Banter
Member
JakeRGaming
The human form of the 💯 emoji
Posts: 720
Registered on: February 2015
PSN ID: LtBanter
Xbox GT: Lt Banter
Steam: Brobi-Wan Kenobi
Social Club: Lt_Banter
Discord: Brobi-Wan#9054
|
Post by Banter on Jun 4, 2017 12:03:58 GMT
I understand all your points. The same argument you use can be used against you. Why do you have the right to earn £10 an hour when you have no qualifications? Sounds harsh but there is no right to it. I'm all for increasing the minimum wage but £10 an hour is very extreme. At the end of the day my Dad could get another job, something he's been thinking of for a while due to stress of running a business affecting his health, those employed by him, who are on £8 an hour (above minimum wage by a fair bit) will be looking for a new job, and so will thousands of others working at small businesses. In a lot of areas in the UK, £10 an hour barely covers food, bills and rent. The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and rising living costs, so no it's not extreme, and people have the right to be able to maintain an amicable standard of living. I fail to see how this is using my own argument against me. People need to be able to afford rent. People need food, heating and electricity. And this is at the most basic level. The fact that many of our young nurses and doctors live on less is a travesty.
|
|
|
Post by cameronman1329 on Jun 4, 2017 12:12:03 GMT
I understand all your points. The same argument you use can be used against you. Why do you have the right to earn £10 an hour when you have no qualifications? Sounds harsh but there is no right to it. I'm all for increasing the minimum wage but £10 an hour is very extreme. At the end of the day my Dad could get another job, something he's been thinking of for a while due to stress of running a business affecting his health, those employed by him, who are on £8 an hour (above minimum wage by a fair bit) will be looking for a new job, and so will thousands of others working at small businesses. In a lot of areas in the UK, £10 an hour barely covers food, bills and rent. The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and rising living costs, so no it's not extreme, and people have the right to be able to maintain an amicable standard of living. I fail to see how this is using my own argument against me. People need to be able to afford rent. People need food, heating and electricity. And this is at the most basic level. The fact that many of our young nurses and doctors live on less is a travesty. Same with dentists. Wages haven't increased with inflation at all. It's not just nurses and doctors in hospitals
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on Jun 4, 2017 12:21:24 GMT
My mistake, I didn't realise you had said there were three employees. I won't comment on your personal circumstances further as it's not my place to.
As for right to minimum wage, everyone has a right to a salary to survive. If you work full time, regardless of what job that is, you should be able to support yourself with food, shelter and water. You can ignore dependents and partners in this calculation.
If £10 is actually what a typical person needs for these things, so be it. Tough to anyone who can't afford to pay them, don't employ them. As a business you need to balance your incomings and outgoings.
But I digress, to say people don't have a right to a fair wage is far right capitalist. Sure you have to earn it, but every job is important, no matter how limited the skills are needed to do it. If you don't think it's worth £10 an hour, give them less hours to do, or don't employ them.
|
|
Banter
Member
JakeRGaming
The human form of the 💯 emoji
Posts: 720
Registered on: February 2015
PSN ID: LtBanter
Xbox GT: Lt Banter
Steam: Brobi-Wan Kenobi
Social Club: Lt_Banter
Discord: Brobi-Wan#9054
|
Post by Banter on Jun 4, 2017 12:24:39 GMT
Thought I'd share this: Im not a Tory supporter, I'm also not a Labour supporter. But it seems to be Labour supporters neglect a lot of key facts. As I said ideally a Conservative win with a hung parliament would be best for me. Lets compare these figures when adjusted for inflation. To do so I'm using the bank of england's inflation calculator, from 2010 to 2016. NHS BUDGET: 111.7 billion in today's money is roughly 131.5 billion. So a real world drop of around 10 billion. DEFENCE: That 41 billion is now about 48.3. Where did that other 2.7 go? EDUCATION: 88.5 down to 86.2. After inflation that's a loss of 17.8 billion. TRANSPORT: 23 bill to 27, so an actual gain of 1.3, will the trend continue? WELFARE: Of course it hasn't. To have kept up with inflation that figure should be 130 billion pounds. It's 113. Way to pick on the poor and disabled, Conservatives. POLICE: Police budget is marginally higher (i.e about half a billion), but with the increased terror threat laying off all those coppers was pretty dumb, Theresa. MINIMUM WAGE: To be worth the same as it was ten years ago it should be about what it is now. But as living costs have risen for everyone, this just isn't enough anymore. So what we can gather is that the NHS, our Armed Forces, the elderly, the young, the poor and the police have all been shafted. And the tories still haven't met any of their targets with basically no change in GDP. They are incompetent and sadistic. Get informed? Pah.
|
|
|
Post by cameronman1329 on Jun 4, 2017 12:38:04 GMT
That's so biased. "Basically no change in GDP" £76bn increase in GDP with inflation. Oh and for the deficit. You neglected the fact that it went down by £140bn accounting for inflation Minimum wage went up by 50p an you with inflation. Unemployment was halved. But yeah, people only see what they want. Your choice is to overspend massively and have better services but then not solve the debt issue, basically burying your head in the sand from the real problem. Or continue austerity to solve the debt issue. FYI, if we choose the former, then the 7 years of Austerity endured will have been for nothing as it would put us back to where we were before.
|
|
|
Post by cameronman1329 on Jun 4, 2017 12:39:38 GMT
My mistake, I didn't realise you had said there were three employees. I won't comment on your personal circumstances further as it's not my place to. As for right to minimum wage, everyone has a right to a salary to survive. If you work full time, regardless of what job that is, you should be able to support yourself with food, shelter and water. You can ignore dependents and partners in this calculation. If £10 is actually what a typical person needs for these things, so be it. Tough to anyone who can't afford to pay them, don't employ them. As a business you need to balance your incomings and outgoings. But I digress, to say people don't have a right to a fair wage is far right capitalist. Sure you have to earn it, but every job is important, no matter how limited the skills are needed to do it. If you don't think it's worth £10 an hour, give them less hours to do, or don't employ them. That's exactly my point. They'll lose their jobs. It will help the poor working in big corporations, those working in small businesses will find most will lose their job. The people with qualifications can find a new job easily. Those on minimum wage can't.
|
|
Banter
Member
JakeRGaming
The human form of the 💯 emoji
Posts: 720
Registered on: February 2015
PSN ID: LtBanter
Xbox GT: Lt Banter
Steam: Brobi-Wan Kenobi
Social Club: Lt_Banter
Discord: Brobi-Wan#9054
|
Post by Banter on Jun 4, 2017 12:51:57 GMT
That's so biased. "Basically no change in GDP" £76bn increase in GDP with inflation. Oh and for the deficit. You neglected the fact that it went down by £140bn accounting for inflation Minimum wage went up by 50p an you with inflation. Unemployment was halved. But yeah, people only see what they want. Your choice is to overspend massively and have better services but then not solve the debt issue, basically burying your head in the sand from the real problem. Or continue austerity to solve the debt issue. FYI, if we choose the former, then the 7 years of Austerity endured will have been for nothing as it would put us back to where we were before. Where the fuck are you getting that 76 billion figure from? it's risen by .1 trillion by the BoE's maths, hardly significant. 50p, again, is insignificant when minimum wage is still £2.25 under the living wage. The debt issue has not been solved, and the tory manifesto is basically uncosted. The Office for Budget Responsibility indicated last year that cutting immigration to below 100,000 by 2020 would cost the government around £8.7bn a year by 2022. Hardly the economically sensible choice. Why do you think May refuses to debate? Because she knows her choices won't hold up to public scrutiny. Seven years of austerity has brought nothing but hardship and misery, and hasn't solved the debt issue. Fuck the Conservatives, I wish the Lib Dems weren't so fucking useless and give me back New Labour.
|
|
|
Post by cameronman1329 on Jun 4, 2017 12:56:18 GMT
That's so biased. "Basically no change in GDP" £76bn increase in GDP with inflation. Oh and for the deficit. You neglected the fact that it went down by £140bn accounting for inflation Minimum wage went up by 50p an you with inflation. Unemployment was halved. But yeah, people only see what they want. Your choice is to overspend massively and have better services but then not solve the debt issue, basically burying your head in the sand from the real problem. Or continue austerity to solve the debt issue. FYI, if we choose the former, then the 7 years of Austerity endured will have been for nothing as it would put us back to where we were before. Where the fuck are you getting that 76 billion figure from? it's risen by .1 trillion by the BoE's maths, hardly significant. 50p, again, is insignificant when minimum wage is still £2.25 under the living wage. The debt issue has not been solved, and the tory manifesto is basically uncosted. The Office for Budget Responsibility indicated last year that cutting immigration to below 100,000 by 2020 would cost the government around £8.7bn a year by 2022. Hardly the economically sensible choice. Why do you think May refuses to debate? Because she knows her choices won't hold up to public scrutiny. Seven years of austerity has brought nothing but hardship and misery, and hasn't solved the debt issue. Fuck the Conservatives, I wish the Lib Dems weren't so fucking useless and give me back New Labour. 0.076 trillion actually. And 0.076 trillion is 76 billion if you know maths.
|
|
Banter
Member
JakeRGaming
The human form of the 💯 emoji
Posts: 720
Registered on: February 2015
PSN ID: LtBanter
Xbox GT: Lt Banter
Steam: Brobi-Wan Kenobi
Social Club: Lt_Banter
Discord: Brobi-Wan#9054
|
Post by Banter on Jun 4, 2017 12:57:47 GMT
Where the fuck are you getting that 76 billion figure from? it's risen by .1 trillion by the BoE's maths, hardly significant. 50p, again, is insignificant when minimum wage is still £2.25 under the living wage. The debt issue has not been solved, and the tory manifesto is basically uncosted. The Office for Budget Responsibility indicated last year that cutting immigration to below 100,000 by 2020 would cost the government around £8.7bn a year by 2022. Hardly the economically sensible choice. Why do you think May refuses to debate? Because she knows her choices won't hold up to public scrutiny. Seven years of austerity has brought nothing but hardship and misery, and hasn't solved the debt issue. Fuck the Conservatives, I wish the Lib Dems weren't so fucking useless and give me back New Labour. 0.076 trillion actually. And 0.076 trillion is 76 billion if you know maths. Again where are you getting that from? And that's even less than my estimate, so good job refuting yourself there. 0.076 isn't even worth mentioning.
|
|
|
Post by cameronman1329 on Jun 4, 2017 13:04:50 GMT
0.076 trillion actually. And 0.076 trillion is 76 billion if you know maths. Again where are you getting that from? And that's even less than my estimate, so good job refuting yourself there. 0.076 isn't even worth mentioning. 2.9 trillion in 2016 2.8239... trillion in 2010 (inflation) subtracted from 2.9 trillion leaves 0.076 trillion which works out at 76 billion£. So 76bn£ isn't worth mentioning, nor the 140bn£ decrease in overspending but 2.7bn£ in defence and "around 10 billion drop" in NHS is? (Only 8.9bn less if we are being accurate here). Stop trying to manipulate facts. You can't consider some but not all. £76bn increase in GDP and £140bn less in the deficit is far more significant than all those you mentioned combined. source? The same as yours, Bank of England: imgur.com/a/MI7LA
|
|
Banter
Member
JakeRGaming
The human form of the 💯 emoji
Posts: 720
Registered on: February 2015
PSN ID: LtBanter
Xbox GT: Lt Banter
Steam: Brobi-Wan Kenobi
Social Club: Lt_Banter
Discord: Brobi-Wan#9054
|
Post by Banter on Jun 4, 2017 13:10:30 GMT
Again where are you getting that from? And that's even less than my estimate, so good job refuting yourself there. 0.076 isn't even worth mentioning. 2.9 trillion in 2016 2.8239... trillion in 2010 (inflation) subtracted from 2.9 trillion leaves 0.076 trillion which works out at 76 billion£. So 76bn£ isn't worth mentioning, nor the 140bn£ decrease in overspending but 2.7bn£ in defence and "around 10 billion drop" in NHS is? (Only 8.9bn less if we are being accurate here). Stop trying to manipulate facts. You can't consider some but not all. £76bn increase in GDP and £140bn less in the deficit is far more significant than all those you mentioned combined. source? The same as yours, Bank of England: imgur.com/a/MI7LAWhen you're talking in matters of trillions, 76 billion is insignificant. 10 billion is huge to the NHS, but a less than .1% increase in GDP is not. It's about context. I'm not manipulating facts, and infact your little infographic is incredibly misleading (almost manipulating facts, one might say...) You have to consider relative context which is something you're clearly not doing. Besides which, the drop in overspending is not worth it when you consider the drop in relative living standards and earnings over the same period. Only an idiot would vote in the same government on these grounds, especially with an uncosted manifesto.
|
|
|
Post by cameronman1329 on Jun 4, 2017 13:14:07 GMT
2.9 trillion in 2016 2.8239... trillion in 2010 (inflation) subtracted from 2.9 trillion leaves 0.076 trillion which works out at 76 billion£. So 76bn£ isn't worth mentioning, nor the 140bn£ decrease in overspending but 2.7bn£ in defence and "around 10 billion drop" in NHS is? (Only 8.9bn less if we are being accurate here). Stop trying to manipulate facts. You can't consider some but not all. £76bn increase in GDP and £140bn less in the deficit is far more significant than all those you mentioned combined. source? The same as yours, Bank of England: imgur.com/a/MI7LAWhen you're talking in matters of trillions, 76 billion is insignificant. 10 billion is huge to the NHS, but a less than .1% increase in GDP is not. It's about context. I'm not manipulating facts, and infact your little infographic is incredibly misleading (almost manipulating facts, one might say...) You have to consider relative context which is something you're clearly not doing. Besides which, the drop in overspending is not worth it when you consider the drop in relative living standards and earnings over the same period. Only an idiot would vote in the same government on these grounds, especially with an uncosted manifesto. And Labour's isn't costed correctly (if you read research articles studied on it it doesn't add up anywhere near). But hey, I've made my point. I'm voting Green. You vote what you want. I'm done with politics for today
|
|
Banter
Member
JakeRGaming
The human form of the 💯 emoji
Posts: 720
Registered on: February 2015
PSN ID: LtBanter
Xbox GT: Lt Banter
Steam: Brobi-Wan Kenobi
Social Club: Lt_Banter
Discord: Brobi-Wan#9054
|
Post by Banter on Jun 4, 2017 13:20:49 GMT
When you're talking in matters of trillions, 76 billion is insignificant. 10 billion is huge to the NHS, but a less than .1% increase in GDP is not. It's about context. I'm not manipulating facts, and infact your little infographic is incredibly misleading (almost manipulating facts, one might say...) You have to consider relative context which is something you're clearly not doing. Besides which, the drop in overspending is not worth it when you consider the drop in relative living standards and earnings over the same period. Only an idiot would vote in the same government on these grounds, especially with an uncosted manifesto. And Labour's isn't costed correctly (if you read research articles studied on it it doesn't add up anywhere near). But hey, I've made my point. I'm voting Green. You vote what you want. I'm done with politics for today Source? (And I'm not sure what your point is, nothing you've said stands up to scrutiny so I don't know what I'm left with) And ah yes the greens, the kill-joys whose taxes would fuck the poor the hardest and are self-righteously anti-growth. Just the people I want in charge of the economy...
|
|
|
Post by cameronman1329 on Jun 4, 2017 13:27:35 GMT
And Labour's isn't costed correctly (if you read research articles studied on it it doesn't add up anywhere near). But hey, I've made my point. I'm voting Green. You vote what you want. I'm done with politics for today Source? (And I'm not sure what your point is, nothing you've said stands up to scrutiny so I don't know what I'm left with) And ah yes the greens, the kill-joys whose taxes would fuck the poor the hardest and are self-righteously anti-growth. Just the people I want in charge of the economy... I'm pretty sure you could google it. I'm not going to link you countless articles evaluating the costs of a manifesto. Don't see how anything I've said doesn't stand up to scrutiny. All the facts I've said are correct, you just disagree with the significance. Although more than a 66% decrease in budget deficit is pretty significant imo. Anyway, each to their own. Said I'm done with politics for the day, so now I really am. You can quote me all you want, won't be responding for a while. End of the day we all want what's best, I see no reason to use a tone (well the tone that is coming across to me) that is high and mighty because you believe something different to others. Anyway, election is soon so all this bullshit campaigning can be over and the government can get back to doing productive work on Brexit, security and services and such, cant wait for it to be over.
|
|
Banter
Member
JakeRGaming
The human form of the 💯 emoji
Posts: 720
Registered on: February 2015
PSN ID: LtBanter
Xbox GT: Lt Banter
Steam: Brobi-Wan Kenobi
Social Club: Lt_Banter
Discord: Brobi-Wan#9054
|
Post by Banter on Jun 4, 2017 13:32:04 GMT
Source? (And I'm not sure what your point is, nothing you've said stands up to scrutiny so I don't know what I'm left with) And ah yes the greens, the kill-joys whose taxes would fuck the poor the hardest and are self-righteously anti-growth. Just the people I want in charge of the economy... I'm pretty sure you could google it. I'm not going to link you countless articles evaluating the costs of a manifesto. Don't see how anything I've said doesn't stand up to scrutiny. All the facts I've said are correct, you just disagree with the significance. Although more than a 66% decrease in budget deficit is pretty significant imo. Anyway, each to their own. Said I'm done with politics for the day, so now I really am. You can quote me all you want, won't be responding for a while. End of the day we all want what's best, I see no reason to use a tone (well the tone that is coming across to me) that is high and mighty because you believe something different to others. Anyway, election is soon so all this bullshit campaigning can be over and the government can get back to doing productive work on Brexit, security and services and such, cant wait for it to be over. Not being high and mighty, I just don't take well to being told I'm 'manipulating facts' by showing how an infographic you posted was horseshit. And when you make a claim you need to be ready to back it up with sources, burden of proof and all that.
|
|