8th July Budget

They would be replaced by people who are happy to live 3 to a room in a slum because there is no chance the wages would increase.

Some people don't have an issue with this.
 
DampDog said:
I think you're spot on, the Tory viewpoint is based on an ideology where everyone is in a position to improve there lot so to speak, it's a very narrow viewpoint with a heavy bias to those who have been lucky or privileged. Yeah, yeah I've head the argument a 1000 times, I got where "I got today by sheer hard work and determination" but for each one of those who have realised their hopes and dreams many more fall by the wayside and never recover. They are still flogging the "we are where we are today because of all the poor people scrounging off the state," not that the financial system was and still is a corrupt industry. Even now years after the crisis, we hear more stories of fixed exchange rates, mis-sold products and not a single person has been bought to book and the figures involved run into trillions.

The 12 billion savings they have been touting, is neither hear nor there, if the country was back in the back they would still be perusing the same policies regardless. Unless you come from another planet you must have realised that those at the bottom of the pond were always going to get hit hardest. Yet if you have a million quids worth of property in the family, happy days. (not that I don't think paying tax on property that has already had a lifetime worth of tax paid on it is fair, it just shows the bias to the very wealthy)
Click to expand...

Great post ;)
 
matdom said:
Regulation is different to taxpayer involvement.
Click to expand...

And what about my other point?

There was never any expectation from anywhere that the entire rail network would run without any subsidy whatsoever. I don't think there is a single country in the world that manages to run its rail network with zero subsidy let alone one as complex as ours. Even the Americans don't.
 
M1k3H said:
That is more than enough to live on and have a 2 bed flat on your own in some places, never mind sharing a house. If you can't afford to live in expensive areas, then move elsewhere, forcing companies in those area to raise wages when supply of workers falls because they moved away.
Click to expand...

some of the people you talk about travel into the more expensive parts of London to perform NMW rolls.

Could they afford to move to a cheaper part of London, or even outside of London and then pay the transport costs to get to work?

That £12,280 is suddenly have to stretch a lot further.
 
M1k3H said:
That is more than enough to live on and have a 2 bed flat on your own in some places, never mind sharing a house. If you can't afford to live in expensive areas, then move elsewhere, forcing companies in those area to raise wages when supply of workers falls because they moved away.
Click to expand...

£12,280 is not enough to live on in London, do you really what London to become like Paris? for since the adoption of council homes rich lived along side the poor now this is changing.
And if you suggest that the poor should not live in central London and they should move out, why should they generation have lived in that area? if you say that then you might as well don't live in Britain.

They have a right to stay in that area just like they have a right to stay in the UK,
 
Caged said:
They would be replaced by people who are happy to live 3 to a room in a slum because there is no chance the wages would increase.

Some people don't have an issue with this.
Click to expand...

If this happened, the immigrant population of London would skyrocket as they are really the only ones willing to do this.

But this arguments not about immigration, it's just making sure, imo, that a city has a spectrum of workers to service all industries.
 
OldCoals said:
some of the people you talk about travel into the more expensive parts of London to perform NMW rolls.

Could they afford to move to a cheaper part of London, or even outside of London and then pay the transport costs to get to work?

That £12,280 is suddenly have to stretch a lot further.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying keep the same job.. move somewhere else to a similar job where it is cheaper to live. I was offered two jobs before choosing my first job, one in London other in Wales. The job in Wales paid more as well, but even if salaries were the same, I would not afford to live the way I wanted to in London, so chose Wales, even though the area is not so nice in terms of going out.

Nobody has a right to live anywhere. The way I see it you have to work to establish your lifestyle, just because you grew up in London does not mean you have a right to stay there and the state to subsidise that stay.
 
[TW]Fox;28272842 said:
And what about my other point?

There was never any expectation from anywhere that the entire rail network would run without any subsidy whatsoever. I don't think there is a single country in the world that manages to run its rail network with zero subsidy let alone one as complex as ours. Even the Americans don't.
Click to expand...

No because they leak money out of our system to there system, look at SNCF look how well that rounds, cheaper and better. Private companies are milking the system, just look at PFI how much money is being transfer to the right via that system., just by re negotiating PFI contracts.

To give regional examples, the £5.2bn of PFI investment in Scotland up to 2007 has created a public sector cash liability of £22.3bn[57] and the investment of just £618m via PFI in Wales up to 2007 has created a public sector cash liability of £3.3bn.[58] However, these debts are small compared to other public-sector liabilities.[59]
 
matdom said:
No because they leak money out of our system to there system, look at SNCF look how well that rounds, cheaper and better. Private companies are milking the system, just look at PFI how much money is being transfer to the right via that system., just by re negotiating PFI contracts.

To give regional examples, the £5.2bn of PFI investment in Scotland up to 2007 has created a public sector cash liability of £22.3bn[57] and the investment of just £618m via PFI in Wales up to 2007 has created a public sector cash liability of £3.3bn.[58] However, these debts are small compared to other public-sector liabilities.[59]
Click to expand...

Again, none of that answers my question. You've gone off on some random tangent and have not demonstrated that it was ever intended to run completely free of any subsidy. You seem to have just gone off on a semi-related rant instead. Your second paragraph just looks like a random paste from Wikipedia, not sure of its relevance?

I'll ask you again - where was it stated that the privatisation process was designed to run with zero subsidy?
 
M1k3H said:
I'm not saying keep the same job.. move somewhere else to a similar job where it is cheaper to live. I was offered two jobs before choosing my first job, one in London other in Wales. The job in Wales paid more as well, but even if salaries were the same, I would not afford to live the way I wanted to in London, so chose Wales, even though the area is not so nice in terms of going out.

Nobody has a right to live anywhere. The way I see it you have to work to establish your lifestyle, just because you grew up in London does not mean you have a right to stay there and the state to subsidise that stay.
Click to expand...

You do have a right to live where you grew up, over some who has not.
 
[TW]Fox;28272874 said:
Again, none of that answers my question. You've gone off on some random tangent and have not demonstrated that it was ever intended to run completely free of any subsidy. You seem to have just gone off on a semi-related rant instead. Your second paragraph just looks like a random paste from Wikipedia, not sure of its relevance?

I'll ask you again - where was it stated that the privatisation process was designed to run with zero subsidy?
Click to expand...

it was designed to run itself and become self sufficient, not depend on tax payers.
 
matdom said:
£12,280 is not enough to live on in London, do you really what London to become like Paris? for since the adoption of council homes rich lived along side the poor now this is changing.
And if you suggest that the poor should not live in central London and they should move out, why should they generation have lived in that area? if you say that then you might as well don't live in Britain.

They have a right to stay in that area just like they have a right to stay in the UK,
Click to expand...

I would struggle to live in London on my current wage, certainly to have anything like the lifestyle and accommodation I do now. That just means if a company wanted me to move they would have to pay me enough or find someone else.

London is currently the preserve of the wealthy and the poor, especially in some areas. You are not going to solve the housing costs in London even by building as there isn't the land to do it. Benefits trap the poor in London, unable to increase their earnings because they won't be able to afford to live without the subsisidy. Is that traps really the best thing for people?
 
matdom said:
it was designed to run itself and become self sufficient, not depend on tax payers.
Click to expand...

Continually repeating your statement isn't the same thing as explaining it.

It was not designed to do that all - parts of the network will never, ever be self sufficient and no private firm would even take them on without some of subsidy from the government. Conversely, parts of the system can run at a profit. This is why the system was designed so that some franchises received subsidy and others paid premiums. It was never intended, nor would it ever be possible, for the premium payments to offset the subsidy payments.

Providing rural rail services in Scotland for example is going to cost more money than it generates in ticket sales. It therefore requires government support. There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a government supporting regional infrastructure - it happens in every developed nation on the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom