Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:46 pm  

liedetector wrote:

And to answer yours no i dont live in Wakefield, and I fail to see why my opinion of this situation is effected from where i live, this is not endemic of one particular area but is happening up and down the entire length and bredth of the country just a point from your post, not 1 person on benefits EARNS their money and thats my point, i am not suggesting they arent given help but, they should EARN their money, get them repairing roads with council gangs, even give them a scraper and clean the chewing gum off the streets, get them doing anything but for the community for the public that provides their living, if they dont like it, THEN they can wave bye bye to free money. or do what others do and get a job.

But CallMeDave and Ozzie are telling us we are spending too much on the public sector.
They are squeezing councils into sacking people.
Those people are ending up on the dole.

You see, by HM Gov telling Councils to save x percent, the councils then look at what they spend and see that they have contracts with private firms ... they can't renege on those contracts ... so they have to reduce something else by more-than-x-percent in order to get to x percent overall.
The things being cut are probably the very sort of thing that you are saying unemployed people should be doing.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:49 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I agree with Mintball here - taxpayers should not be subsidising private enterprise. However who is behind this - is it Tescos or is it the Government. I am sure Tesco are more than willing to pay what is required to ensure the correct levels of labour - they do employ approximately 200,000 staff...

And I'm also fairly sure that they won't have objected too much to the proposition of free labour.

As I've mentioned before, the government has effectively been advertising for big businesses (Unilever & McDonalds, for starters) in its 'health advice' - which came only a few months after the government invited the same companies to discuss public health.

These are also some of the same (very) big businesses that promised to create the jobs that would remove the effects of the cuts. They are not doing this.

Perhaps one should look at corporate donations to the Conservative Party ... I do suspect such things a entirely mutual arrangement based, not least, on ideology.

Sal Paradise wrote:

... Where I do disagree with Mintball is this we as taxpayers - I bet Tesco pays significantly more into the taxation pot in corporation tax and employer NI that 99.9% of all businesses in the UK - Tescos are every bit as much a tax payer as Mintball.

That doesn't entitle them (or any other company) to free labour. They pay lots of tax because they make millions and millions in profit - although not enough, according to the City earlier this year, which isn't happy with Tesco's growth. Which does raise a different question about why we need continued growth.

This is essentially like a tax break: yet every one of the FTSE 100 companies is already using tax havens, so why do big companies need further hand outs (in effect) from government? They're not poor. They're not suffering.

If we seriously think that some claimants might benefit from some form of 'work experience', then I would far rather see people do things like working for a spell with elderly patients in a hospital. It is more socially productive - potentially on both sides. But I am very wary of forcing people into working for their benefits - not least because it assumes that we have a nation of skivvers. Ys, some people take the proverbial. But the majority of people who are out of work do not. They want to work. They want to earn a living. They want to get a proper wage with all that means. There is a very causal tendency among many people to fall into the trap of assuming a nation of the workshy. A little as people assume a nation of people dodging work because they're on the sick - whereas the facts (and the personal stories) tell a different story - for which you can see the relevant thread on this forum.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:01 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

... I bet Tesco pays significantly more into the taxation pot in corporation tax and employer NI that 99.9% of all businesses in the UK - Tescos are every bit as much a tax payer as Mintball.

And so it should, seeing as it makes more profit than most businesses, it's only right that it should pay more in tax.
Nonetheless, Tesco has been (at least) suspected of paying much less than it should by utilising a web of Swiss and Luxembourg companies.
Add to that Cadbury's (i.e. Kraft), Vodafone, Walker's Crisps etc etc ad nauseam ... and pretty soon you could pay off the entire deficit.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:04 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

And so it should, seeing as it makes more profit than most businesses, it's only right that it should pay more in tax.
Nonetheless, Tesco has been (at least) suspected of paying much less than it should by utilising a web of Swiss and Luxembourg companies.
Add to that Cadbury's (i.e. Kraft), Vodafone, Walker's Crisps etc etc ad nauseam ... and pretty soon you could pay off the entire deficit.

Are you saying, in effect, that we're not "all in this together"?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:09 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Are you saying, in effect, that we're not "all in this together"?

Brace yourself lady ... Yes.

In the words of the lovely Leona Helmsley "... only little people pay taxes".

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:10 pm  

liedetector wrote:

And to answer yours no i dont live in Wakefield.

Really? Then the ISP you are using would be interested in that then.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:23 pm  

liedetector wrote:

And to answer yours no i dont live in Wakefield, and I fail to see why my opinion of this situation is effected from where i live, this is not endemic of one particular area but is happening up and down the entire length and bredth of the country just a point from your post, not 1 person on benefits EARNS their money and thats my point, i am not suggesting they arent given help but, they should EARN their money, get them repairing roads with council gangs, even give them a scraper and clean the chewing gum off the streets, get them doing anything but for the community for the public that provides their living, if they dont like it, THEN they can wave bye bye to free money. or do what others do and get a job.

Will you push me along in my wheelchair while I repair the roads? Will you help me put my splints on when my wrists and fingers are so swollen I can't move them from clearing chewing gum off the streets? Will you take me to A&E when I collapse from severe fatigue? Will you come and get me out of bed, take me to the toilet, wash me and dress me the next day so I'm ready to "earn" my benefit money all over again? Oh, you won't?? Suppose I'll have to wave "byebye to my free money" then and just be sick and disabled in the gutter. Idiot.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:26 pm  

liedetector wrote:

And to answer yours no i dont live in Wakefield,

Sorry about that, it's just that we used to have an itinerant poster who hailed from Wakefield and used to post surprisingly similar guff to yours. I thought you might be related.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:26 pm  

I will again state i dont live in Wakefield. I live 11.3 miles from the centre. How do i know a travel there to work. Is that good enough for you micro questioning

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:28 pm  

One mans guff is another mans sense.