Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

SarahBell

Members
  • Posts

    22,204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SarahBell

  1. 1 hour ago, Hullabaloo82 said:

    Aah the old budget gym approach. Take on a 'big box store' building on the edge of town which is no longer used because it's previous occupants have gone online, fill it full of cheap gym stuff and use the associated economies of scale to undercut your rivals. 

    I suspect a very small minority of btl people have deep enough pockets to compete with these chains. 


    The guy is a fan of 'rich dad poor dad'.

  2. On 17/01/2017 at 10:39 AM, Northern Welsh Midlander said:

    What type of shops? All I see are empty units or massive shopping centres owned by corporate interests. Can't see there being any gold at the end of that rainbow, the future of shopping for many is online, the retail space required to cater for the luddites and those who want to shop as a hobby is well bellow our current capacity.

    Read something today that said something about buildings out of favour with real businesses can be turned into gyms! 

  3. " A combative Jeremy Corbyn has said he welcomes the tough byelections triggered by the resignations of two Labour MPs as an opportunity to challenge the government. "

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/15/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-relishes-byelections-as-chance-to-challenge-government


    Richmond By-election result 

    Yes, the Richmond one certain did that.

    Party Candidate Votes % ±
      Liberal Democrat Sarah Olney 20,510 49.68 +30.41
      Independent Zac Goldsmith 18,638 45.15 -13.06[n 1]
      Labour Christian Wolmar 1,515 3.67 -8.67
      Monster Raving Loony Howling Laud Hope 184 0.45 N/A
      Independent Fiona Natasha Syms [63] 173 0.42 N/A
      Christian Peoples Dominic Francis Stockford 164 0.40 N/A
      One Love Maharaja Jammu and Kashmir 67 0.16 N/A
      No label David Powell 32 0.08 N/A

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park_by-election,_2016

  4. 46 minutes ago, london_thirtythree said:

    Looks like the Accountants are on the case in putting out the fear that HMRC is getting wise and targetting Landlords not declaring their income.

    http://www.qdosvantage.com/let-property-campaign/ 

    According to HMRC the Let Property Campaign gives the taxpayer, 'an opportunity to bring your tax affairs up to date and to get the best possible terms to pay the tax you owe.'

    The use of HMRC’s Connect Data System is making the targeting of landlords a potentially easy option. It processes data, now being obtained through information requests under Schedule 36 FA 2008 from third parties, such as Land Registry, Estate/Managing Agents, DSS etc.

    Indeed, we have identified increased HMRC activity through the claims currently being made under the fee protection polices for rental income and landlords. Not just on UK properties but also those overseas.

    Fab. I hope they find lots! 

  5. 22 minutes ago, richc said:

    They could just outsource every low-paid employee to another company and get around this rule.  It would be very easy to do.  


    Easy: 10x the lowest wage paid to abnyone outsourced by any company.

    Therefore anyone who uses sweatshop labour would also be a bit embarrassed in the wages department.

  6. 11 hours ago, ChumpusRex said:

    Difficult to see how they could blame in on civil servants. The scandal here is that the civil servants actually sent warning letters to the ministers involved detailing excessive claims, and recommending the early closure of the scheme. In response to this, further investigations by civil servants were blocked, and the scheme extended. 

    Then there are the links between the company supplying the wood pellets (Balcas Ltd) and the department for the economy (who ran the RHI scheme)...

    Whoops.
     

  7. 2 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

    Well....that's £1250 divided by 10, but yeah, they will have less to pay on the rent. 

    If CI came in, it would have to do be done gradually.  Our economy couldn't cope with millions of people giving up their jobs.  Much more automation would have to happen first on a gradual basis to make CI inevitable.  The benefits system would have to be gradually chanaged to make the change-over from benefits to CI smooth.  I can still see the 5,000,000 disabled getting disability allowances as they will likely need that extra money. 

    Anything other than CI basic isn't going to change a thing.

    If there's a way to get more money for doing nothing people will have a bloody good go at getting it.

  8. 4 hours ago, EnglishinWales said:

    Have you ever claimed housing benefit; it's a convoluted mess. Full of arcane rules that don't work. CI has to replace all benefits to work, keeping benefits for some people and not others means the stigma and discrimination around them is still a problem. Means testing is expensive because of the admin costs.

    It would be cheaper to raise the CI amount to include housing costs and bring back rent control. I'd say £150 a week minimum.

     

    So then its not citizens income, its to fooked up already.

  9. 6 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

    Most self-employment businesses fail.  People don't realise how hard it is to set up a business - even a one-man band business - it's unlikely anyone would succeed without being 100% committed to it, and that's only if they identified a real need for what they provide. Treating a business as some casual "top up money for my CI" means that business is unlikely to succeed in the first place.

    Cash flow is the main reason. And I assume not realising quite how much the tax man wants and that he doesn't want it when you earn it but at some point in the future. I suspect a lot of people don't have the will power to not spend it all.
     

  10. 1 minute ago, ccc said:

    Someone working minimum wage today would be better off under a CI.

    Yet again - this is central to the entire thing. 

    Long term sickies and dolites as you call them would be worse off under a CI. Surely you must agree that's a good thing ?!?!?!?

    I really don't think many people get the very basic logic of this. So let's take it down to it's very lowest level. Let's forget how much it would be or what rents would be or any of that.

    Under a CI implemented properly everyone who works will be better off and everyone who does not work will be worse off. 

    Is that good or bad. Yes or no. Simple answer please. 

    Only if CI is kept as a simple CI and no top up HB or disability stuff.

    If you need a wheelchair then you should have a wheelchair. If you need a carer you should have a carer. 
    That might mean not living quite the same life as people do now though. 
    The only sensible way to provide mass care for people is to put them closer together in supported living. Whilst it's ok for old people to be put into sheltered housing I'm not sure young disabled people would feel the same.

  11. 20 minutes ago, ccc said:

    A CI ENCOURAGES people to work.

    Today's benefit system does the complete opposite.

    I must have literally typed this onto this site one hundred times. 

    It's really not that difficult to see the benefits.


    I think you've not met enough dolites and long term sickies. 

    The current benefits system doesn't encourage people to better themselves. CI might, but at the expense of anyone who is working minimum wage at the moment and paying very little in the way of tax.

  12. 31 minutes ago, John51 said:

    For CI to work, it has to be affordable and the best way of ensuring that imo is have the CI set to the absolute minimum.

    Without any other state support, how little can a single person with no dependents live on? My take is 25% of the NAW, which would be ~£125 a week. In my area there are rooms available from £60 a week and the remaining £65 is close to the current JSA. Crap way to live for decades but doable.

    The complications arise with people who currently get a shiny new car every three years and other categories of people who currently rake in shedloads.
     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.