Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by byron78

  1. This shower being case and point of course. We're going to end up with three main parties nobody wants to vote for! UKIP must be looking forward to 2015.
  2. I quite liked him, if only for his wonderfully withering George Dubyah put downs.
  3. Eh? If someone gets a pay rise of 2% and inflation is 2% they've effectively had a pay freeze. As inflation is above 2% the original poster has effectively had a pay cut - even with a 2% wage increase he's worse off then he was on his lower salary last year. Lots of things dictate inflation (including the central banks printing an f load of money). Who benefits? Not the workers (usually).
  4. No data for North Korea (obviously). There is CIA data for China though - the most recent data available is on the Gina index (a quantified representation of a nation's Lorenz curve). China scores 48.0 whereas America's scores 45.0 - the two are actually scarily similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality The above would seem to suggest the Nordic model does work surprisingly well (which might terrify a few folk who think socialism makes you grow another giant red head that will eat the face off your everyday one). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
  5. No it wouldn't. We need more houses built. Your solution isn't a bad one, but it doesn't solve the problem of replacing aging housing stock and the fact there isn't enough of it in the first place. We need millions of new homes. Only two real solutions to solve that: either the state builds (which has worked big time in the UK before in terms of houses getting built and economic recovery, whether we like it or not), or the state lets anyone build anywhere they want and cuts all of the red tape stopping property development in this country by anyone but the big hoarding house building companies (untried, and would of course mean "goodbye green belt" - yes you could tax brown field sites if they're not developed quickly, but this still isn't doing enough). I'd go for a bit of both personally. I don't think the state building is ideal, but it's blocking anyone else building big time at the moment and helping create a monopoly for the few private companies that do. That's an infinitely worse situation than "evil big state building!" IMO. I'd much rather they'd built houses instead of bailing banks and protecting banksters.
  6. Spot on re: MPs yeah. I meant grass root supporters though. They should be furious.
  7. It's the foundation for this mess. Plenty of fuel on top of course, but Thatcher and co selling off council homes for short term tax cuts was madness. In this country,because of the complicated planning laws and red tape, the state needs to build homes if enough are ever going to get built. Would also force private developers to stop hoarding and actually develop quickly and efficiently if they want to profit. Public and private sector can be wings on the same bird if used properly. Too much of one wing or the other and we just go round in circles.
  8. Why aren't more Tories up in arms about this? By supporting the banksters, Osborne is singlehandedly losing them the next election.
  9. Very similar I'd imagine. With many in the top 5% (or rather their landowning families/relatives) having been there for the past 1000 years.
  10. Only if every company is, or can be, absent. If only a select band of companies are exempt from or avoiding tax via this method, it's effectively a subsidy.
  11. That's £60 more than a childless couple would get on benefits (which according to you elsewhere is excessive. Pensioners can also get full disability and housing benefit btw, and many also get full council tax benefit. They're are also hands down the biggest drain on the NHS). The reality is that the vast majority of the benefit bill - as shown by actual statistic and not lazy heresay - are pensioners. It's well over 50%. The unemployed constitute under 4%. That's 12 pensioners for everybody on the dole, with each of those pensioners getting significantly more than said dolite does in benefit. Do you really think it's the unemployed folk who are the biggest drain? Again, presuming all these foreign unemployed types are signing on, they still only add up to under 4% of the benefit bill. You could stop paying ANYONE unemployed and you wouldn't fix anything (other than killing quite a lot of folk I would have thought). Maybe the 50%+ of the benefit bill made up of pensioners is the result of lots of evil foreign pensioners coming over here and stealing our jobs over 65+ benefits?
  12. May as well ask "Won't you get sick?" Or "Won't you ever lose your job?" I'm not arguing that old people get nothing, just that they represent the vast majority of the benefit bill. Unless a government is brave enough to tackle what pensioners get/are entitled to, everything else really is just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. The unemployed are getting all the flak but represent a miniscule proportion of the actual benefit bill. I'd call that lazy/weak government looking for scapegoats and not solutions. This vast waste of public time and money irks me more than those poor sods out of work personally.
  13. Where I'm at it's more 70% OAP, 10% youth, 20% new mum's, 10% everyone else (again, yes, certainly categories cross over). Come to think of it, a doctors waiting room is probably a brilliant location to get a proper 'rule of thumb' idea of your local areas benefit bill.
  14. Spot on. This is going to get a lot worse too as more people reach old age with insufficient pension pots. Big grey time bomb.
  15. Same. Only ever needed benefit when young and unable to find work. Have paid loads in tax now (not quite seven figure, but significant six figures), but wouldn't have even been able to start my business without tax credits to get me through first few years. If I couldn't get benefits and wasn't able to start up myself I probably would have grown pot or something because the chances of finding work round here are so remote. You'd just end up with a generation of young criminals if you stopped helping them (cue someone hilariously pointing out we already have this).
  16. True. And now they've engineered the real party of the city back into power to protect them after getting away with shafting Brown (and us) for so long. This global banking elite are a lot cleverer than a certain one eyed Scotsman.
  17. Interesting to note this government are presently on course for a higher net migration figure than the previous one. Lots of tough talk at election time, make up a nice round number (oh let's say 100000).... make the word "immigrant" sound as menacing as possible. Panto politics. No substance and almost entirely meaningless, but huge tabloid reading swathes lap it up.
  18. Can't blame anyone for voting Brown out, but Camoron and co were only ever going to look after the city.
  19. It's one of the things I get quite angry about actually. I'd much rather the money used for the banking bail out and all the money rolling off the presses was used to actually... you know... make something that benefits the majority of people. In this country, the state really does need to be involved in house building if you want it to get done quickly and to the scale needed - there's just so much red tape and so many NIMBYs, you've got to force these things through at government level. As soon as the state stopped doing that in the 80s it all started going a bit wonky.
  20. You'd have thought. But chop the wrong areas (or chop badly) and you can end up doing more damage (or costing the country more money) a la Duncan-Smith.
  21. Lots of good ideas in this thread, and I like your left-field one: Legalise cannabis. Pot being illegal DOESN'T stop it being there and it certainly doesn't stop organised crime making billions selling it. (As a kid, it was actually easier to get weed than it was booze - because it's illegal other kids at school were selling it because there's a demand and supplying it made them money during an era of record youth unemployment. Given Boris, Osborne, and Camoron have all puffed at some point themselves too, let's not kid ourselves drug dealing is something that only happens in 'pleb' schools). Pot being illegal DOES mean our courts/prisons/police spend billions each year fighting the so called war on drugs. I'm not a stoner (or even a smoker) btw, but it just seems like a really stupid thing for the state to be getting involved in (and the state actually seems to be spending billions to create many of the problems it's spending the billions to try to solve). It will never happen of course (the Daily Wail/Express, that so often bemoan the size of the state, seem to want the state to remain overbearing, overpaying, and oversized on this issue). The Daily Wail/Express are stupid papers written by stupid people for stupider people. Let's ignore them and do something sensible for a change.
  22. Credit where credits due: Brown got an outrageous price for 3G. I was surprised how low the original 3.5 billion was for 4G, so that dropping by nearly 40% is a surprise. I know Osborne has been very soft on Vodafone and other mobile phone tax dodging in the past - perhaps seen as weak and easy to lean on?
  • 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.