Originally posted by BrilloPad
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Uber Has Lost
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostFrench letter = condomComment
-
Originally posted by mattster View PostYes I know that! but why is D a French letter? If I could be arsed I would go back and read the original post, I must have missed something.
Is this thread the most boring ever? Well at least since AtW posted about his sex life.Comment
-
Originally posted by vetran View PostIf we build enough dwellings the value of housing will fall...
In theory, yes if we built a billion houses this year the cost would come down a lot however there is a limit to the capacity for building and the trend is actually decreasing supply since the 60's.
The recent high point was 200,000 homes built in 2007/8.
But, we have an increasing population and a greater proportion of people living alone so the demand is also increasing.
So, do you have any thoughts on what is 'enough' new build, do we have the capacity (or can it be increased) to build that many and do you have figures to support that assertion?Comment
-
Originally posted by mattster View PostYes I know that! but why is D a French letter? If I could be arsed I would go back and read the original post, I must have missed something.I am what I drink, and I'm a bitter manComment
-
Originally posted by edison View PostCorporate welfare - exactly. This has been the hidden neo liberal business narrative for a long time now. Poor people are chastised for being benefits scroungers whilst rich corporates rack up billions upon billions in subsidies, grants and tax breaks every year whilst corporate taxes fall. Some estimates have this corporate welfare at around £100 billion a year, just in the UK.
Gordon Brown introduced a welfare to work package with the idea that they didn't want people languishing on the dole for generations (thanks Thatcher!)
The step from unemployment to (low paid) employment was insurmountable for many because they lost among other things housing benefit which, due to the cost of housing in many areas, meant they were a lot worse off in employment and could not afford to get a job.
The idea was that sufficient benefits were still paid to allow people to take jobs which has many benefits psychologically such as motivation, self-confidence, mental stimulation, work habit etc.
So, it was a good idea at the time.
However, this has turned into a situation where the benefits have been taken for granted by companies who might otherwise have paid better wages, leaving many jobs at minimum wage with top ups from the government. The law of unintended consequences.
We do need to fix this and perhaps a higher minimum wage is the answer, though at a certain level that will reduce the number of jobs available.
My take on it is that we need a fair distribution of costs and benefits when looking at companies. The employees need a fair wage including the senior staff who need pay reductions. The shareholders (including those of us with pensions) need a fair return and the customers need a fair price and decent service. At the moment the balance is skewed to cheap goods/service for customers, high pay for senior staff and excessive support for share prices. The balance needs to be redressed to give low paid employees a better deal.Comment
-
Originally posted by Smartie View PostOf course, it's common sense isn't it? The trouble is common sense ideas are often wrong.
In theory, yes if we built a billion houses this year the cost would come down a lot however there is a limit to the capacity for building and the trend is actually decreasing supply since the 60's.
The recent high point was 200,000 homes built in 2007/8.
But, we have an increasing population and a greater proportion of people living alone so the demand is also increasing.
So, do you have any thoughts on what is 'enough' new build, do we have the capacity (or can it be increased) to build that many and do you have figures to support that assertion?
We have the figures for increase in population from ONS, we have the details of occupancy from ONS which due to culture changes such as blended families and multi occupancy for financial reasons still sits at about 2.4 persons per home distorting the real demand.
When more homes become available its likely the level of occupancy might change.
Overview of the UK population - Office for National Statistics.
The UK population has grown year-on-year since 1982 as seen in Figure 1. The 2019 mid-year population estimates release showed that the population of the UK reached 66.8 million, up from 66.4 million in mid-2018. This population growth marks an increase of 0.5%, or an additional 361,000 people, between mid-2018 and mid-2019. Growth in the year mid-2018 to mid-2019 was slower than in any year since mid-2004.
The UK population is projected to increase further; our 2018-based principal national population projections suggest the UK population will surpass 69.6 million by mid-2029 and reach 72 million by mid-2041 – increases of 4.2% and 7.8%, respectively, from mid-20191.
Diggers, breeze block ready mixed concreate and prebuilt framed buildings were not that common in 1981. 40 years of building technology advance should help build more homes in a year than in 1981.
Mrs May's government released a report suggesting we were 1 million homes short 4 years ago and should build 1 million by 2020 - we are nowhere near this and we have had another million join our population.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...le_version.pdf
We also need to replace substandard homes, the 1960s towers we have painted with Petrol, the flats where you are burgled once a week because your neighbour needs a fix etc.
If we had more cheap housing we would consider removing these dangerous eyesores not put explosive lipstick on them.
I am still interested in you supporting your accusation that housing association dwellings are poor quality. Or a retraction.Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.Comment
-
Originally posted by Smartie View PostIf we get away from the neo liberal conspiracy stuff for a moment, let's remember the origins of these labour subsidies.
Gordon Brown introduced a welfare to work package with the idea that they didn't want people languishing on the dole for generations (thanks Thatcher!)
The step from unemployment to (low paid) employment was insurmountable for many because they lost among other things housing benefit which, due to the cost of housing in many areas, meant they were a lot worse off in employment and could not afford to get a job.
The idea was that sufficient benefits were still paid to allow people to take jobs which has many benefits psychologically such as motivation, self-confidence, mental stimulation, work habit etc.
So, it was a good idea at the time.
However, this has turned into a situation where the benefits have been taken for granted by companies who might otherwise have paid better wages, leaving many jobs at minimum wage with top ups from the government. The law of unintended consequences.
We do need to fix this and perhaps a higher minimum wage is the answer, though at a certain level that will reduce the number of jobs available.
My take on it is that we need a fair distribution of costs and benefits when looking at companies. The employees need a fair wage including the senior staff who need pay reductions. The shareholders (including those of us with pensions) need a fair return and the customers need a fair price and decent service. At the moment the balance is skewed to cheap goods/service for customers, high pay for senior staff and excessive support for share prices. The balance needs to be redressed to give low paid employees a better deal.
Oh leftie made up tulip! I'm right on , I hate fatch!!!
Unemployment in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
Thatcher took over in 1980 at 6% unemployment (which had grown 4% since 1977) mainly due to the closure of manufacturing and increased automation. It hit 11.9% in 1982 thanks partially to a world recession and started falling
when she left in 1990 (a decade not a generation later ) it was 6% again, she had closed fewer pits than Labour and repaired the sick man of Europe mainly restructuring to compete with cheaper overseas manufacturers. The conservatives introduced YTS a scheme that helped me and many of my peers into work.
Which of the 6% have stayed unemployed from 1981 to date, I know of few long term unemployed people who didn't choose that life?
I have worked with many people who worked abroad or relocated south in the 80s/90s because that was where the jobs where.
Housing benefit distorts rental prices just as a housing shortage does.
We need to pay rent directly to Landlords and give them the ability to remove problem tenants fairly so landlords will consider welfare tenants. If you had guaranteed rent and good tenants why would you refuse to rent to them?
Councils could set the rent level and pay extra where there is a housing shortage.
Subsidising jobs is ridiculous if we have to suffer inflation to get decent wages then lets get on with it.Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.Comment
-
Originally posted by vetran View PostI am still interested in you supporting your accusation that housing association dwellings are poor quality. Or a retraction.Comment
-
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment