• 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!

Tory spat over Cameron's plan to purge Central London of poor people

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Learn the difference between absolute and relative growth. If we were paying £1trillion, even a 1% growth would be £10billion but it wouldn't be a big increase.
    Stop splitting hairs. The main issue is that we are paying way too much to way too many people for doing way too little productive endeavour.
    Until we stop rewarding laziness this abortion will continue.
    “The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”

    Comment


      Originally posted by shaunbhoy View Post
      Stop splitting hairs. The main issue is that we are paying way too much to way too many people for doing way too little productive endeavour.
      Until we stop rewarding laziness this abortion will continue.
      It's hardly a hair. If the government told us they'd reduced our national debt by £20bn it would sound like a lot but be an equally small amount.

      In real terms, the amount spent has barely increased over the last decade. In fact using the widely ridiculed AtW inflation index (which claims inflation is about 20%), real-term spending on benefits has dropped about 90%

      That doesn't mean it's not too much. Just that it hasn't sky-rocketed as was insinuated in this thread, it's remained equally over-size.
      Originally posted by MaryPoppins
      I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
      Originally posted by vetran
      Urine is quite nourishing

      Comment


        Originally posted by d000hg View Post
        It's hardly a hair. If the government told us they'd reduced our national debt by £20bn it would sound like a lot but be an equally small amount.

        In real terms, the amount spent has barely increased over the last decade. In fact using the widely ridiculed AtW inflation index (which claims inflation is about 20%), real-term spending on benefits has dropped about 90%

        That doesn't mean it's not too much. Just that it hasn't sky-rocketed as was insinuated in this thread, it's remained equally over-size.
        According to ONS, inflation between 1999 and 2009 equaled 20% i.e. 20 ^ (1/10) = 1.83% a year.
        The benefits bill has increased 50% over the same period and as you correctly pointed out, this is 4.1%
        Therefore, in real terms, the benefits bill has increased by 30% in 10 years. Hardly 'barely increased'.
        It's about time I changed this sig...

        Comment


          I'm tired now. Can we subtract percentages that way? But if so, fair enough. Although 30% is a lot less than the quoted %50.
          Originally posted by MaryPoppins
          I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
          Originally posted by vetran
          Urine is quite nourishing

          Comment


            Originally posted by d000hg View Post
            Although 30% is a lot less than the quoted %50.
            Around 30% reduction in current housing bill is the same number as around 50% growth it experienced in the last decade.

            HTH

            Comment


              Originally posted by AtW View Post
              Around 30% reduction in current housing bill is the same number as around 50% growth it experienced in the last decade.

              HTH
              You are in no position to make any arguments since you claim inflation is way above the official figure, which contradicts what you claim in this thread.
              Originally posted by MaryPoppins
              I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
              Originally posted by vetran
              Urine is quite nourishing

              Comment


                Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                You are in no position to make any arguments since you claim inflation is way above the official figure, which contradicts what you claim in this thread.
                SALARY inflation isn't higher than official claimed, in fact I'd say probably lower (for same job).

                Comment


                  Thanks MrRobin.

                  To summarise the numbers, the benefits total that some say will cause families hardship is a tax-free £26,000 per annum. To obtain that, a worker paying taxes would need a salary of £36,000.

                  That is a tidy sum indeed. Isn't it more than three-quarters of wage-earners?

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
                    Thanks MrRobin.

                    To summarise the numbers, the benefits total that some say will cause families hardship is a tax-free £26,000 per annum. To obtain that, a worker paying taxes would need a salary of £36,000.

                    That is a tidy sum indeed. Isn't it more than three-quarters of wage-earners?
                    Probably. But running a household on a single salary isn't easy even without children. Two salaries makes a massive difference.
                    Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                    Originally posted by vetran
                    Urine is quite nourishing

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                      It's hardly a hair. If the government told us they'd reduced our national debt by £20bn it would sound like a lot but be an equally small amount.

                      In real terms, the amount spent has barely increased over the last decade. In fact using the widely ridiculed AtW inflation index (which claims inflation is about 20%), real-term spending on benefits has dropped about 90%

                      That doesn't mean it's not too much. Just that it hasn't sky-rocketed as was insinuated in this thread, it's remained equally over-size.
                      When I cannot afford a 4 bedroom house for my 4 children I settle for a 3 bedroom or a smaller one. So I take up what I can afford. Why should my taxes go to house workshy muppets who are intent on producing as many babies as they can ?
                      Vote Corbyn ! Save this country !

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X