Well, rules are there to be broken". What were the options open to my brother? Like it, or lump it. The retail unions are weak as kittens and, as a result nobody can do anything about it.

Commander Jameson wrote:The problem is that the longer you are unemployed, the less employable you become.

This is very true. It's an employer's natural reaction to wonder "why" someone hasn't worked for ages, unfortunately. The problem is that often this worry is a valid one, and so people like you who shouldn't have it held against you can suffer as a result.

Any guesses on the re-shuffle?

Trade chap and RKelly already off...

Hexx wrote:Any guesses on the re-shuffle?

Trade chap and RKelly already off...

I suspect Darling will be kept where he is, Milliband too.

Speaking of limited Sunday trading laws are there any plans to get rid of it anytime soon?

Commander Jameson wrote:

Eighthours wrote:

Ookami wrote:I feel minimum wage isn’t helping the poorest families because I’m in a poor family surrounded by other, poorer families; I can see for myself that it is too low because I know the problems they face, with bills and payments and all that, whether they have a breadwinner or make do with benefits.

Trouble is, if it gets raised significantly then more people will be unemployed or prices will have to be raised. Neither scenario would be good for poorer families either. Unfortunately, the answer is for the lower paid to acquire the skills and experience to become better paid. I know that's far easier to write down than actually do, and Government could certainly assist more in this than they are at the moment, but there is an element of personal responsibility here.

There are plenty of people out there with skills and experience, but who are unable to find work - I'm one of them. The problem is that the longer you are unemployed, the less employable you become. To take an example of my home region, we had plenty of skilled workers in the steel, coal and ship building industries. These industries were destroyed not for any valid economic reasons (the nations now in the forefront of these commodities heavily subsidise their own industries), but because a certain party wanted to destroy the unions, and the people who live in these areas are natural Labour voters.

Essentially, we are paying the price for Thatcherite policies in the 80's, and its simply restitution for previous bad decisions.

Arthur Scargill had a rather large role in the destruction of unions too don't forget, and the economic reasons for the reduction in the coal industry are fairly clear - power generation moved inextricably away from coal to gas & oil after North Sea Oil came on stream. Steel is a little less clear, as Britain still produces some of the best in the world, but for sheer mass production we cannot compete. The whole UK economy has moved away heavy industry, mainly due to overseas competition. Globalisation and the advent of the huge container ships moving goods extremely cheaply changed the world economy by an amazing extent, this is oft forgotten.
Just blaming the Conservatives for making some very difficult choices is quite immature. Yes, they did not want to make the same mistakes as Heath as that did bring the country to a virtual stand still, thanks to the Unions, but that doesn't mean they were out to spit in the face of the 'working class' as you seem to be suggesting.

0955: John Hutton is leaving the business department to go to defence, the BBC learns. Peter Mandelson is tipped to replace Mr Hutton at business.

0950: There is a flurry of speculation about where Peter Mandelson could be heading. Could it be the business or defence departments? Mr Mandelson is no longer an MP and has a year of his term as a EU commissioner remaining. James Landale says news of Mr Mandelson's return is "amazing". He also confirms that Geoff Hoon will be remaining in cabinet and not going to Brussels.

0940: Gordon Brown has left Downing Street for a memorial service in Luton so any announcement could be delayed for a while.

0930: Here's some news completely out of leftfield - Peter Mandelson is to return to government in some capacity. The EU commissioner resigned twice from Tony Blair's government but could it be third-time lucky for him under Gordon Brown? It is being reported that Geoff Hoon will replace Peter Mandelson in Brussels but this, we stress, has not been confirmed.

Mandy?

Can you be in the Cabinet if you're not an MP? Surely not. So how exactly is this going to work? Presumably they'll parachute Mandy into a safe seat for a by-election in 6 months. If they have any safe seats by then.

At least he'll get to resign for a third time now. He's going for the record!

Margaret Beckett.

*Horse.jpg*

EDIT: Seems that Mandy will be given a seat in the House of Lords.

[Mandy] is expected be made Business Secretary with a seat in the House of Lords, as he is no longer an MP.

Could be one of the few sensible decisions Brown has made. Mandy could shake things up a bit with the banks.

[quote="Guardian"Des Browne, who had combined defence with the post of Scottish secretary, is stepping down[/quote]

Aces. Ever heard the guy speak? Painful.

Why is there noone in British politics with genuine charisma or panache? Is it a requirement to have a charisma bypass to be a politician these days? Screw policies, let's get some sizzle going.