ACH1967

Dec 9 2014, 11:53 AM

It is a good question about fairness. We could try coming at it from a effort and reward perspective. Has the person who lives in a six bedroom house and drives a nice car really put in that much more effort than the person who lives in a bedsit and works as a porter in a hospital for example (i did not use hospital to tug at heart strings its what one of my freinds sdoes so came immediately to mind). Are the outcome disparities fair?

ACH1967

Dec 9 2014, 11:53 AM

It is a good question about fairness. We could try coming at it from a effort and reward perspective. Has the person who lives in a six bedroom house and drives a nice car really put in that much more effort than the person who lives in a bedsit and works as a porter in a hospital for example (i did not use hospital to tug at heart strings its what one of my freinds sdoes so came immediately to mind). Are the outcome disparities fair?

RJD

Dec 9 2014, 02:50 PM

But the debate would make more progress if the moaners were to become specific.

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 11:51 PM

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 09:46 PM

Affa

Dec 8 2014, 09:19 PM

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 08:56 PM

I've slowly come to the conclusion over the years that some people actually revel in a certain amount of hardship or financial discomfort, they seem to feel it gives them some sort of moral superiority, perhaps as a way of nullifying the powerlessness they feel?

The majority of them would not accept help official or otherwise even if it was thrown at them, and they often expect others to do exactly the same, hence the resentment when others do accept charity.

My Bro-in-law was made redundant and refused to enrol on the dole, preferring to live (for a time) on savings and my sisters modest income from work. He believed it demeaning to himself to be classed as a scrounger.
As with most Tories it was impossible to make him see sense.

That sort of pride should be confined to costume dramas and stiff upper lip 1950's war films, after all pig headed pride does not pay the bills, put food on the table or heat your home, I regard these sort of people as little more than pompous idiots.

And it's those around these people I feel sorry for.

Best to keep on giving then, just to ease your conscience and enable you to sleep well at night. !dvl!

ACH1967

Dec 8 2014, 08:50 AM

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 06:55 PM

ACH1967

Dec 7 2014, 05:46 PM

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 10:43 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Nope there are a third group of people who don't like that Idea.

Those who have seen that money isn't the solution and don't want to give it anymore.

In other words you are part of the "selfish" group, perhaps someone who has private health cover

Let me tell you a true story which happened last night (Saturday 6th December) - somebody colapsed in a social club in Whitby, an ambulance was called and after about 10 minutes people began to worry, bearing in mind that Whitby ambulance station is less than 5 minutes away by road.

An ambulance did eventually arrive, all the way from Scarborough over 20 miles away along the A171 road which crosses the North York Moors, a road often dangerous or impassable in winter.
It seems that ambulance cover is now so stretched, and has been cut so much, that this now frequently happens.

We often hear people like yourself suggesting that medical staff, doctors and ambulance crews are inefficient, and that resources is not the problem, you are part of the minority of people who do not want to pay for decent public services, but most DO actually want good and adequate public services.

Organisations like the Yorkshire Ambulance Service have been economizing and "putting money to better use" as you put it, for four years now, and supporters of this failed government want the Yorkshire Ambulance Service to continue on with this policy for another 5 years. ?

When people actually begin to die because of the lack of even basic essential services, would you then be happy and satisfied. ?

Someone doesn't agree with you so you insult them. You accuse them of being selfish and then attribute a whole load of other negative assumptions on to them. Then you go with I am in a minority and everyone else is prepared to pay more. And you get this from where?

Basically you are just rude and offensive becasue I don't agree with you. Hope that's working out well for you.

krugerman

Dec 10 2014, 12:40 PM

Your correct, it is not continuing on the same money

The NHS budget for 2011/12 to 2014/15 was set out in the Autumn of 2010 shortly after the coalition came to power.

On paper the NHS did get an increase, that increase was equivelant to 0.1%, this is the absolute bare minimum that Cameron could get away with and call it an increase, but then comes the small print within Andrew Lansleys settlement of 2010 - the NHS budget must hand over £1 Billion pounds each year to the Social Care budget, the 0.1% increase wiped out.

This is the equivelant of you earning £100 per week and your boss promising to give you a wage rise, so he gives you 1p rise, and then takes 2p out of your wages to pay for the employyee pension fund.

krugerman

Dec 10 2014, 12:40 PM

Your correct, it is not continuing on the same money

The NHS budget for 2011/12 to 2014/15 was set out in the Autumn of 2010 shortly after the coalition came to power.

On paper the NHS did get an increase, that increase was equivelant to 0.1%, this is the absolute bare minimum that Cameron could get away with and call it an increase, but then comes the small print within Andrew Lansleys settlement of 2010 - the NHS budget must hand over £1 Billion pounds each year to the Social Care budget, the 0.1% increase wiped out.

This is the equivelant of you earning £100 per week and your boss promising to give you a wage rise, so he gives you 1p rise, and then takes 2p out of your wages to pay for the employyee pension fund.

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 12:51 PM

KG: Did you know for example that 25% of all A&E departments are short of middle and high ranking professionals, and that many A&E consultants are spending a third of their shift looking for locums or filling in paperwork, because there’s no administrator to do it for them.

ACH: So isn’t this a perfect example of poor management of resources. Employ one less A & E consultant and three extra administrators and you get 2 extra A & E consultants in terms of freed up time.

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 03:43 PM

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 12:51 PM

KG: Did you know for example that 25% of all A&E departments are short of middle and high ranking professionals, and that many A&E consultants are spending a third of their shift looking for locums or filling in paperwork, because there’s no administrator to do it for them.

ACH: So isn’t this a perfect example of poor management of resources. Employ one less A & E consultant and three extra administrators and you get 2 extra A & E consultants in terms of freed up time.

Sounds like typical Tory BS to me ....... "it's the way they tell 'em".

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 04:10 PM

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 03:43 PM

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 12:51 PM

KG: Did you know for example that 25% of all A&E departments are short of middle and high ranking professionals, and that many A&E consultants are spending a third of their shift looking for locums or filling in paperwork, because there’s no administrator to do it for them.

ACH: So isn’t this a perfect example of poor management of resources. Employ one less A & E consultant and three extra administrators and you get 2 extra A & E consultants in terms of freed up time.

Sounds like typical Tory BS to me ....... "it's the way they tell 'em".

Sounds like a lazy response too me. How did you type your response with your fingers in your ears whilst going la la la.

Anything you don't like is tory BS. THAT IS PATHETIC

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 04:25 PM

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 04:10 PM

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 03:43 PM

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 12:51 PM

KG: Did you know for example that 25% of all A&E departments are short of middle and high ranking professionals, and that many A&E consultants are spending a third of their shift looking for locums or filling in paperwork, because there’s no administrator to do it for them.

ACH: So isn’t this a perfect example of poor management of resources. Employ one less A & E consultant and three extra administrators and you get 2 extra A & E consultants in terms of freed up time.

Sounds like typical Tory BS to me ....... "it's the way they tell 'em".

Sounds like a lazy response too me. How did you type your response with your fingers in your ears whilst going la la la.

Anything you don't like is tory BS. THAT IS PATHETIC

Sounds like petulance ..... the reaction to being disbelieved when when telling fabricated stories. Pretending that the NHS needs more administrators to help professionals find locums is just too silly. Maybe more locums are needed, or why aren't spare locums looking for consultants instead of the other way round ....... none of it makes any sense!

Affa

Dec 9 2014, 05:49 PM

RJD

Dec 9 2014, 02:50 PM

But the debate would make more progress if the moaners were to become specific.

Like you I dislike the term, but it came to have political influence in 2010 (TV debates) and hasn't gone away.
I'd prefer it if the argument was instead about exploitation, those that gain most from enterprise and those that are causalities of enterprise in remuneration terms. And include rip-off pricing.
Start with the office cleaner, the factory floor sweeper ...... without whom nobody earns a $.

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 04:34 PM

Krug defined the problem of a lack of adminstrators i defined a response. Clearly it is an organisational problem. It is not the whole solution but it is a solution to the problem posed. Of course you would rather thrwo other peoples money at the problem. How much more tax are YOU prepared to pay?

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 04:34 PM

How much more tax are YOU prepared to pay?

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 06:15 PM

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 04:34 PM

How much more tax are YOU prepared to pay?

It is because you see it (the problem) in these terms that you believe as you do.
To me it is not a question of how much taxation there needs to be. It is entirely about employment, and especially about higher wages, increases in which resolve the question of where the money will come from.

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 11:08 PM

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 06:15 PM

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 04:34 PM

How much more tax are YOU prepared to pay?

It is because you see it (the problem) in these terms that you believe as you do.
To me it is not a question of how much taxation there needs to be. It is entirely about employment, and especially about higher wages, increases in which resolve the question of where the money will come from.

OK but how are you going to get those higher wages paid for any length of time when typical profits before tax in the large employers are 5% or less?

Scaring away top designers and raising employers NI is just going to make it worse.

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 11:52 PM

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 11:08 PM

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 06:15 PM

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 04:34 PM

How much more tax are YOU prepared to pay?

It is because you see it (the problem) in these terms that you believe as you do.
To me it is not a question of how much taxation there needs to be. It is entirely about employment, and especially about higher wages, increases in which resolve the question of where the money will come from.

OK but how are you going to get those higher wages paid for any length of time when typical profits before tax in the large employers are 5% or less?

Scaring away top designers and raising employers NI is just going to make it worse.

If a company can only survive by paying minimum wages, then its not a viable company.

Steve K

Dec 11 2014, 12:09 AM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 11:52 PM

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 11:08 PM

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 06:15 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepIt is entirely about employment, and especially about higher wages, increases in which resolve the question of where the money will come from.

OK but how are you going to get those higher wages paid for any length of time when typical profits before tax in the large employers are 5% or less?

Scaring away top designers and raising employers NI is just going to make it worse.

If a company can only survive by paying minimum wages, then its not a viable company.

So you'd rather have people unemployed than on low wages?

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 06:15 PM

ACH1967

Dec 10 2014, 04:34 PM

How much more tax are YOU prepared to pay?

It is because you see it (the problem) in these terms that you believe as you do.
To me it is not a question of how much taxation there needs to be. It is entirely about employment, and especially about higher wages, increases in which resolve the question of where the money will come from.

scorpio

Dec 11 2014, 12:49 AM

It's always better for the individual to be employed, than to be unemployed.

But.. A company that mostly employes it's work force on minimum wages can expect minimum quality of its product.

When the work force sees themselves as not valued, or not valued by their employer, then the incentive to produce a quality product is lost.

The situation regarding NHS employees, will not be settled by an increase in wages alone. There are many other things that need to be addressed.

ACH1967

Dec 11 2014, 08:53 AM

Yes I see it as it is (I do not choose to see it this way) whereas you prefer to choose a delusional fantasy. You don't even believe there is austerity FFS. I don't need to insult you or call your names what you post says all that needs to be said.

Affa

Dec 11 2014, 01:21 PM

ACH1967

Dec 11 2014, 08:53 AM

Yes I see it as it is (I do not choose to see it this way) whereas you prefer to choose a delusional fantasy. You don't even believe there is austerity FFS. I don't need to insult you or call your names what you post says all that needs to be said.

It is not delusional or fanciful to identify that it is the need for jobs and earnings ONLY that can resolve the shortage of revenue to sustain public services.
I do not believe that austerity measures can balance the economy - which is the basis of the argument for having austerity measures. The whole argument is a lie!
Osborne pursues an ideological course, not a course for recovery that raises standards or living standards - the course leads the opposite direction.

To want that is treason! imo.

Montjoie

Dec 11 2014, 01:35 PM

Affa

Dec 11 2014, 01:21 PM

ACH1967

Dec 11 2014, 08:53 AM

Yes I see it as it is (I do not choose to see it this way) whereas you prefer to choose a delusional fantasy. You don't even believe there is austerity FFS. I don't need to insult you or call your names what you post says all that needs to be said.

It is not delusional or fanciful to identify that it is the need for jobs and earnings ONLY that can resolve the shortage of revenue to sustain public services.
I do not believe that austerity measures can balance the economy - which is the basis of the argument for having austerity measures. The whole argument is a lie!
Osborne pursues an ideological course, not a course for recovery that raises standards or living standards - the course leads the opposite direction.

To want that is treason! imo.

You're against austerity. Fine. What's the better solution to create jobs and increase earnings then?

Steve K

Dec 11 2014, 12:09 AM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 11:52 PM

Steve K

Dec 10 2014, 11:08 PM

Affa

Dec 10 2014, 06:15 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepIt is entirely about employment, and especially about higher wages, increases in which resolve the question of where the money will come from.

OK but how are you going to get those higher wages paid for any length of time when typical profits before tax in the large employers are 5% or less?

Scaring away top designers and raising employers NI is just going to make it worse.

If a company can only survive by paying minimum wages, then its not a viable company.

So you'd rather have people unemployed than on low wages?

AndyK

Dec 11 2014, 02:29 PM

Steve K

Dec 11 2014, 12:09 AM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 11:52 PM

If a company can only survive by paying minimum wages, then its not a viable company.

So you'd rather have people unemployed than on low wages?

In a word, yes !

Pro Veritas

Dec 11 2014, 02:52 PM

AndyK

Dec 11 2014, 02:29 PM

Steve K

Dec 11 2014, 12:09 AM

AndyK

Dec 10 2014, 11:52 PM

If a company can only survive by paying minimum wages, then its not a viable company.

So you'd rather have people unemployed than on low wages?

In a word, yes !

And in some ways that makes sense.

People on NMW on less than 35-40hrs a week will be getting more in Tip-Ups than they would in JSA if they were on the dole.

Problem is that is a) unpopular, and b) socially it is very damaging, people out of work long-term often become very withdrawn, and I know from my own experience with being unemployed that it drags you down almost invisibly, to a point where I thought I was OK, but the W2W assessment, as defined by the government, said that I was "unfit for work and in need of professional counselling" - I genuinely had no idea I was that far down, because being unemployed I was not out and about and mixing with people who may have clued me in to something being wrong.

In pure economic terms having people unemployed is cheaper than having them on low hours and low wages; but socially it is just storing up problems for the time when the economy does pick up.

Its a two-edged sword.

All The Best

Affa

Dec 11 2014, 01:21 PM

ACH1967

Dec 11 2014, 08:53 AM

Yes I see it as it is (I do not choose to see it this way) whereas you prefer to choose a delusional fantasy. You don't even believe there is austerity FFS. I don't need to insult you or call your names what you post says all that needs to be said.

It is not delusional or fanciful to identify that it is the need for jobs and earnings ONLY that can resolve the shortage of revenue to sustain public services.
I do not believe that austerity measures can balance the economy - which is the basis of the argument for having austerity measures. The whole argument is a lie!
Osborne pursues an ideological course, not a course for recovery that raises standards or living standards - the course leads the opposite direction.

To want that is treason! imo.

ACH1967

Dec 11 2014, 03:25 PM

Affa

Dec 11 2014, 01:21 PM

ACH1967

Dec 11 2014, 08:53 AM

Yes I see it as it is (I do not choose to see it this way) whereas you prefer to choose a delusional fantasy. You don't even believe there is austerity FFS. I don't need to insult you or call your names what you post says all that needs to be said.

It is not delusional or fanciful to identify that it is the need for jobs and earnings ONLY that can resolve the shortage of revenue to sustain public services.
I do not believe that austerity measures can balance the economy - which is the basis of the argument for having austerity measures. The whole argument is a lie!
Osborne pursues an ideological course, not a course for recovery that raises standards or living standards - the course leads the opposite direction.

To want that is treason! imo.

OK, run by me again how you are going to get more employement and higher wages?

Montjoie

Dec 11 2014, 01:35 PM

Affa

Dec 11 2014, 01:21 PM

ACH1967

Dec 11 2014, 08:53 AM

Yes I see it as it is (I do not choose to see it this way) whereas you prefer to choose a delusional fantasy. You don't even believe there is austerity FFS. I don't need to insult you or call your names what you post says all that needs to be said.

It is not delusional or fanciful to identify that it is the need for jobs and earnings ONLY that can resolve the shortage of revenue to sustain public services.
I do not believe that austerity measures can balance the economy - which is the basis of the argument for having austerity measures. The whole argument is a lie!
Osborne pursues an ideological course, not a course for recovery that raises standards or living standards - the course leads the opposite direction.

To want that is treason! imo.

You're against austerity. Fine. What's the better solution to create jobs and increase earnings then?