Shameless labour

ILW

TheMoneySpider wrote: »

Scrappage schemes and VAT cuts got people spending. Job cuts and tax rises make the economy shrink



Pay a man to dig a hole, pay another man to fill it in.

I was wondering what had happened to Gordon Brown.

abaxas

ILW wrote: »

I was wondering what had happened to Gordon Brown.

Deleted from history.

TheMoneySpider

ILW wrote: »

I was wondering what had happened to Gordon Brown.

Well we have my plan...where Chancellor MoneySpider get's most of our money back in tax anyway or that gurning imbecile Osborne's plan where the two guys are unemployed and drawing benefits.

It's just smalltime, unimaginative, ambitionless economics...but as long is it isn't media moguls, captains of industry and old Etonians suffering then nobody cares right.

ILW

abaxas wrote: »

Deleted from history.

But what a legacy.

abaxas

ILW wrote: »

But what a legacy.

Who?

All I can remember, was someone call Mandleson. Wasn't he in charge?

ILW

TheMoneySpider wrote: »

Well we have my plan...where Chancellor MoneySpider get's most of our money back in tax anyway or that gurning imbecile Osborne's plan where the two guys are unemployed and drawing benefits.

It's just smalltime, unimaginative, ambitionless economics...but as long is it isn't media moguls, captains of industry and old Etonians suffering then nobody cares right.

Fairytale economics, constatly spend more than you earn and eventually it all crashes. Actually pretty simple really.

TheMoneySpider

ILW wrote: »

Fairytale economics, constatly spend more than you earn and eventually it all crashes. Actually pretty simple really.

Well economic stimulus seemed to help....until the wrong sort of snow arrived, isn't that right George.

Graham_Devon

TheMoneySpider wrote: »

Well economic stimulus seemed to help....until the wrong sort of snow arrived, isn't that right George.

Good luck guys. You need it.

I'm just sat here laughing at the irony posted on here.

"Pay a man to dig a hole, pay a man to fill it". That's the advice from this poster.

He then goes on to imply that its no good having people on benefits.

Ironic really, as regardles,s if they are digging needless holes, or sitting on benefits, both cost money from the tax pot. Ones just doing a pointless job and taking more from the pot.

I suppose I'd be hung drawn and quartered if I suggested that those on benefits already could dig the pointless hole and then fill the pointless hole?

In essence, whats the difference. Nothing. It's all just desperatism.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Don't dig holes and fill them in, build things we need. There are a huge number of infrastructure projects we need. We spend money currently spent on benefits paying people to build them. The companies supplying materials and labour make a profit which is taxable, and in turn invest those profits. Their workforce pay taxes, and spend their disposable income on things which are taxable. And the things they build have an asset value. A motorway bypass removes all the costs on business caused by the bottleneck now bypassed.

Or, you can slash spending, cause a big panic amongst normal people, watch them stop spending, see company revenues fall, tax receipts fals AND your expenditure on benefits go up.

Has anyone pointed out to Osborne that a recession will increase the deficit?

Flyboy152

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

IF these redundancies are anything like the ones that went on in my area of the private sector, we were asked if we wanted to take voluntary redundancy. So very many of us did, that the numbers had to be cut down. They could go with a very good package and for those over 50 (then), they could get their pensions without any penalties.

I certainly feel great sympathy for the compulsory redundancies of course, but it may well be that the voluntary redundancies are the majority and financially become very well off, while still young enough to retrain for other more interesting things (one friend of mine is becoming a florist for instance, something she has often thought she would like to do).

Even the compulsory redundancies seemed to be taking the opportunity for new career training and I haven't met any who weren't energised by the change.

What's left, however, is a tougher environment for those left, and a point I made when I was at work, was that the strategy, structures and job descriptions have to be changed to accommodate fewer people. I expect that that is difficult if not impossible, in the public sector, but wonder if anyone has any thoughts.

Sadly, the choices offered were not as lucrative as in your experiences in the private sector. The minimum wage Johnnies' weren't offered golden handshakes, or enhanced pension rights or share options. They got the minimum allowed under the law. Many were under short term contracts, which were simply not renewed, so got nothing, or very little. Many were agency employed, but had been working there for years, so got nothing either.