Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Unemployment below 2 millon
Topic Started: Oct 15 2014, 09:03 AM (1,917 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Unemployment below 2 million BUT:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29627831

However, the number of people classed as economically inactive, including students, long-term sick and those retiring early, increased by 113,000 in the quarter to more than nine million.

The number of self-employed people dropped by 76,000 in the latest three-month period to 4.5 million, but the total is 279,000 higher than a year ago.

And the number of employees in part-time jobs has reached a record high of 6.8 million.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 25 2014, 12:20 PM
I know it is what I come to expect from those of the left they pretend to care about people but are more right wing in their attitude than extreme right wingers,especially to those that dare to disagree with them or prove them wrong at every twist and turn and spin they make.

Well that lets me out, it will be a happy day for me when the last politician is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
You will be under the soil long before that happens, there will always be Priests Politicians and miserable whingers in this world and if there is one the next one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 25 2014, 10:19 AM
Tigger
Oct 25 2014, 09:55 AM
Stan Still
Oct 25 2014, 07:28 AM
papasmurf
Oct 24 2014, 09:49 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Wrong there are over a million over the retirement age that are still working full time because they want to, I came out of semi retirement because the wages offered for my skills is excellent.

I know several people that work part time that are in their late 60's and early 70's because they want to not need to, wife and I were in B&Q this week a couple we know well both elderly over 65 were working away and enjoying being out and meeting people.

The wife was meeting and greeting her husband is a former builder both assisting customers, they do a few hours a day three times a week more if they want to which they do in the winter, they may not earn a fortune NMW but that does not bother them at all, keeping active and knowing they are needed is what they enjoy and a bonus to them

You may have stopped working several years ago before you finally reached state pension age but there are many of us who do not want to sit at home bored silly and feeling useless that is a certain way to fall off the perch too early, keeping active keeps you young and what better way than being paid for it as well.


How many carry on working because they got ripped off on their pensions and simply cannot afford to retire, can you answer that one for us?

Sitting at a desk for a few hours a day isn't particularly taxing physically although you'd be more than welcome to three days a week on one of my projects, I expect by Friday you'd barely be able to walk. :)

For many working beyond retirement age is simply not possible.
I do not sit behind a desk a day I am out and about most days, true I am no longer able to do heavy physical work as I once did but having retrained more than once I have a multitude of skills that meant I was head hunted for my present work that I really enjoy and paid rather well.

As for pensions you are asking a question that even you do not know the answerer to, yes some pension funds have folded or are not as good as predicted all pension funds are a gamble life is a gamble the only certainties are death and taxes, plus Brown raided the pensions funds and did lots of damage, some estimate that he cost the UK over 100 billion.

Some are having to work longer because they cannot afford to retire that is true, many like me continue to do so because we want to not have to.


Pensions never used to be a gamble and they should not be today end of, you'd shit yourself if you knew the levels of protection pensions have on the continent.

Of course you only remember the Brown tax raid on pensions, but the rot set in after the deregulation of the City under Thatcher, prior to this pensions were protected by very strict rules and regulations, we had no misselling (fraud) and fund managers were licensed and audited.

All this was swept away, we were promised untold riches as companies would be allowed to invest pension money in the business, ie money that up to then they could not legally touch, the first inkling of this disasterous policy was Robert Maxwell spunking his employees pension fund. Did the Tory government of the day change anything? Of course not they allowed more deregulation!

The reason many will be poor in retirement is due to your mates in the City, the next biggie will be the ripping off of those who will shortly be handing over their recently liberated annuities to wide boys with few morals who will "invest" this money in cocaine and prostitutes. (probably)

But I suspect you already knew all of that. ;-)
Edited by Tigger, Oct 25 2014, 06:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Is unemployment really under two million or just the number of people who are still looking for work? It's not the same group or number.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Curious Cdn
Oct 25 2014, 10:10 PM
Is unemployment really under two million or just the number of people who are still looking for work? It's not the same group or number.

I don't think unemployment figures are taken seriously these days.
It was once an accurate reflection of how well, or how badly the economy was doing - not any longer.

With people working PT, people on minimum wage yet entitled to a benefit top-up, people on zero hour contracts, and people declaring themselves 'self employed' there is no reliable guideline, as was.

Politicians manipulate stats for political effect ....... I have little faith in any of them.

The one stat I do take note of is that 'a few years ago anyone on average wages would likely consider themselves as being well off - that is no longer the case'.
Being in work these days no longer means earning a living.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Curious Cdn
Oct 25 2014, 10:10 PM
Is unemployment really under two million or just the number of people who are still looking for work? It's not the same group or number.
It is the number who claim they would like to find a suitable job.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 25 2014, 10:56 PM
Curious Cdn
Oct 25 2014, 10:10 PM
Is unemployment really under two million or just the number of people who are still looking for work? It's not the same group or number.

I don't think unemployment figures are taken seriously these days.
It was once an accurate reflection of how well, or how badly the economy was doing - not any longer.

With people working PT, people on minimum wage yet entitled to a benefit top-up, people on zero hour contracts, and people declaring themselves 'self employed' there is no reliable guideline, as was.

Politicians manipulate stats for political effect ....... I have little faith in any of them.

The one stat I do take note of is that 'a few years ago anyone on average wages would likely consider themselves as being well off - that is no longer the case'.
Being in work these days no longer means earning a living.




But the opposite is true. If you are fit and able and not working you are not earning a living or contributing towards such.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 07:15 AM
But the opposite is true. If you are fit and able and not working you are not earning a living or contributing towards such.
The problem is RJD someone in work on low wages has entitlement to in work benefits that are more than if they were out of work.

That is also why the income tax take is dropping, even allowing for rises in allowances.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 07:40 AM
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 07:15 AM
But the opposite is true. If you are fit and able and not working you are not earning a living or contributing towards such.
The problem is RJD someone in work on low wages has entitlement to in work benefits that are more than if they were out of work.

That is also why the income tax take is dropping, even allowing for rises in allowances.
The most overarching problem is the low pay endured by more than a fifth of the UK populous. I'm afraid you will get short shrift of these people if you try to peddle the yarn that the economy has improved. If there has been any improvement? What good is it if it bypasses the people who need extra money now. A bit like Scammer's pretend tax cuts, for the lower paid, all talk and not one based in reality.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29771470
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 25 2014, 05:58 PM
Stan Still
Oct 25 2014, 10:19 AM
Tigger
Oct 25 2014, 09:55 AM
Stan Still
Oct 25 2014, 07:28 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
How many carry on working because they got ripped off on their pensions and simply cannot afford to retire, can you answer that one for us?

Sitting at a desk for a few hours a day isn't particularly taxing physically although you'd be more than welcome to three days a week on one of my projects, I expect by Friday you'd barely be able to walk. :)

For many working beyond retirement age is simply not possible.
I do not sit behind a desk a day I am out and about most days, true I am no longer able to do heavy physical work as I once did but having retrained more than once I have a multitude of skills that meant I was head hunted for my present work that I really enjoy and paid rather well.

As for pensions you are asking a question that even you do not know the answerer to, yes some pension funds have folded or are not as good as predicted all pension funds are a gamble life is a gamble the only certainties are death and taxes, plus Brown raided the pensions funds and did lots of damage, some estimate that he cost the UK over 100 billion.

Some are having to work longer because they cannot afford to retire that is true, many like me continue to do so because we want to not have to.


Pensions never used to be a gamble and they should not be today end of, you'd shit yourself if you knew the levels of protection pensions have on the continent.

Of course you only remember the Brown tax raid on pensions, but the rot set in after the deregulation of the City under Thatcher, prior to this pensions were protected by very strict rules and regulations, we had no misselling (fraud) and fund managers were licensed and audited.

All this was swept away, we were promised untold riches as companies would be allowed to invest pension money in the business, ie money that up to then they could not legally touch, the first inkling of this disasterous policy was Robert Maxwell spunking his employees pension fund. Did the Tory government of the day change anything? Of course not they allowed more deregulation!

The reason many will be poor in retirement is due to your mates in the City, the next biggie will be the ripping off of those who will shortly be handing over their recently liberated annuities to wide boys with few morals who will "invest" this money in cocaine and prostitutes. (probably)

But I suspect you already knew all of that. ;-)
Wrong again I don't have any mates that work in the City and yes I know where they are and work unlike you, we did have the strongest pensions in Europe until Brown a history degree holder not an economist or financier came along desperate for cash years after Thatcher had left office.

Perhaps you should consider why Labour raided the pension funds and did not correct any mistakes or right any wrongs made by the Tories over 13 long years in office, they are after all supposed to be the saviours and champions of the working man.

Yes I regularly open my bowels and when I do for some unknown reason I always think of you and your rambling EU arse licking posts :'(

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Stan, you call Browns qualifications in economics. What about Osborne's? No problems with that one I imagine?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
I do not like him either I have no fondness for any Politician in this day and age I don't trust any of them, as I have said often I have no allegiance to any party
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 07:40 AM
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 07:15 AM
But the opposite is true. If you are fit and able and not working you are not earning a living or contributing towards such.
The problem is RJD someone in work on low wages has entitlement to in work benefits that are more than if they were out of work.

That is also why the income tax take is dropping, even allowing for rises in allowances.
Income Tax revenue for 2012 to 2013 was 1.4 billion higher then the year before not less, more workers are now paying higher rates of tax.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 26 2014, 09:09 AM
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 07:40 AM
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 07:15 AM
But the opposite is true. If you are fit and able and not working you are not earning a living or contributing towards such.
The problem is RJD someone in work on low wages has entitlement to in work benefits that are more than if they were out of work.

That is also why the income tax take is dropping, even allowing for rises in allowances.
Income Tax revenue for 2012 to 2013 was 1.4 billion higher then the year before not less, more workers are now paying higher rates of tax.
The increase in tax take, as shown on the old board, was down to increased prosecutions by HMR and their closing of some tax loopholes.
Edited by C-too, Oct 26 2014, 09:39 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 26 2014, 09:09 AM
Income Tax revenue for 2012 to 2013 was 1.4 billion higher then the year before not less, more workers are now paying higher rates of tax.
Don't you follow current affairs?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/63a4af34-52e5-11e4-a236-00144feab7de.html#axzz3HF63bSPR


October 13, 2014 5:33 pm

Income tax shortfall hits public finances


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Yes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 07:40 AM
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 07:15 AM
But the opposite is true. If you are fit and able and not working you are not earning a living or contributing towards such.
The problem is RJD someone in work on low wages has entitlement to in work benefits that are more than if they were out of work.

That is also why the income tax take is dropping, even allowing for rises in allowances.
Your conclusion is wrong. The income tax take from this group is nothing to do with benefits, it is solely due to a massive oversupply of low skilled unemployed people prepared to accept such low paid employment. The fact that this Gov. has increased the income tax threshold does not help. It has been shown, even during the recent recession, that the demand for educated, experienced and skilled people has outstripped supply and that is why their wage increases have been greater than the rate of inflation. Understand that the provision of in-work welfare benefits is a decision made by the State in order to combat the corrosive effects on such jobs by globalisation and are not demanded by industry and commerce. If the State removed such benefits and decided that the Employer should increase hourly rates to a minimum of the average wage for a man with wife and two kids then those jobs would simply disappear from the UK. Also understand that the situation will not improve, it will worsen over the next few decades at a time when we are asking young people, via their taxes, to carry a heavier burden of OAPs. At the same time, this selfish generation, are clobbering them with increased borrowings to fund current consumption. You doubt me now, but those of you young enough will rue the day that Politicians decided to bulk up borrowing and pass this down the line hence burdening them with a massive increase in interest costs. Cheap today maybe, but tomorrow? You also have to keep a weather eye on the fact that the portion of our national debt is growing rapidly with those outside of the £Sterling Zone and low value coupons coupled with a a sliding value of £Sterling wrt to the $US and/or Euro could rapidly change circumstances and force up the cost of borrowing to an unpalatable level. You will see that we should have cut out the overhang in 5 years and not relied in the pie in the sky increases in tax revenues to be created via a growth in consumption.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 11:30 AM
Your conclusion is wrong.
It isn't my conclusion RJD, it is the Office For Budget Responsibility's conclusion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 11:35 AM
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 11:30 AM
Your conclusion is wrong.
It isn't my conclusion RJD, it is the Office For Budget Responsibility's conclusion.
No it is not, it is your bad interpretation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 12:11 PM
No it is not, it is your bad interpretation.
Actually it was one of your favourite comics interpretation of their interpretation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 26 2014, 12:13 PM
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 12:11 PM
No it is not, it is your bad interpretation.
Actually it was one of your favourite comics interpretation of their interpretation.
You are free to back up your claims with facts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Boxter
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Whilst the headlining figures on those in employment look marvelous it hides the fact that the total income tax take by the treasury over the same period has actually fallen. The reason none of the coalitions shiney new jobs pay enough for those employed doing them to fall into a tax paying bracket.

ITS ALL AN ILLUSION
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 12:15 PM
You are free to back up your claims with facts.
You read the Torygraph so you can check for yourself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 26 2014, 07:13 AM
Curious Cdn
Oct 25 2014, 10:10 PM
Is unemployment really under two million or just the number of people who are still looking for work? It's not the same group or number.
It is the number who claim they would like to find a suitable job.
Regrettably, large numbers just "give up" and that skews the statistics. It happens here, too.. U.S. figures are really bent as about a quarter of their population lives totally outside of the "system" and literally tens of millions of chronically unemployed are never counted.
Edited by Curious Cdn, Oct 26 2014, 06:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Boxter
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Oh well as long as Mr Manuel Barossow's bean counters believe that our prostitution and black economy have boosted our bottom line to record levels that's just dandy and he can cream off £1.7 billion of it to redistribute it to the ailing men of the EU like Germany for example (DID I JUST SAY GERMANY WHAT THE F**Ks GOING ON HERE)

They even want another billion for next year ALREADY

Oh well that what you get when you play second fiddle to a dyed in the wool Maoist
Edited by Boxter, Oct 26 2014, 07:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply