Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Just look at the absolute state of this. This is the future of this insane group of people now in the Labour party.

That's mostly rubbish, but isn't point 3 factually accurate?

[Sampson]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's mostly rubbish, but isn't point 3 factually accurate?

America has made a lot of mistakes and often made things worse but the majority of those were trying to overthrow evil governments who murdered their own people, it's easy to make them the villain but they aren't imperialist and we'd all probably be a Soviet puppet state if America didn't exist and didn't bomb all those nations and tried to assassinate these leaders post-war whatever its faults.

 

Like Iraq turned out to be a disaster but they were in there to overthrow an evil leader who killed his own people - it was understandable what the motivation was and not imperialist, it just didn't work and made things worse as you can never predict the way these things go.

Edited 17 October 2017 by Sampson

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's mostly rubbish, but isn't point 3 factually accurate?

Whilst is happily back away from proving either direct or tacit support for Trump's foreign policy so far, and would happily see us being more circumspect in our direct military interventions, I wouldn't want to be leaving nato. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Sampson said:

America has made a lot of mistakes and often made things worse but the majority of those were trying to overthrow evil governments who murdered their own people, it's easy to make them the villain but they aren't imperialist and we'd all probably be a Soviet puppet state if America didn't exist and didn't bomb all those nations and tried to assassinate these leaders post-war whatever its faults.

Not entirely sure I buy the "juice was worth the squeeze" argument (not like that's not been used for pretty awful stuff throughout history), but I see what you mean.

 

However, in this case, I was merely pointing out that while most of that leaflet is emotive rubbish there are one or two facts in there too.

 

Just now, toddybad said:

Whilst is happily back away from proving either direct or tacit support for Trump's foreign policy so far, and would happily see us being more circumspect in our direct military interventions, I wouldn't want to be leaving nato. 

Yeah, me too - but again, see above.

[Guest]

All going swimmingly

 

 

[Guest]

So let's see how the UK is doing as per the ONS:

 

We all know employment has increased - partly because of a rapid increase in self-employment and zero hours work in recent years. 

 

But, wait self-employed (surprise, surprise) people earning £50k don't pay anything like the tax of the employed. Single directors pay even less. 

 

 

 

 

Edited 17 October 2017 by Guest

[Izzy]

58 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So let's see how the UK is doing as per the ONS:

 

We all know employment has increased - partly because of a rapid increase in self-employment and zero hours work in recent years. 

 

But, wait self-employed (surprise, surprise) people earning £50k don't pay anything like the tax of the employed. Single directors pay even less. 

 

That's me 

 

Great innit! 

Edited 17 October 2017 by Izzy Muzzett

[Carl the Llama]

10 hours ago, toddybad said:

So let's see how the UK is doing as per the ONS:

 

We all know employment has increased - partly because of a rapid increase in self-employment and zero hours work in recent years. 

 

But, wait self-employed (surprise, surprise) people earning £50k don't pay anything like the tax of the employed. Single directors pay even less. 

 

 

 

 

Tbf - and forgive me if I'm being an idiot - but doesn't the orange part of the lower graph come out of the employer's pocket thus the employee actually pays less of their own money than the self-employee?  ie. as I understand it the former would pay ±11k to the govt and keep ±39k with their employer paying the ±4.5k on top of the 50k wage for a total expense of ±54.5k to the company while the latter would pay ±12.5k and pocket ±37.5k.  I am acutely aware I might have just spouted a load of bollocks though.

 

All that said, single directors appear to pay scandalously low amounts compared to the rest (curse you @Izzy Muzzett ).

 

I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason why the system is set up so that different people on the same wage might pay different amounts of tax depending on how their mode of employment is defined instead of simply saying "you're earning x so we're taking y" but I'm struggling to think of it.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Tbf - and forgive me if I'm being an idiot - but doesn't the orange part of the lower graph come out of the employer's pocket thus the employee actually pays less of their own money than the self-employee?  ie. as I understand it the former would pay ±11k to the govt and keep ±39k with their employer paying the ±4.5k on top of the 50k wage for a total expense of ±54.5k to the company while the latter would pay ±12.5k and pocket ±37.5k.  I am acutely aware I might have just spouted a load of bollocks though.

 

All that said, single directors appear to pay scandalously low amounts compared to the rest (curse you @Izzy Muzzett ).

 

I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason why the system is set up so that different people on the same wage might pay different amounts of tax depending on how their mode of employment is defined instead of simply saying "you're earning x so we're taking y" but I'm struggling to think of it.

Whilst true re nics, corporation tax isn't technically paid by the self employed individual either is it?

 

Tbf was mainly being a wum there. I think the increase in zero hours is telling and am not sure how the government can claim any prizes for unemployed people starting business as no proper jobs are being created, as the graph appears to suggest was the case up until 2015 and then not enough proper jobs from then on.

Edited 18 October 2017 by Guest

[David Guiza]

Seems to be some gerrymandering going on in my area - moving the boundaries to join uber Tory Kenilworth with marginal Labour seat Coventry South. We (Kenilworth) already share a boundary with a village that's 12-15 miles away so that makes sense. 

[Strokes]

42 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Whilst true re nics, corporation tax isn't technically paid by the self employed individual either is it?

 

Tbf was mainly being a wum there. I.thinks.the inverse in zero hours telling and am not sure how the government can claim any prizes for unemployed people starting business as no proper jobs are being created as the graph appears to suggest was trite up until 2015 and then not enough proper jobs from then on.

Is it only unemployed starting their own businesses then? Its like we go full circle on here every month and today is zero hour contract day again. 

I wonder if they could have a seperate (and obviously much higher) minimum wage for ZHCs. It seems to be only a problem for those on the lowest end of the scale, who are living hand to mouth and are getting exploited as such. It would be a proactive way of dealing with it rather than just outlawing a practice that might be beneficial to quite a few.

[Innovindil]

44 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Is it only unemployed starting their own businesses then? Its like we go full circle on here every month and today is zero hour contract day again. 

I wonder if they could have a seperate (and obviously much higher) minimum wage for ZHCs. It seems to be only a problem for those on the lowest end of the scale, who are living hand to mouth and are getting exploited as such. It would be a proactive way of dealing with it rather than just outlawing a practice that might be beneficial to quite a few.

I really don't get the outrage over zhc's. The amount of people on them has fallen this year. A few big businesses (McDonald's being the biggest I can think of) offered their staff set working hours each week and the majority of staff rejected them, so they must be okay with being on a zhc surely. 

 

Sure, some businesses are abusing them, but we should be going after these businesses, there's nothing wrong with the idea of the system itself. 

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I really don't get the outrage over zhc's. The amount of people on them has fallen this year. A few big businesses (McDonald's being the biggest I can think of) offered their staff set working hours each week and the majority of staff rejected them, so they must be okay with being on a zhc surely. 

 

Sure, some businesses are abusing them, but we should be going after these businesses, there's nothing wrong with the idea of the system itself. 

I think ive mentioned on here a few times, bank nurses are ZHCs, as are supply teachers, getting rid of them is just not an option.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I really don't get the outrage over zhc's. The amount of people on them has fallen this year. A few big businesses (McDonald's being the biggest I can think of) offered their staff set working hours each week and the majority of staff rejected them, so they must be okay with being on a zhc surely. 

 

Sure, some businesses are abusing them, but we should be going after these businesses, there's nothing wrong with the idea of the system itself. 

I think, again, you aren't looking beyond those with no responsibilities.

 

The issue with them isn't so much young people earning a few quid in a Saturday job. There are huge numbers of ZH jobs where people with kids and mortgages have had to take the job and it is expected to be full time but no formal hours are contracted. Often they are not allowed to get a second job as they have to be available for work to suit their employer. If they don't get the hours one week currently they're struggling to feed the kids.

 

Now you might say get another job, and no doubt somebody in that position might be looking, but the graphs I posted showed that there are more people going into work than there are properly contracted jobs.

 

Ultimately why wouldn't you want workers to have security?

Edited 18 October 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think ive mentioned on here a few times, bank nurses are ZHCs, as are supply teachers, getting rid of them is just not an option.

I'm not convinced that they're employment in the same way. Zhcs generally limit what other work you are able to do as you have to be available to your employer. Bank and supply staffing is the opposite. You can say yes or no.

[Strokes]

Just now, toddybad said:

I'm not convinced that they're employment in the same way. Zhcs generally limit what other work you are able to do as you have to be available to your employer. Bank and supply staffing is the opposite. You can say yes or no.

They are not being used in that way, you are right and thats my point. They are still zero hour contracts and are included in the figures. Its not the concept thats wrong, its some horrible beyond contempt companies (mostly in retail i believe) abusing them and using it as a loophole to manipulate staff. 

Instead of banning the contracts that are important we need to close the loopholes, thats all im saying.

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I think, again, you aren't looking beyond those with no responsibilities.

 

The issue with them isn't so much young people earning a few quid in a Saturday job. There are huge numbers of ZH jobs where prime with kids and mortgages have had to take the job and it is expected to be full time but no formal hours are contracted. Often they are not allowed to get a second job as they have to be available for work to suit their employer. If they don't get the hours one week currently they're struggling to feed the kids.

 

Now you might say get another job, and no doubt somebody in that position might be looking, but the graphs I posted showed that there are more people going into work than there are properly contracted jobs.

 

Ultimately why wouldn't you want workers to have security?

I haven't said that I don't want workers to have security, I've said that workers shouldn't be FORCED into having security. Zhc's suit some people, they shouldn't be made to sign up to set hours that don't suit their lifestyle. If you need guaranteed hours to feed your kids, then a zhc job isn't for you, and you probably shouldn't be signing up for it. If a zhc is all that's available, then that's unfortunate, but not really the problem of the businesses using them.

 

You can't blame a business for offering jobs suitable to certain people. Not every job is made for every person, certain people wouldnt like the hours I work, my workplace doesn't get yelled at for not offering part time positions, why should it be different the other way around. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I haven't said that I don't want workers to have security, I've said that workers shouldn't be FORCED into having security. Zhc's suit some people, they shouldn't be made to sign up to set hours that don't suit their lifestyle. If you need guaranteed hours to feed your kids, then a zhc job isn't for you, and you probably shouldn't be signing up for it. If a zhc is all that's available, then that's unfortunate, but not really the problem of the businesses using them.

 

You can't blame a business for offering jobs suitable to certain people. Not every job is made for every person, certain people wouldnt like the hours I work, my workplace doesn't get yelled at for not offering part time positions, why should it be different the other way around. 

The point is more and more jobs are zhc, there isn't choice for many.

 

And ending zhcs isn't the same as having set hours - say Saturday morning. It is simply saying that you will have a minimum of x hours work every week. There can still be flexibility and late calls on when those hours are. Nobody takes a job in the expectation of working 0 hours. If an employer can't commit to telling a recruit they will have a minimum of 4 hours or 8 hours or whatever per week how is anybody supposed to know if they are coming or going?

Edited 18 October 2017 by Guest

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The point is more and more jobs are zhc, there isn't choice for many.

 

And ending zhcs isn't the same as having set hours - say Saturday morning. It is simply saying that you will have a minimum of x hours work every week. There can still be flexibility and late calls on when those hours are. Nobody takes a job in the expectation of working 0 hours. If an employer can't commit to telling a recruit they will have a minimum of 4 hours or 8 hours or whatever per week how is anybody supposed to know if they are coming or going?

If more and more jobs are zhc, why has the amount fallen this year? 

 

I have no idea, all I know is that people got offered minimum hour weeks (I think McDonald's offered 8, 16 or 37, something like that anyway) and people turned them down to remain on 0 guaranteed hours. I don't know the reason behind it, I'm not on one, but clearly there has to be a reason so many would turn it down. 

 

I've said, repeatedly again, that I know zhc's don't suit everyone, but they CLEARLY do suit some. Like Strokes said, stop the abuse of them, stop the loopholes, but if you outright ban them, you've just pissed off a big chunk of the workforce because you got emotional over some unfortunate people getting abused by the system. 

 

You can't punish the people that want to be on them because there's people on them that don't want to be. As far as I know, nobody is forced into a zhc job. (unless the job centre has started forcing them, hadn't last time I checked) 

 

[Buce]

26 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

If more and more jobs are zhc, why has the amount fallen this year? 

 

I have no idea, all I know is that people got offered minimum hour weeks (I think McDonald's offered 8, 16 or 37, something like that anyway) and people turned them down to remain on 0 guaranteed hours. I don't know the reason behind it, I'm not on one, but clearly there has to be a reason so many would turn it down. 

 

I've said, repeatedly again, that I know zhc's don't suit everyone, but they CLEARLY do suit some. Like Strokes said, stop the abuse of them, stop the loopholes, but if you outright ban them, you've just pissed off a big chunk of the workforce because you got emotional over some unfortunate people getting abused by the system. 

 

You can't punish the people that want to be on them because there's people on them that don't want to be. As far as I know, nobody is forced into a zhc job. (unless the job centre has started forcing them, hadn't last time I checked) 

 

 

You are partially correct; mandatory acceptance of zhc for job-seekers is being rolled out as part of the flawed UC switch.

 

http://www.themix.org.uk/work-and-study/workers-rights-and-pay/zero-hour-contracts-12507.html

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You are partially correct; mandatory acceptance of zhc for job-seekers is being rolled out as part of the flawed UC switch.

 

http://www.themix.org.uk/work-and-study/workers-rights-and-pay/zero-hour-contracts-12507.html

Ugh. Don't like that at all. Cheers for pointing it out. 

[katieakita]

UC will not work simple as, might look good on paper but the Front Office of Government or whatever nonsense it is called this week will mess it up. Hardship will hit the wrong people as we still have a welfare state where some get far more than they deserve and some get far less than they deserve. Far to many are in denial of the collapse of the countries infrastructure including plenty on here.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, katieakita said:

UC will not work simple as, might look good on paper but the Front Office of Government or whatever nonsense it is called this week will mess it up. Hardship will hit the wrong people as we still have a welfare state where some get far more than they deserve and some get far less than they deserve. Far to many are in denial of the collapse of the countries infrastructure including plenty on here.

I've seen some suggestions it could turn into the modern poll tax if the Tories dont get it working. Seems they have a bit of an internal rebellion brewing over it too.

[katieakita]

59 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I've seen some suggestions it could turn into the modern poll tax if the Tories dont get it working. Seems they have a bit of an internal rebellion brewing over it too.

Thing is we have a selfish society in denial with everything OK until it hits them including a few on this forum, as support and infrastructure crumbles the vulnerable will be the ones hit hardest and there is no shortage of vulnerable people especially how things are going. Whatever your political leanings it is wrong when someone gets themselves a job then because there is a 6-7 week wait for UC to kick in and they have to look to family for financial support or pay day loan companies just to tie them over until they start earning. Surely there has to be a society where you are rewarded for work and not punished.

 

Corbyn's plans for a Post Bank would help so many of the socially excluded even IDS supports it yet we have a government unable or unwilling to implement it because it exposes their failings.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, katieakita said:

Thing is we have a selfish society in denial with everything OK until it hits them including a few on this forum, as support and infrastructure crumbles the vulnerable will be the ones hit hardest and there is no shortage of vulnerable people especially how things are going. Whatever your political leanings it is wrong when someone gets themselves a job then because there is a 6-7 week wait for UC to kick in and they have to look to family for financial support or pay day loan companies just to tie them over until they start earning. Surely there has to be a society where you are rewarded for work and not punished.

 

Corbyn's plans for a Post Bank would help so many of the socially excluded even IDS supports it yet we have a government unable or unwilling to implement it because it exposes their failings.

Problem is the Tories box themselves into a corner. The whole 'Labour's great recession' lie that they propogate, coupled with their belief in a small state, results in every right winger from here to Timbuktu suddenly obsessing over why reducing a deficit - at a time where the economy is performing poorly of all times - is more important than the people of this country, who the economy is supposed to serve. They'd all rather trash public services, whilst denying that's what's happening, than pay a few more quid in tax. It's depressing.

Edited 18 October 2017 by Guest