Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Archbishop of Canterbury condemns benefit changes
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Alwyn
Mar 9, 2013, 7:51:02 PM3/9/13
to
The Archbishop of Canterbury has backed a group of bishops who have
written an open letter criticising government plans to change the
benefits system.
They said it would have a "deeply disproportionate" effect on children.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21731488>
Alwyn
written an open letter criticising government plans to change the
benefits system.
They said it would have a "deeply disproportionate" effect on children.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21731488>
Alwyn
- .. -- Tim .-.
Mar 10, 2013, 3:53:03 AM3/10/13
to
the poor and even children are expected to carry the burden, whilst the
bankers STILL get massive bonuses, even when they get things drastically
wrong. Add to that, the MPs who fiddled expenses, which is FRAUD. It
seems that we really have not progressed far from Victorian times,
there's still one law for them, and another for the rest of us.
Tim.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 10, 2013, 4:18:23 AM3/10/13
to
"- .. -- Tim .-." <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jLmdnTt5FM1CpqHM...@bt.com...
and never can do,
"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in
man that walketh to direct his steps." Jer 10:23 (KJV)
"9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt:
who can know it?"
Jer 17:8-9 (ASV)
Which is why mankind needs Christ for the 'cure'.
Jeff...
news:jLmdnTt5FM1CpqHM...@bt.com...
> On 10/03/2013 00:51, Alwyn wrote:
>> The Archbishop of Canterbury has backed a group of bishops who have
>> written an open letter criticising government plans to change the
>> benefits system.
>> They said it would have a "deeply disproportionate" effect on children.
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21731488>
>> Alwyn
> As soon as we hit hard times, it seems that pensioners, the disabled, the
> poor and even children are expected to carry the burden, whilst the
> bankers STILL get massive bonuses, even when they get things drastically
> wrong. Add to that, the MPs who fiddled expenses, which is FRAUD. It
> seems that we really have not progressed far from Victorian times,
Human nature has not progressed since Eve first transgrssed in the Garden,
>> The Archbishop of Canterbury has backed a group of bishops who have
>> written an open letter criticising government plans to change the
>> benefits system.
>> They said it would have a "deeply disproportionate" effect on children.
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21731488>
>> Alwyn
> As soon as we hit hard times, it seems that pensioners, the disabled, the
> poor and even children are expected to carry the burden, whilst the
> bankers STILL get massive bonuses, even when they get things drastically
> wrong. Add to that, the MPs who fiddled expenses, which is FRAUD. It
> seems that we really have not progressed far from Victorian times,
and never can do,
"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in
man that walketh to direct his steps." Jer 10:23 (KJV)
"9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt:
who can know it?"
Jer 17:8-9 (ASV)
Which is why mankind needs Christ for the 'cure'.
Jeff...
Gareth McCaughan
Mar 10, 2013, 7:00:10 AM3/10/13
to
- .. -- Tim .-. wrote:
> As soon as we hit hard times, it seems that pensioners, the disabled,
> the poor and even children are expected to carry the burden, whilst
> the bankers STILL get massive bonuses, even when they get things
> drastically wrong. Add to that, the MPs who fiddled expenses, which
> is FRAUD. It seems that we really have not progressed far from
> Victorian times, there's still one law for them, and another for the
> rest of us.
Anatole France called ...
the majestic equality of the law, which forbids the rich
just like the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the
streets, and to steal bread.
It isn't the government or the law that gives the bankers their
bonuses. But it is the government that decides what to do about
poverty, and I agree that the current lot have completely the wrong
attitude.
--
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc
Kendall Down
Mar 10, 2013, 7:22:51 AM3/10/13
to
On 10/03/2013 00:51, Alwyn wrote:
> They said it would have a "deeply disproportionate" effect on children.
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21731488>
I have just finished re-reading Molly Weir's "Shoes were for Sunday", in
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21731488>
which she describes a childhood of grinding poverty in the tenements of
Glasgow (I think it was Glasgow). On the whole it was a happy and stable
childhood and certainly not one that harmed her in any way - on the
contrary, it taught her valuable lessons about work and the value of
money and how to bargain and other life skills.
The deprived children of today are those who, whatever their parents'
income, are unloved, uncared for, brought up without moral values,
taught (by example or precept) to lie, cheat, whinge, and feel no
responsibility for the effect of their actions.
Instead of doling out money, the government would do far better to use
that money to teach parenting skills - how to discipline your children,
what moral values to teach them, how to show love to them and spend time
with them, and so on.
If Molly's mother could have had more money, *her* life would have been
easier, but Molly would not have been any happier or secure.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
John
Mar 10, 2013, 8:11:56 AM3/10/13
to
have borned the brunt of the austerity drive.
Food has risen well beyond the rate of inflation and for those on
benefits it is probably their biggest expenditure.
Well done the bishops and the Archbishops for sticking up for them.
--
John
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 10, 2013, 8:38:25 AM3/10/13
to
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 00:51:02 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>The Archbishop of Canterbury has backed a group of bishops who have
>written an open letter criticising government plans to change the
>benefits system.
"4 Soldiers don't get tied up in the affairs of civilian life, for then they
>The Archbishop of Canterbury has backed a group of bishops who have
>written an open letter criticising government plans to change the
>benefits system.
cannot
please the officer who enlisted them.5 And athletes cannot win the prize
unless they follow the rules" 2 Tim 2:4-6 (NLT)
"Whoever resists the government opposes what God has established.
Those who resist will bring punishment on themselves"
Romans 13:2 (GW)
Jeff...
Mark Goodge
Mar 10, 2013, 10:11:21 AM3/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:22:51 +0000, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>
>Instead of doling out money, the government would do far better to use
>that money to teach parenting skills - how to discipline your children,
>what moral values to teach them, how to show love to them and spend time
>with them, and so on.
I don't think it's an either/or choice between money and non-money, but I
do think that one of the biggest flaws of our welfare system is its
tendency to measure welfare purely in financial terms and treat money as
the solution to everyone's problems. As the saying goes, if the only tool
you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. And the welfare
system tends to treat every recipient as a financial nail.
I was reading an article recently about the number of former professional
footballers who ended up bankrupt, despite having had an income that most
people can only dream about. Equally, at the other end of the scale,
despite the fact that local authorities are legally obliged to house the
homeless, we still have people sleeping rough. They may seem like very
different issues, but at root they are based on the same thing: the
inability of some people to make sensible choices. And, as the bankrupt
footballers demonstrate, you cannot solve the problem of poor life skills
just by thowing money at it, no matter how much money you throw.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
typed:
>
>Instead of doling out money, the government would do far better to use
>that money to teach parenting skills - how to discipline your children,
>what moral values to teach them, how to show love to them and spend time
>with them, and so on.
do think that one of the biggest flaws of our welfare system is its
tendency to measure welfare purely in financial terms and treat money as
the solution to everyone's problems. As the saying goes, if the only tool
you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. And the welfare
system tends to treat every recipient as a financial nail.
I was reading an article recently about the number of former professional
footballers who ended up bankrupt, despite having had an income that most
people can only dream about. Equally, at the other end of the scale,
despite the fact that local authorities are legally obliged to house the
homeless, we still have people sleeping rough. They may seem like very
different issues, but at root they are based on the same thing: the
inability of some people to make sensible choices. And, as the bankrupt
footballers demonstrate, you cannot solve the problem of poor life skills
just by thowing money at it, no matter how much money you throw.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Robert Billing
Mar 10, 2013, 12:30:59 PM3/10/13
to
The hyperspace communicator crackled into life and we heard Mark Goodge
say:
> same thing: the inability of some people to make sensible choices. And,
> as the bankrupt footballers demonstrate, you cannot solve the problem of
> poor life skills just by thowing money at it, no matter how much money
> you throw.
That is one part of the problem. The other is that the money which is to
be thrown is first taxed from industry which has less to spend on creating
jobs as a result.
A typical case in point is that I use for my business a five year old
British made car, which I would like to replace with a new one, but I am
paying most of the price of a new one each year in tax. Multiply this by
the number of small businesses and see how many workers the car plants
could take on.
As usual the cry will go up "Clobber the rich!" This is then followed by,
"Er, we haven't got any rich left to clobber, they've either become poor
or run away. Never mind, clobber the middle classes and small businesses,
they have some money, and are too polite and too busy trying to stay
solvent to throw things at policemen."
(Wanders off to find suit of armour ready for incoming barrage of abuse.)
say:
> same thing: the inability of some people to make sensible choices. And,
> as the bankrupt footballers demonstrate, you cannot solve the problem of
> poor life skills just by thowing money at it, no matter how much money
> you throw.
be thrown is first taxed from industry which has less to spend on creating
jobs as a result.
A typical case in point is that I use for my business a five year old
British made car, which I would like to replace with a new one, but I am
paying most of the price of a new one each year in tax. Multiply this by
the number of small businesses and see how many workers the car plants
could take on.
As usual the cry will go up "Clobber the rich!" This is then followed by,
"Er, we haven't got any rich left to clobber, they've either become poor
or run away. Never mind, clobber the middle classes and small businesses,
they have some money, and are too polite and too busy trying to stay
solvent to throw things at policemen."
(Wanders off to find suit of armour ready for incoming barrage of abuse.)
Alwyn
Mar 10, 2013, 1:14:03 PM3/10/13
to
On 10/03/2013 11:22, Kendall Down wrote:
>
> If Molly's mother could have had more money, *her* life would have been
> easier, but Molly would not have been any happier or secure.
No idea who Molly is or was, sorry!
>
> If Molly's mother could have had more money, *her* life would have been
> easier, but Molly would not have been any happier or secure.
But...
* Child poverty blights childhoods. Growing up in poverty means being
cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends.
For example, 62 per cent of families in the bottom income quintile would
like, but cannot afford, to take their children on holiday for one week
a year.5
* Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By 16, children receiving free
school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their wealthier
peers.6 Leaving school with fewer qualifications translates into lower
earnings over the course of a working life.
* Poverty is also related to more complicated health histories over the
course of a lifetime, again influencing earnings as well as the overall
quality – and indeed length - of life. Professionals live, on average,
eight years longer than unskilled workers.7
* Child poverty imposes costs on broader society – estimated to be at
least £25 billion a year.8 Governments forgo prospective revenues as
well as commit themselves to providing services in the future if they
fail to address child poverty in the here and now.
<http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures>
Alwyn
Kendall Down
Mar 10, 2013, 4:12:57 PM3/10/13
to
On 10/03/2013 16:30, Robert Billing wrote:
> That is one part of the problem. The other is that the money which is to
> be thrown is first taxed from industry which has less to spend on creating
> jobs as a result.
Quite so. We used to be a nation of small shopkeepers, but one reason
> That is one part of the problem. The other is that the money which is to
> be thrown is first taxed from industry which has less to spend on creating
> jobs as a result.
(only one, of course) why that is no longer the case is over-regulation
and over-taxation.
Does anyone remember the book "My Father's Business"? This chap in
Liverpool, I think it was, decided that he was sick of being a factory
hand or whatever it was, so converted the front room of his house into a
shop, selling anything that people would buy - fruit and vege, sweets,
cigarettes (no health concerns in those days) and so on.
The author of the book, then a little girl, worked in this front-room
shop and helped to make it a success (as did the rest of her family) and
learned about profit and loss and if there were no sales there was no
profit and no money, and so on.
I forget whether it was in that book or somewhere else that there was
discussion of the effect when the merchants and businessmen of Liverpool
decided, after much debate, to voluntarily contribute 1d in the £1
towards some charity or hospital or something. It meant nothing to the
big businesses, but it hit this girl's father hard - his profit margin
wasn't much more than 1d in the £1!
Kendall Down
Mar 10, 2013, 4:27:20 PM3/10/13
to
On 10/03/2013 17:14, Alwyn wrote:
> No idea who Molly is or was, sorry!
If you had read my post you would have learned: Molly Weir, author of
> No idea who Molly is or was, sorry!
"Shoes were for Sunday". You could even consult Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Weir
> But...
> * Child poverty blights childhoods. Growing up in poverty means being
> cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends.
> For example, 62 per cent of families in the bottom income quintile would
> like, but cannot afford, to take their children on holiday for one week
> a year.
2. I'll bet they could. A neighbour complained recently that his
grandchildren were coming up for a couple of days and he didn't know if
he could afford to have them. When questioned, we discovered that he
felt he had to take them out for various expensive entertainments and
our suggestion that he take them walking in the woods, mountain
climbing, exploring the nearby caves, was greeted with incredulity. Did
children enjoy such things?
So yes, very likely these "poor" people can't afford to take their
children to DisneyWorld for a week. Let me tell you a secret: *I*
couldn't afford to take my children or my grandchilren to DisneyWorld
for a week. Couldn't when I was in work, can't now I am retired. But
they could take them walking in the woods or following one of Britain's
wonderful public footpaths or along a towpath.
> * Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By 16, children receiving free
> school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their wealthier
> earnings over the course of a working life.
There are times when oversimplification is so breath-takingly immense
that it achieves a certain grandeur. Do you mean that free school meals
are such a handicap? Or is it not the case that the sort of parent who
can't be bothered to provide their children with nourishing food also
doesn't encourage them to do their homework and urges them to leave
school as soon as possible?
If you really do mean that school meals are a handicap, then school
meals really do need improving!!!
> * Poverty is also related to more complicated health histories over the
> course of a lifetime, again influencing earnings as well as the overall
> quality – and indeed length - of life. Professionals live, on average,
> eight years longer than unskilled workers.
something is wrong they go to the doctor. The "poor" do live on fast
food, beer and fags - strange, isn't it, how the poorest in society
somehow manage to buy cigarettes but can't afford to provide nutritious
home-cooked food for themselves and family - and when they have a funny
lump in the breast or elsewhere make excuses and put off going to the
doctor - the same, free, NHS doctor that the professional goes to -
until it is too late.
> * Child poverty imposes costs on broader society – estimated to be at
> least £25 billion a year.8 Governments forgo prospective revenues as
> well as commit themselves to providing services in the future if they
> fail to address child poverty in the here and now.
the government needs to address child poverty by cracking down hard on
parents who buy beer and cigarettes instead of nutritious food, who buy
lottery tickets instead of shoes and clothes for the kids, who don't
send the kids to school because they are so out of it on marijuana that
they don't know what day of the week it is, and so on. Don't just give
them money: they'll simply buy more beer.
> <http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures>
No idea who cpag is or was. Sorry.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
attractive girlfriend) and his lawyer produces a psychiatrist who says
that he couldn't control himself because, poor chap, he had damaged his
brain playing American football and smoking pot every day.
If I were the judge and heard that, I would automatically double the
sentence.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 10, 2013, 5:03:01 PM3/10/13
to
"Kendall Down" <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote in message
From ten years to twenty?
Jeff...
" ’Who are you, sir?’ I asked.
"And the Lord replied, ’I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting.
16 Now stand up! For I have appeared to you to appoint you as my
servant and my witness.
You are to tell the world about this experience
about the many other occasions when I shall appear to you.
17 And I will protect you from both your own people and the Gentiles.
Yes, I am going to send you to the Gentiles 18 to open their eyes to
their true condition so that they may repent and
live in the light of God instead of in Satan’s darkness"
Acts 26:15-18 (TLB)
Amen!
>Some case in America where a teenager killed his teenage (and very
>attractive girlfriend) and his lawyer produces a psychiatrist who says that
>he couldn't control himself because, poor chap, he had damaged his brain
>playing American football and smoking pot every day.
>If I were the judge and heard that, I would automatically double the
>sentence.
LOL!
>attractive girlfriend) and his lawyer produces a psychiatrist who says that
>he couldn't control himself because, poor chap, he had damaged his brain
>playing American football and smoking pot every day.
>If I were the judge and heard that, I would automatically double the
>sentence.
From ten years to twenty?
Jeff...
" ’Who are you, sir?’ I asked.
"And the Lord replied, ’I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting.
16 Now stand up! For I have appeared to you to appoint you as my
servant and my witness.
You are to tell the world about this experience
about the many other occasions when I shall appear to you.
17 And I will protect you from both your own people and the Gentiles.
Yes, I am going to send you to the Gentiles 18 to open their eyes to
their true condition so that they may repent and
live in the light of God instead of in Satan’s darkness"
Acts 26:15-18 (TLB)
Amen!
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 10, 2013, 3:26:15 PM3/10/13
to
"Mark Goodge" wrote in message news:
another.
I have a relative who has saved all her life, never owned a car, or had
expensive
holidays or gambled. smoked or drank, and now she has is having to spend
nearly £600 per week in a care home due to progression of old age.
Shortly we shall have to sell her house and use the proceeds to keep on
paying for her infirmity.
If she had had a 'Whale of a time' gone on summer &winter cruises,
lived it up, smoked, drank and gambled away and spent it all, she
would be 'entitled' to 'free' accommodation and care.
'You couldn't make it up' as they say, and I haven't.
Jeff...
>I was reading an article recently about the number of former professional
>footballers who ended up bankrupt, despite having had an income that most
>people can only dream about.
They don't have it as most have squandered it away either one way or
>footballers who ended up bankrupt, despite having had an income that most
>people can only dream about.
another.
I have a relative who has saved all her life, never owned a car, or had
expensive
holidays or gambled. smoked or drank, and now she has is having to spend
nearly £600 per week in a care home due to progression of old age.
Shortly we shall have to sell her house and use the proceeds to keep on
paying for her infirmity.
If she had had a 'Whale of a time' gone on summer &winter cruises,
lived it up, smoked, drank and gambled away and spent it all, she
would be 'entitled' to 'free' accommodation and care.
'You couldn't make it up' as they say, and I haven't.
Jeff...
Mark Goodge
Mar 10, 2013, 5:09:57 PM3/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:27:20 +0000, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On 10/03/2013 17:14, Alwyn wrote:
>
>> * Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By 16, children receiving free
>> school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their wealthier
>> peers. Leaving school with fewer qualifications translates into lower
>> earnings over the course of a working life.
>
>There are times when oversimplification is so breath-takingly immense
>that it achieves a certain grandeur. Do you mean that free school meals
>are such a handicap? Or is it not the case that the sort of parent who
>can't be bothered to provide their children with nourishing food also
>doesn't encourage them to do their homework and urges them to leave
>school as soon as possible?
Children get free school meals (as opposed to having to pay for them) if
their parents are below a certain level of income. It is, therefore, a
fairly good proxy for poverty, as far as the education system is concerned.
And there is a strong correlation between children getting free school
meals and under-achieving academically.
Obviously, correlation and causality are not the same thing. But, given
that it can't be the free meals which are causing low achievement (given
that successful pupils eat the same things), the most plausible assumption
is either that poverty is a cause of underachievement, or that the causes
of poverty and underachievement are themselves interlinked in some way.
Child Poverty Action Group.
typed:
>On 10/03/2013 17:14, Alwyn wrote:
>
>> * Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By 16, children receiving free
>> school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their wealthier
>> peers. Leaving school with fewer qualifications translates into lower
>> earnings over the course of a working life.
>
>There are times when oversimplification is so breath-takingly immense
>that it achieves a certain grandeur. Do you mean that free school meals
>are such a handicap? Or is it not the case that the sort of parent who
>can't be bothered to provide their children with nourishing food also
>doesn't encourage them to do their homework and urges them to leave
>school as soon as possible?
their parents are below a certain level of income. It is, therefore, a
fairly good proxy for poverty, as far as the education system is concerned.
And there is a strong correlation between children getting free school
meals and under-achieving academically.
Obviously, correlation and causality are not the same thing. But, given
that it can't be the free meals which are causing low achievement (given
that successful pupils eat the same things), the most plausible assumption
is either that poverty is a cause of underachievement, or that the causes
of poverty and underachievement are themselves interlinked in some way.
Child Poverty Action Group.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 10, 2013, 5:18:27 PM3/10/13
to
"Robert Billing" <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7z2%s.15047$Q01....@fx13.fr7...
do with Christ's followers, whether spent wisely or squandered.
"21 They said to Jesus, "Sir, we know what an honest teacher you are.
You always tell the truth and don’t budge an inch in the face of what
others think, but teach the ways of God.
22 Now tell us—is it right to pay taxes to the Roman government or not?"
23 He saw through their trickery and said, 24 "Show me a coin.
Whose portrait is this on it? And whose name?"
They replied, "Caesar’s—the Roman emperor’s."
25 He said, "Then give the emperor all that is his—
and give to God all that is his!"
Luke 20:21-25 (TLB)
<snip>
> (Wanders off to find suit of armour ready for incoming barrage of abuse)
LOL!
Jeff...
news:7z2%s.15047$Q01....@fx13.fr7...
The hyperspace communicator crackled into life and we heard Mark Goodge
say:
>> same thing: the inability of some people to make sensible choices. And,
>> as the bankrupt footballers demonstrate, you cannot solve the problem of
>> poor life skills just by thowing money at it, no matter how much money
>> you throw.
>That is one part of the problem. The other is that the money which is to
>be thrown is first taxed from industry which has less to spend on creating
>jobs as a result.
What the government do with our tax money is their affair and nothing to
say:
>> same thing: the inability of some people to make sensible choices. And,
>> as the bankrupt footballers demonstrate, you cannot solve the problem of
>> poor life skills just by thowing money at it, no matter how much money
>> you throw.
>That is one part of the problem. The other is that the money which is to
>be thrown is first taxed from industry which has less to spend on creating
>jobs as a result.
do with Christ's followers, whether spent wisely or squandered.
"21 They said to Jesus, "Sir, we know what an honest teacher you are.
You always tell the truth and don’t budge an inch in the face of what
others think, but teach the ways of God.
22 Now tell us—is it right to pay taxes to the Roman government or not?"
23 He saw through their trickery and said, 24 "Show me a coin.
Whose portrait is this on it? And whose name?"
They replied, "Caesar’s—the Roman emperor’s."
25 He said, "Then give the emperor all that is his—
and give to God all that is his!"
Luke 20:21-25 (TLB)
<snip>
> (Wanders off to find suit of armour ready for incoming barrage of abuse)
LOL!
Jeff...
Mark Goodge
Mar 10, 2013, 5:31:42 PM3/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:26:15 -0000, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
But, as you say in Message-ID: <aq4bcp...@mid.individual.net>, "What
the government do with our tax money is their affair". So you can't really
complain about it.
put finger to keyboard and typed:
the government do with our tax money is their affair". So you can't really
complain about it.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 10, 2013, 6:31:47 PM3/10/13
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:prupj8ta70hhi2kil...@news.markshouse.net...
Erh!
'Where on earth' am I complaining here about what is done with 'tax
money'?
Jeff...
news:prupj8ta70hhi2kil...@news.markshouse.net...
'Where on earth' am I complaining here about what is done with 'tax
money'?
Jeff...
Alwyn
Mar 10, 2013, 6:43:52 PM3/10/13
to
On 10/03/2013 20:27, Kendall Down wrote:
>
> 1. Not going on holiday is not poverty.
Poverty is relative. If you are the only child in the class whose
>
> 1. Not going on holiday is not poverty.
parents cannot afford to take him on holiday, you will feel it, believe
me. Another way of looking at the affluence of a child's background is
to look at whether he or she qualifies for free school meals. There is a
very strong correlation between the affluence of a child's background
and his or her prospects later in life in terms of educational
achievement, employment earnings or lack thereof, and even health.
Alwyn
John
Mar 10, 2013, 7:51:19 PM3/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:27:20 +0000, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 10/03/2013 17:14, Alwyn wrote:
>> * Poverty is also related to more complicated health histories over the
>> course of a lifetime, again influencing earnings as well as the overall
>> quality – and indeed length - of life. Professionals live, on average,
>> eight years longer than unskilled workers.
>
>Why? Because they don't live on fast food, beer and fags. When they feel
>something is wrong they go to the doctor. The "poor" do live on fast
>food, beer and fags - strange, isn't it, how the poorest in society
>somehow manage to buy cigarettes but can't afford to provide nutritious
>home-cooked food for themselves and family - and when they have a funny
>lump in the breast or elsewhere make excuses and put off going to the
>doctor - the same, free, NHS doctor that the professional goes to -
>until it is too late.
And you accuse Gareth of living in an ivory tower!!!!
Your ability to dismiss all poor people in the way above is
breathtaking to say the least.
Poverty in this country is real, and whilst a *minority* of poor
people do fit your stereotypical example, it is by no means the norm.
I guess that food banks have escaped your notice, which have become an
increasing reality as the austerity cuts hit the poor far harder than
those who aren't.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/05/food-banks-thriving-government-embarrassment
--
John
wrote:
>On 10/03/2013 17:14, Alwyn wrote:
>> * Poverty is also related to more complicated health histories over the
>> course of a lifetime, again influencing earnings as well as the overall
>> quality – and indeed length - of life. Professionals live, on average,
>> eight years longer than unskilled workers.
>
>Why? Because they don't live on fast food, beer and fags. When they feel
>something is wrong they go to the doctor. The "poor" do live on fast
>food, beer and fags - strange, isn't it, how the poorest in society
>somehow manage to buy cigarettes but can't afford to provide nutritious
>home-cooked food for themselves and family - and when they have a funny
>lump in the breast or elsewhere make excuses and put off going to the
>doctor - the same, free, NHS doctor that the professional goes to -
>until it is too late.
Your ability to dismiss all poor people in the way above is
breathtaking to say the least.
Poverty in this country is real, and whilst a *minority* of poor
people do fit your stereotypical example, it is by no means the norm.
I guess that food banks have escaped your notice, which have become an
increasing reality as the austerity cuts hit the poor far harder than
those who aren't.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/05/food-banks-thriving-government-embarrassment
--
John
John
Mar 10, 2013, 7:55:45 PM3/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:12:57 +0000, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk>
wrote:
hardly a success if their profit was under 1% !!!
And how did it hit him hard if it was only voluntary?
--
John
wrote:
And how did it hit him hard if it was only voluntary?
--
John
John
Mar 10, 2013, 9:01:20 PM3/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:30:59 GMT, Robert Billing
<uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A typical case in point is that I use for my business a five year old
>British made car, which I would like to replace with a new one, but I am
>paying most of the price of a new one each year in tax.
Oh dear, poor you. Now let me get this right, you're paying somewhere
<uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A typical case in point is that I use for my business a five year old
>British made car, which I would like to replace with a new one, but I am
>paying most of the price of a new one each year in tax.
in the region of £15k tax (I'm assuming an average price family car at
£20k) That still gives you more than enough take home pay to
struggle by on.
Why not get the car on hp/loan over 5 years, and let the business pay
for it? You can write down two thirds of the capital over 5 years,
and offset the interest against expenses.
>As usual the cry will go up "Clobber the rich!" This is then followed by,
>"Er, we haven't got any rich left to clobber, they've either become poor
>or run away. Never mind, clobber the middle classes and small businesses,
>they have some money, and are too polite and too busy trying to stay
>solvent to throw things at policemen."
has been kind to the working man in the last 3 years.
And given that you (assuming you personally take a little bit less
than £35k a year pay) you have the benefit of not paying tax or
national insurance, that's a result in anyones book.
Now I'm happy you're in that position, and I don't doubt for a minute
you've worked hard for it, but please, don't moan about your lot when
there are people in a far worse situation.
--
John
Gareth McCaughan
Mar 10, 2013, 9:08:58 PM3/10/13
to
Robert Billing wrote:
> As usual the cry will go up "Clobber the rich!" This is then followed by,
> "Er, we haven't got any rich left to clobber, they've either become poor
> or run away. Never mind, clobber the middle classes and small businesses,
> they have some money, and are too polite and too busy trying to stay
> solvent to throw things at policemen."
people in the UK and income inequality here is (and has been for ages)
distinctly higher than in most of Europe.
If the politicians clobber the middle classes and small businesses
in preference to the very rich, I think it's because they prefer to
do that rather than because all the rich people have disappeared.
Perhaps the present lot have that preference because so many of
their friends are in the "very rich" category.
> (Wanders off to find suit of armour ready for incoming barrage of
> abuse.)
seeing much in the way of actual abuse either before or after them.
I will, however, say this. Your complaint in the parent post seems
to be that the government has the temerity to make you pay taxes.
The alternative to *that* is outright anarchy, and I don't think
you would really find that an improvement.
Kendall Down
Mar 11, 2013, 1:17:52 AM3/11/13
to
On 10/03/2013 21:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Children get free school meals (as opposed to having to pay for them) if
> their parents are below a certain level of income. It is, therefore, a
> fairly good proxy for poverty, as far as the education system is concerned.
> And there is a strong correlation between children getting free school
> meals and under-achieving academically.
There is no doubt a strong correleation between children wearing
> Children get free school meals (as opposed to having to pay for them) if
> their parents are below a certain level of income. It is, therefore, a
> fairly good proxy for poverty, as far as the education system is concerned.
> And there is a strong correlation between children getting free school
> meals and under-achieving academically.
second-hand clothes and under-achieving academically.
> Obviously, correlation and causality are not the same thing. But, given
> that it can't be the free meals which are causing low achievement (given
> that successful pupils eat the same things), the most plausible assumption
> is either that poverty is a cause of underachievement, or that the causes
> of poverty and underachievement are themselves interlinked in some way.
even if it may be *part* of the answer.
When my wife first came over to Britain she found temporary lodging with
a working-class family in a council house (neither of us knew any better
in those days!) They didn't keep coal in the bath, but only because they
had electric heating; they kept all sorts of other rubbish in the bath
and were greatly put-out when Shirley expressed a desire to have a bath
at least every second day.
The point is that they were given "money" in the form of a nice council
house with a bath and a method of heating water, but that did not make
them clean. It was their attitude that needed to be educated and
changed, not their financial circumstances.
>>> <http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures>
>> No idea who cpag is or was. Sorry.
> Child Poverty Action Group.
Kendall Down
Mar 11, 2013, 1:25:18 AM3/11/13
to
On 10/03/2013 22:43, Alwyn wrote:
>> 1. Not going on holiday is not poverty.
> Poverty is relative. If you are the only child in the class whose
> parents cannot afford to take him on holiday, you will feel it, believe
> me.
That may well be so: if you are the only child in the class whose
>> 1. Not going on holiday is not poverty.
> Poverty is relative. If you are the only child in the class whose
> parents cannot afford to take him on holiday, you will feel it, believe
> me.
parents cannot afford to take him to Klosters for skiing over the winter
break, you will feel it, believe me, even if you do go to Butlins for a
fortnight every year.
> Another way of looking at the affluence of a child's background is
> to look at whether he or she qualifies for free school meals. There is a
> very strong correlation between the affluence of a child's background
> and his or her prospects later in life in terms of educational
> achievement, employment earnings or lack thereof, and even health.
problems, but in the majority of cases the problem is not money or the
lack thereof but attitude, a mind-set, a way of living and behaving.
*That* is what needs to change; when it does, the individual will cease
to be poor. Until it does the individual will remain poor no matter how
much money you give him.
This is why Christianity changed lives so effectively here in Britain.
People became Methodists (or whatever) and immediately changed their
behaviour and attitudes. Instead of spending all their money down at the
boozer, they started to save; they learned to read and developed a
thirst for education (as in Miners' Institutes and lending libraries);
they encouraged their children to excel at school; and so on.
The result? The children moved up from working class to middle class,
from grinding poverty to relative affluence.
Kendall Down
Mar 11, 2013, 1:33:49 AM3/11/13
to
On 10/03/2013 23:51, John wrote:
> Your ability to dismiss all poor people in the way above is
> breathtaking to say the least.
> Poverty in this country is real, and whilst a *minority* of poor
> people do fit your stereotypical example, it is by no means the norm.
It would be interesting to do a study of homeless people and find out
> Your ability to dismiss all poor people in the way above is
> breathtaking to say the least.
> Poverty in this country is real, and whilst a *minority* of poor
> people do fit your stereotypical example, it is by no means the norm.
how many are homeless because they lost their jobs and were thrown out
of their homes and desperately want to find work again, and how many are
homeless because they are drug or alcohol dependent and/or mentally ill.
From time to time one hears of someone who lost his job and became
homeless but in every case I have come across it is that he lost his job
*and* then started to drink to forget (or whatever). There are plenty of
people who lose their jobs and go through a difficult patch but who do
not turn to destructive behaviour and as a result come out the other
side with a new job or even a new career.
There are plenty of people with a low income and if that is your sole
definition of "poverty" then I accept that my stereotype is not the
norm. The majority of those with a low income, however, are not "poor";
they have enough food on the table, enough clothes on their backs, they
manage to pay their bills. They have to struggle, sure, but they get by.
The ones who go barefoot in winter, who tear up the flooring to burn
because their gas has been cut off, who queue up for free meals and
militantly demand higher benefits (or cheat to obtain them) receive
exactly the same income as the others - or possibly more because they
have no shame about cheating the system - but choose to spend it on
booze and fags.
Kendall Down
Mar 11, 2013, 1:37:22 AM3/11/13
to
On 10/03/2013 23:55, John wrote:
> hardly a success if their profit was under 1% !!!
Whatever their profit was (and 1d in the pound was not 1%, it was 1/240
> hardly a success if their profit was under 1% !!!
- that's what comes of a comprehensive education, I guess) it was very
slim but it was enough to keep him going and he was happy because he was
his own boss.
> And how did it hit him hard if it was only voluntary?
Liverpool Corporation (or whatever the body was) voted to implement this
new policy and the girl's father felt obliged to take part in it, both
because it was a worthy cause and because he was too honest to try to
evade a democratic decision.
Kendall Down
Mar 11, 2013, 1:40:47 AM3/11/13
to
On 11/03/2013 01:01, John wrote:
> Why not get the car on hp/loan over 5 years, and let the business pay
> for it? You can write down two thirds of the capital over 5 years,
> and offset the interest against expenses.
Robert can answer for himself but I would presume he prefers to keep his
> Why not get the car on hp/loan over 5 years, and let the business pay
> for it? You can write down two thirds of the capital over 5 years,
> and offset the interest against expenses.
business debt free - or perhaps the banks won't lend to him because for
some reason he doesn't meet their criteria.
> And given that you (assuming you personally take a little bit less
> than £35k a year pay) you have the benefit of not paying tax or
> national insurance, that's a result in anyones book.
I emmigrate to this utopia?
As for national insurance, even if someone doesn't have to pay NI, he or
she still has to make provision for the future costs that the NI is
intended to cover for the rest of us.
Mark Goodge
Mar 11, 2013, 3:50:28 AM3/11/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:31:47 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
<jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:
You appear to be implying that there is something wrong with the government
subsidising care homes for people who have already disposed of their
assets, but not for those who still have them and can sell them.
<jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:
subsidising care homes for people who have already disposed of their
assets, but not for those who still have them and can sell them.
Mark Goodge
Mar 11, 2013, 3:57:00 AM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:17:52 +0000, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On 10/03/2013 21:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> Children get free school meals (as opposed to having to pay for them) if
>> their parents are below a certain level of income. It is, therefore, a
>> fairly good proxy for poverty, as far as the education system is concerned.
>> And there is a strong correlation between children getting free school
>> meals and under-achieving academically.
>
>There is no doubt a strong correleation between children wearing
>second-hand clothes and under-achieving academically.
Indeed. But the point is that the schools know which pupils get free school
meals, while they don't necesarily know which are wearing second hand
clothes. So it's a lot easier to measure the former than the latter.
>>>> <http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures>
>
>>> No idea who cpag is or was. Sorry.
>
>> Child Poverty Action Group.
>
>A campaigning group with a vested interest in demanding more money.
I think that's an unfair conclusion to draw just on the name of a group.
Although in this case, it has to be said that their website does not
inspire confidence. When the very first "fact" on that page is clearly, and
demonstrably, wrong, then it doesn't say much for the rest of it.
typed:
>On 10/03/2013 21:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> Children get free school meals (as opposed to having to pay for them) if
>> their parents are below a certain level of income. It is, therefore, a
>> fairly good proxy for poverty, as far as the education system is concerned.
>> And there is a strong correlation between children getting free school
>> meals and under-achieving academically.
>
>There is no doubt a strong correleation between children wearing
>second-hand clothes and under-achieving academically.
meals, while they don't necesarily know which are wearing second hand
clothes. So it's a lot easier to measure the former than the latter.
>>>> <http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures>
>
>>> No idea who cpag is or was. Sorry.
>
>> Child Poverty Action Group.
>
>A campaigning group with a vested interest in demanding more money.
Although in this case, it has to be said that their website does not
inspire confidence. When the very first "fact" on that page is clearly, and
demonstrably, wrong, then it doesn't say much for the rest of it.
Kendall Down
Mar 11, 2013, 1:42:54 AM3/11/13
to
On 11/03/2013 01:08, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> If the politicians clobber the middle classes and small businesses
> in preference to the very rich, I think it's because they prefer to
> do that rather than because all the rich people have disappeared.
> Perhaps the present lot have that preference because so many of
> their friends are in the "very rich" category.
I presume you are unaware of the present situation in France? Does the
> If the politicians clobber the middle classes and small businesses
> in preference to the very rich, I think it's because they prefer to
> do that rather than because all the rich people have disappeared.
> Perhaps the present lot have that preference because so many of
> their friends are in the "very rich" category.
name Depardieu ring any bells?
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 11, 2013, 4:49:28 AM3/11/13
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:843rj8ds9gieq0ojd...@news.markshouse.net...
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:31:47 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:prupj8ta70hhi2kil...@news.markshouse.net...
>>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:26:15 -0000, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>>> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Goodge" wrote in message news:
>>>>>I was reading an article recently about the number of former
>>>>>professional
>>>>>footballers who ended up bankrupt, despite having had an income that
>>>>>most
>>>>>people can only dream about.
>>>>
>>>>They don't have it as most have squandered it away either one way or
>>>>another.
>>>>
>>>>I have a relative who has saved all her life, never owned a car, or had
>>>>expensive
>>>>holidays or gambled. smoked or drank, and now she has is having to spend
>>>>nearly £600 per week in a care home due to progression of old age
>>>>
> <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:prupj8ta70hhi2kil...@news.markshouse.net...
>>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:26:15 -0000, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>>> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Goodge" wrote in message news:
>>>>>I was reading an article recently about the number of former
>>>>>professional
>>>>>footballers who ended up bankrupt, despite having had an income that
>>>>>most
>>>>>people can only dream about.
>>>>
>>>>They don't have it as most have squandered it away either one way or
>>>>another.
>>>>
>>>>I have a relative who has saved all her life, never owned a car, or had
>>>>expensive
>>>>holidays or gambled. smoked or drank, and now she has is having to spend
>>>>nearly £600 per week in a care home due to progression of old age
>>>>
>>>>Shortly we shall have to sell her house and use the proceeds to keep on
>>>>paying for her infirmity.
>>>>
>>>>If she had had a 'Whale of a time' gone on summer &winter cruises,
>>>>lived it up, smoked, drank and gambled away and spent it all, she
>>>>would be 'entitled' to 'free' accommodation and care.
>>>>
>>>>'You couldn't make it up' as they say, and I haven't.
>>>
>>> But, as you say in Message-ID: <aq4bcp...@mid.individual.net>, "What
>>> the government do with our tax money is their affair". So you can't
>>> really
>>> complain about it.
>>
>>Erh!
>>'Where on earth' am I complaining here about what is done with 'tax
>>money'?
>
> You appear to be implying that there is something wrong with the
> government
> subsidising care homes for people who have already disposed of their
> assets, but not for those who still have them and can sell them.
It seems you have got hold of 'The wrong end of the stick', Mark.
>>>>paying for her infirmity.
>>>>
>>>>If she had had a 'Whale of a time' gone on summer &winter cruises,
>>>>lived it up, smoked, drank and gambled away and spent it all, she
>>>>would be 'entitled' to 'free' accommodation and care.
>>>>
>>>>'You couldn't make it up' as they say, and I haven't.
>>>
>>> But, as you say in Message-ID: <aq4bcp...@mid.individual.net>, "What
>>> the government do with our tax money is their affair". So you can't
>>> really
>>> complain about it.
>>
>>Erh!
>>'Where on earth' am I complaining here about what is done with 'tax
>>money'?
>
> You appear to be implying that there is something wrong with the
> government
> subsidising care homes for people who have already disposed of their
> assets, but not for those who still have them and can sell them.
For I never implied any such a thing about the government.
Only that a person who has had lots of money and spent or
squandered it, was then entitled to all free benefits, when someone
who had saved and been careful and acted responsibly all
their lives had to pay out of their own pocket even to selling
their homes to pay for care..
Thus the incentive to save and make provision for old age
is not all that encouraging.
Some people/neigbours are now enjoying the money they
have saved and are having three or four
holidays abroad, and going on cruises, replacing their cars
more regularly, giving their children money,
saying why should we bother about saving
when it will only be taken up if one of us ends up in a care home.
I can see their point, for if they retain less then £6,000
[ or somewhere near] it will be provided for free.....{;o;}
Jeff...
philip....@ntlworld.com
Mar 11, 2013, 4:12:36 AM3/11/13
to
"Kendall Down" wrote in message news:khipd3$2i8$1...@dont-email.me...
Taxes for the rich are very much lower than they were.
The biggest losses are in the working class who have lost all the
manufacturing jobs, mining jobs, etc etc that put money in their pockets and
drove the economy.
Small Shopkeepers as well as a vast array of other businesses relied on the
wages of those working men to stay afloat. When Mrs T and her pals destroyed
the mining industry they destroyed a huge number of associated business.
As for that story, a business that operates on a profit margin of 1% is
doomed to failure anyway. Clearly when reading up on running a business in a
market economy the young lady failed to read all the key sections.
The economy, even in a capitalist system, requires that people are working
in order to produce and that there are consumers to buy. Successive govts
have allowed the work and production to be moved abroad and done nothing to
deal with consumption. They are in a mess of their own making and cannot get
out of it until they address the core issue that workers produce wealth.
Don't hold you breath though as localised hardship is good for the global
capitalist and out politicians are very firmly in their pockets.
Phil
John
Mar 11, 2013, 6:32:00 AM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:40:47 +0000, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 11/03/2013 01:01, John wrote:
>> And given that you (assuming you personally take a little bit less
>> than £35k a year pay) you have the benefit of not paying tax or
>> national insurance, that's a result in anyones book.
>Sorry? Someone who earns £35,000 doesn't have to pay tax? Wow! When can
>I emmigrate to this utopia?
Become a Ltd Company. You are allowed to earn approx £7500 without
attracting tax and NI, and this can be done through the PAYE system.
The rest can be taken as dividends, which attract a tax of 10%, but
that is offset by a 10% tax credit. No NI is payable on dividends.
On dividends over £35k a year, the remainder is taxed at 25% after the
tax credit.
I should also point out that the Ltd Company will pay Corporation Tax
on that 34k, whereas if he had taken it under PAYE, he could offset it
as an expense. Furthermore, you can only take dividends from profit,
if the Company hasn't made a profit you can't take dividends (although
many niaive people do)
>As for national insurance, even if someone doesn't have to pay NI, he or
>she still has to make provision for the future costs that the NI is
>intended to cover for the rest of us.
By paying himself £7500 through PAYE he qualifies for a NI credit, so
no problem there.
Now for the genuine Ltd Company, which I hasten to point out Robert
operates, that's absolutely fine. It is actually a perk that HMRC
allows and is entirely legitimate.
There are some, however, who have jumped on this particular bandwagon
and manipulated it by working for one particular company (like the
BBC) and running as a Ltd Company or Service Company as they are
commonly known. That's a IR35 failure imo (look it up using your
comprehensive education!) and HMRC are right to clamp down on it.
--
John
wrote:
>On 11/03/2013 01:01, John wrote:
>> And given that you (assuming you personally take a little bit less
>> than £35k a year pay) you have the benefit of not paying tax or
>> national insurance, that's a result in anyones book.
>Sorry? Someone who earns £35,000 doesn't have to pay tax? Wow! When can
>I emmigrate to this utopia?
attracting tax and NI, and this can be done through the PAYE system.
The rest can be taken as dividends, which attract a tax of 10%, but
that is offset by a 10% tax credit. No NI is payable on dividends.
On dividends over £35k a year, the remainder is taxed at 25% after the
tax credit.
I should also point out that the Ltd Company will pay Corporation Tax
on that 34k, whereas if he had taken it under PAYE, he could offset it
as an expense. Furthermore, you can only take dividends from profit,
if the Company hasn't made a profit you can't take dividends (although
many niaive people do)
>As for national insurance, even if someone doesn't have to pay NI, he or
>she still has to make provision for the future costs that the NI is
>intended to cover for the rest of us.
no problem there.
Now for the genuine Ltd Company, which I hasten to point out Robert
operates, that's absolutely fine. It is actually a perk that HMRC
allows and is entirely legitimate.
There are some, however, who have jumped on this particular bandwagon
and manipulated it by working for one particular company (like the
BBC) and running as a Ltd Company or Service Company as they are
commonly known. That's a IR35 failure imo (look it up using your
comprehensive education!) and HMRC are right to clamp down on it.
--
John
John
Mar 11, 2013, 6:58:03 AM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:57:00 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:17:52 +0000, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
Mark
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:17:52 +0000, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>>> Child Poverty Action Group.
>>
>>A campaigning group with a vested interest in demanding more money.
>
>I think that's an unfair conclusion to draw just on the name of a group.
>Although in this case, it has to be said that their website does not
>inspire confidence. When the very first "fact" on that page is clearly, and
>demonstrably, wrong, then it doesn't say much for the rest of it.
Can you explain Mark? I've looked at the DWP charts referred to in
>>
>>A campaigning group with a vested interest in demanding more money.
>
>I think that's an unfair conclusion to draw just on the name of a group.
>Although in this case, it has to be said that their website does not
>inspire confidence. When the very first "fact" on that page is clearly, and
>demonstrably, wrong, then it doesn't say much for the rest of it.
the footnote and there are 3 columns 50% below median earnings, 60%
and 70%. Am I right in nterpreting that in 2010/1 there were 1.2m
children in households were the wages were 50% below the median and
increasing to 3.8m overall at 70%? These type of charts I'm not
particularly good at.
--
John
John
Mar 11, 2013, 7:08:53 AM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:37:22 +0000, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 10/03/2013 23:55, John wrote:
>
>> hardly a success if their profit was under 1% !!!
>
>Whatever their profit was (and 1d in the pound was not 1%, it was 1/240
>- that's what comes of a comprehensive education, I guess) it was very
>slim but it was enough to keep him going and he was happy because he was
>his own boss.
It's 0.4167% which is under 1%, like I said. Now, let's be generous
and say this gentleman was making a profit of 0.7%
On todays money his turnover would need to be a million quid to
produce a profit of £140 a week. He then feels obliged to pay this
levy of £80 a week? Come on Ken, even I can't manage to run a family
on £70 a week, even with subsidised housing.
If what you meant was a levy on the profit, then this gentleman's
contribution would be 58p a week, which most households could
undoubtably stretch to.
>> And how did it hit him hard if it was only voluntary?
>
>It was voluntary in that it wasn't imposed by central government.
>Liverpool Corporation (or whatever the body was) voted to implement this
>new policy and the girl's father felt obliged to take part in it, both
>because it was a worthy cause and because he was too honest to try to
>evade a democratic decision.
Giving away more than 50% of your income on a low wage, even for a
worthy cause, is sheer madness when you have a family to provide for.
--
John
wrote:
>On 10/03/2013 23:55, John wrote:
>
>> hardly a success if their profit was under 1% !!!
>
>Whatever their profit was (and 1d in the pound was not 1%, it was 1/240
>- that's what comes of a comprehensive education, I guess) it was very
>slim but it was enough to keep him going and he was happy because he was
>his own boss.
and say this gentleman was making a profit of 0.7%
On todays money his turnover would need to be a million quid to
produce a profit of £140 a week. He then feels obliged to pay this
levy of £80 a week? Come on Ken, even I can't manage to run a family
on £70 a week, even with subsidised housing.
If what you meant was a levy on the profit, then this gentleman's
contribution would be 58p a week, which most households could
undoubtably stretch to.
>> And how did it hit him hard if it was only voluntary?
>
>It was voluntary in that it wasn't imposed by central government.
>Liverpool Corporation (or whatever the body was) voted to implement this
>new policy and the girl's father felt obliged to take part in it, both
>because it was a worthy cause and because he was too honest to try to
>evade a democratic decision.
worthy cause, is sheer madness when you have a family to provide for.
--
John
Michael J Davis
Mar 11, 2013, 8:25:10 AM3/11/13
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> was inspired to say
contributes to lower education standards in their children. Not the only
factor, but an important one. (I think lack of discipline including
self-discipline adds to that.)
>>There is no doubt a strong correleation between children wearing
>>second-hand clothes and under-achieving academically.
>
>Indeed. But the point is that the schools know which pupils get free school
>meals, while they don't necesarily know which are wearing second hand
>clothes. So it's a lot easier to measure the former than the latter.
>
>>>>> <http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures>
>>
>>>> No idea who cpag is or was. Sorry.
>>
>>> Child Poverty Action Group.
>>
>>A campaigning group with a vested interest in demanding more money.
>
>I think that's an unfair conclusion to draw just on the name of a group.
>Although in this case, it has to be said that their website does not
>inspire confidence. When the very first "fact" on that page is clearly, and
>demonstrably, wrong, then it doesn't say much for the rest of it.
Umm! I have to agree.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:17:52 +0000, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On 10/03/2013 21:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> Children get free school meals (as opposed to having to pay for them) if
>>> their parents are below a certain level of income. It is, therefore, a
>>> fairly good proxy for poverty, as far as the education system is concerned.
>>> And there is a strong correlation between children getting free school
>>> meals and under-achieving academically.
Lack of education of parents not only contributes to their poverty, but
>typed:
>
>>On 10/03/2013 21:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> Children get free school meals (as opposed to having to pay for them) if
>>> their parents are below a certain level of income. It is, therefore, a
>>> fairly good proxy for poverty, as far as the education system is concerned.
>>> And there is a strong correlation between children getting free school
>>> meals and under-achieving academically.
contributes to lower education standards in their children. Not the only
factor, but an important one. (I think lack of discipline including
self-discipline adds to that.)
>>There is no doubt a strong correleation between children wearing
>>second-hand clothes and under-achieving academically.
>
>Indeed. But the point is that the schools know which pupils get free school
>meals, while they don't necesarily know which are wearing second hand
>clothes. So it's a lot easier to measure the former than the latter.
>
>>>>> <http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures>
>>
>>>> No idea who cpag is or was. Sorry.
>>
>>> Child Poverty Action Group.
>>
>>A campaigning group with a vested interest in demanding more money.
>
>I think that's an unfair conclusion to draw just on the name of a group.
>Although in this case, it has to be said that their website does not
>inspire confidence. When the very first "fact" on that page is clearly, and
>demonstrably, wrong, then it doesn't say much for the rest of it.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Kendall Down
Mar 11, 2013, 12:47:27 PM3/11/13
to
On 11/03/2013 11:08, John wrote:
> If what you meant was a levy on the profit, then this gentleman's
> contribution would be 58p a week, which most households could
> undoubtably stretch to.
I presume it was on profits.
> contribution would be 58p a week, which most households could
> undoubtably stretch to.
58p isn't much these days; it was a heck of a lot in the early 1900s
about which the book was written.
Kendall Down
Mar 11, 2013, 12:50:30 PM3/11/13
to
On 11/03/2013 10:32, John wrote:
> Become a Ltd Company. You are allowed to earn approx £7500 without
> attracting tax and NI, and this can be done through the PAYE system.
Oh no you're not. It used to be that the first £3,000 was exempt from
> Become a Ltd Company. You are allowed to earn approx £7500 without
> attracting tax and NI, and this can be done through the PAYE system.
tax, but dear old Gordon Brown put a stop to that. You now pay
Corporation Tax on every penny you earn. I can't remember what the
current rate is, but in GB's time it was 30%
> The rest can be taken as dividends, which attract a tax of 10%, but
> that is offset by a 10% tax credit. No NI is payable on dividends.
medical care and pension.
Kendall Down
Mar 11, 2013, 12:54:55 PM3/11/13
to
On 11/03/2013 12:25, Michael J Davis wrote:
> Lack of education of parents not only contributes to their poverty, but
> contributes to lower education standards in their children. Not the only
> factor, but an important one. (I think lack of discipline including
> self-discipline adds to that.)
The thing is that it need not contribute to lower education standards in
> Lack of education of parents not only contributes to their poverty, but
> contributes to lower education standards in their children. Not the only
> factor, but an important one. (I think lack of discipline including
> self-discipline adds to that.)
the children. Shirley and I were talking about this just the other day:
both our fathers were uneducated - my father left school at 15 and got a
job when his father died in a drunken accident, her father also left
school because his alcoholic father refused to help him to a higher
education.
Both of us were encouraged by our parents to aim high and to expect a
university education, which we duly got.
In other words, it is not lack of education, but a bad attitude that is
responsible for the results you mention.
Kendall Down
Mar 11, 2013, 1:00:02 PM3/11/13
to
On 11/03/2013 08:12, philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> As for that story, a business that operates on a profit margin of 1% is
> doomed to failure anyway. Clearly when reading up on running a business
> in a market economy the young lady failed to read all the key sections.
I won't swear to what the profit margin was, but it had to be very low
> As for that story, a business that operates on a profit margin of 1% is
> doomed to failure anyway. Clearly when reading up on running a business
> in a market economy the young lady failed to read all the key sections.
so that her father could undercut the established businesses with which
he was in competition. He could get away with such a low income because
in those days there were no rates, no business rates, no government or
city bureaucracy to support. The mayor and corporation of Liverpool were
wealthy volunteers who did the work for the honour of the job, not
because of the extortionate salaries they could con out of the tax payer
(see the Labour council of Caerphilly if you don't know what I'm talking
about).
He also didn't have to obtain planning permission to convert his front
room into a shop.
Mark Goodge
Mar 11, 2013, 1:21:24 PM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:49:28 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>Only that a person who has had lots of money and spent or
>squandered it, was then entitled to all free benefits, when someone
> who had saved and been careful and acted responsibly all
>their lives had to pay out of their own pocket even to selling
> their homes to pay for care..
And is there anything wrong with that?
>squandered it, was then entitled to all free benefits, when someone
> who had saved and been careful and acted responsibly all
>their lives had to pay out of their own pocket even to selling
> their homes to pay for care..
Robert Billing
Mar 11, 2013, 1:48:56 PM3/11/13
to
The hyperspace communicator crackled into life and we heard Mark Goodge
say:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:49:28 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
> Traditionalist" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>
>>Only that a person who has had lots of money and spent or squandered it,
>> was then entitled to all free benefits, when someone
>> who had saved and been careful and acted responsibly all
>>their lives had to pay out of their own pocket even to selling
>> their homes to pay for care..
>
> And is there anything wrong with that?
>
> Mark
Er, yes. Do you really want to tell people not to save because the state
will confiscate it all when they are old?
say:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:49:28 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
> Traditionalist" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>
>>Only that a person who has had lots of money and spent or squandered it,
>> was then entitled to all free benefits, when someone
>> who had saved and been careful and acted responsibly all
>>their lives had to pay out of their own pocket even to selling
>> their homes to pay for care..
>
> And is there anything wrong with that?
>
> Mark
will confiscate it all when they are old?
Mark Goodge
Mar 11, 2013, 1:50:39 PM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:58:03 +0000, John put finger to keyboard and typed:
They're using 70% of median income as the definition of poverty. The figure
most commonly used is 60% of median.
The median UK income is just under �26,000. 70% of that is �18,000, and 60%
of it is �15,600. Both of those are more than I was earning when I worked
full time for a charity. By that definition, my eldest daughter was born
into poverty. Certainly, things were tight, and that's one of the reasons
why I left that job for a better paid one. But we were a long way from
being penniless. We had to go without holidays other than visits to family
and Christian festivals, and we rarely ate out. But we still managed to pay
for Sky TV, and found enough spare cash for a Friday evening luxury of a
Chinese takeaway and a bottle of wine! Admittedly, my transport costs were
reasonably low, since I didn't live too far from work (although I had
enough money to run a car), and none of us smoked or played the lottery.
And, although we enjoyed (and still enjoy) a glass or two of wine or beer,
we rarely went to a pub and paid pub prices for it. Against that, the house
wasn't particularly well insulated and our heating costs were probably
higher than average.
I do think that 60% of median income is a reasonable starting point for a
practical measure of poverty, as that is an income at which people will
need to make serious decisions about what they want to have and what they
must go without. And, of course, the more children you have, the harder it
will get. I think we would have struggled considerably on less than I was
earning, and 50% of the median would have been really difficult. And it
would have been a lot harder had we lived in a more expensive area, as
housing would have taken a much bigger bite out of my earnings. But, even
so, I don't consider myself to have been in poverty at the time.
I don't think there's any sensible definition of poverty which starts it at
as much as 70% of median earnings, and I think it's simply dishonest to use
that figure in propaganda.
most commonly used is 60% of median.
The median UK income is just under �26,000. 70% of that is �18,000, and 60%
of it is �15,600. Both of those are more than I was earning when I worked
full time for a charity. By that definition, my eldest daughter was born
into poverty. Certainly, things were tight, and that's one of the reasons
why I left that job for a better paid one. But we were a long way from
being penniless. We had to go without holidays other than visits to family
and Christian festivals, and we rarely ate out. But we still managed to pay
for Sky TV, and found enough spare cash for a Friday evening luxury of a
Chinese takeaway and a bottle of wine! Admittedly, my transport costs were
reasonably low, since I didn't live too far from work (although I had
enough money to run a car), and none of us smoked or played the lottery.
And, although we enjoyed (and still enjoy) a glass or two of wine or beer,
we rarely went to a pub and paid pub prices for it. Against that, the house
wasn't particularly well insulated and our heating costs were probably
higher than average.
I do think that 60% of median income is a reasonable starting point for a
practical measure of poverty, as that is an income at which people will
need to make serious decisions about what they want to have and what they
must go without. And, of course, the more children you have, the harder it
will get. I think we would have struggled considerably on less than I was
earning, and 50% of the median would have been really difficult. And it
would have been a lot harder had we lived in a more expensive area, as
housing would have taken a much bigger bite out of my earnings. But, even
so, I don't consider myself to have been in poverty at the time.
I don't think there's any sensible definition of poverty which starts it at
as much as 70% of median earnings, and I think it's simply dishonest to use
that figure in propaganda.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 11, 2013, 5:17:36 PM3/11/13
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> The median UK income is just under £26,000. 70% of that is £18,000, and
> 60%
> of it is £15,600. Both of those are more than I was earning when I worked
> full time for a charity. By that definition, my eldest daughter was born
> into poverty.
Poverty, as the NT Greek word means, is hardly similar to the 21st
> 60%
> of it is £15,600. Both of those are more than I was earning when I worked
> full time for a charity. By that definition, my eldest daughter was born
> into poverty.
century, western meaning.
POVERTY: [(ptocheuo); BEGGARY, i.e. INDIGENCE (literal or
figurative) -Strong's Greek & Hebrew Dictionary]
Websters : Dic: Indigence: A level of poverty in which real hardship and
deprivation are suffered and comforts of life are wholly lacking
That's the practical Biblical meaning of the word.
Jeff...
Mark Goodge
Mar 11, 2013, 5:55:19 PM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:48:56 GMT, Robert Billing put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>The hyperspace communicator crackled into life and we heard Mark Goodge
>say:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:49:28 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
>> Traditionalist" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>
>>>Only that a person who has had lots of money and spent or squandered it,
>>> was then entitled to all free benefits, when someone
>>> who had saved and been careful and acted responsibly all
>>>their lives had to pay out of their own pocket even to selling
>>> their homes to pay for care..
>>
>> And is there anything wrong with that?
>>
>> Mark
>
>Er, yes. Do you really want to tell people not to save because the state
>will confiscate it all when they are old?
It's Jeff's opinion I'm specifically interested in here.
>The hyperspace communicator crackled into life and we heard Mark Goodge
>say:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:49:28 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
>> Traditionalist" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>
>>>Only that a person who has had lots of money and spent or squandered it,
>>> was then entitled to all free benefits, when someone
>>> who had saved and been careful and acted responsibly all
>>>their lives had to pay out of their own pocket even to selling
>>> their homes to pay for care..
>>
>> And is there anything wrong with that?
>>
>> Mark
>
>Er, yes. Do you really want to tell people not to save because the state
>will confiscate it all when they are old?
John
Mar 11, 2013, 6:12:32 PM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:50:39 +0000, Mark Goodge
70% was median less 70%, which obviously would have been poverty.
>I don't think there's any sensible definition of poverty which starts it at
>as much as 70% of median earnings, and I think it's simply dishonest to use
>that figure in propaganda.
Majority snipped, but I am in agreement with you. The majority of
working men/women manage adequately on 18-20k and a lot of people have
to get by on a lot less. Thankfully, those in work can top up these
low earnings with tax credits, as long as they reach the minimum hours
criteria.
--
John
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:58:03 +0000, John put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:57:00 +0000, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:17:52 +0000, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
>>>typed:
>>
>>Mark
>>>>> Child Poverty Action Group.
>>>>
>>>>A campaigning group with a vested interest in demanding more money.
>>>
>>>I think that's an unfair conclusion to draw just on the name of a group.
>>>Although in this case, it has to be said that their website does not
>>>inspire confidence. When the very first "fact" on that page is clearly, and
>>>demonstrably, wrong, then it doesn't say much for the rest of it.
>>
>>Can you explain Mark? I've looked at the DWP charts referred to in
>>the footnote and there are 3 columns 50% below median earnings, 60%
>>and 70%. Am I right in nterpreting that in 2010/1 there were 1.2m
>>children in households were the wages were 50% below the median and
>>increasing to 3.8m overall at 70%? These type of charts I'm not
>>particularly good at.
>
>They're using 70% of median income as the definition of poverty. The figure
>most commonly used is 60% of median.
Right, I had a feeling I was misreading it. I had thought that the
>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:58:03 +0000, John put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:57:00 +0000, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:17:52 +0000, Kendall Down put finger to keyboard and
>>>typed:
>>
>>Mark
>>>>> Child Poverty Action Group.
>>>>
>>>>A campaigning group with a vested interest in demanding more money.
>>>
>>>I think that's an unfair conclusion to draw just on the name of a group.
>>>Although in this case, it has to be said that their website does not
>>>inspire confidence. When the very first "fact" on that page is clearly, and
>>>demonstrably, wrong, then it doesn't say much for the rest of it.
>>
>>Can you explain Mark? I've looked at the DWP charts referred to in
>>the footnote and there are 3 columns 50% below median earnings, 60%
>>and 70%. Am I right in nterpreting that in 2010/1 there were 1.2m
>>children in households were the wages were 50% below the median and
>>increasing to 3.8m overall at 70%? These type of charts I'm not
>>particularly good at.
>
>They're using 70% of median income as the definition of poverty. The figure
>most commonly used is 60% of median.
70% was median less 70%, which obviously would have been poverty.
>I don't think there's any sensible definition of poverty which starts it at
>as much as 70% of median earnings, and I think it's simply dishonest to use
>that figure in propaganda.
working men/women manage adequately on 18-20k and a lot of people have
to get by on a lot less. Thankfully, those in work can top up these
low earnings with tax credits, as long as they reach the minimum hours
criteria.
--
John
John
Mar 11, 2013, 6:17:16 PM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:48:56 GMT, Robert Billing
savings to pay £600 a week for private care.
In days of old she would have stopped with the family which is more
Biblical.
--
John
John
Mar 11, 2013, 7:18:30 PM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:50:30 +0000, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 11/03/2013 10:32, John wrote:
>
>> Become a Ltd Company. You are allowed to earn approx £7500 without
>> attracting tax and NI, and this can be done through the PAYE system.
>
>Oh no you're not.
Oh yes you are
<g>Is it panto season?
As I am a bookkeeper, I think the odds are with me on this one.
>It used to be that the first £3,000 was exempt from
>tax, but dear old Gordon Brown put a stop to that.
That's a mistruth Ken, When Gordon took over as Chancellor, the first
£4,045 was exempt from tax. It has slowly increased over the 13 years
Labour were in power to £6475. To their credit (mainly Lib Dem
lobbying) the present Govt has increased that to £8105 in the two tax
years since, and it will rise to £9440 from April.
>You now pay
>Corporation Tax on every penny you earn. I can't remember what the
>current rate is, but in GB's time it was 30%
The current rate of Corporation Tax is 20% for a Ltd Company with
profits up to £1.5m and 24% when they go above that. that latter
figure will reduce to 23% in 3 weeks time.
Corporation Tax is paid on the nett profit of a business, and is not
paid by individuals.
For the individual, your figure of £3000 has increased to £8100,
although NI kicks in at £7592. Those earning between £5564 and £7591
will receive a NI credit.
Robert will be an employee of his own Ltd Company, and is perfectly
entitled to take paye earnings of £7590, and declare the rest as a
dividend.
>> The rest can be taken as dividends, which attract a tax of 10%, but
>> that is offset by a 10% tax credit. No NI is payable on dividends.
>
>Maybe, but you still have to make private provision for NI expenses like
>medical care and pension.
Oh no you don't :-)
An NI credit is simply that. It will give you the very basic
pension and provide you with medical care. (in fact even without a NI
credit you still get medical care. It's called the NHS, which is still
free at the point of delivery, at least for the time being.)
--
John
wrote:
>On 11/03/2013 10:32, John wrote:
>
>> Become a Ltd Company. You are allowed to earn approx £7500 without
>> attracting tax and NI, and this can be done through the PAYE system.
>
>Oh no you're not.
<g>Is it panto season?
As I am a bookkeeper, I think the odds are with me on this one.
>It used to be that the first £3,000 was exempt from
>tax, but dear old Gordon Brown put a stop to that.
£4,045 was exempt from tax. It has slowly increased over the 13 years
Labour were in power to £6475. To their credit (mainly Lib Dem
lobbying) the present Govt has increased that to £8105 in the two tax
years since, and it will rise to £9440 from April.
>You now pay
>Corporation Tax on every penny you earn. I can't remember what the
>current rate is, but in GB's time it was 30%
profits up to £1.5m and 24% when they go above that. that latter
figure will reduce to 23% in 3 weeks time.
Corporation Tax is paid on the nett profit of a business, and is not
paid by individuals.
For the individual, your figure of £3000 has increased to £8100,
although NI kicks in at £7592. Those earning between £5564 and £7591
will receive a NI credit.
Robert will be an employee of his own Ltd Company, and is perfectly
entitled to take paye earnings of £7590, and declare the rest as a
dividend.
>> The rest can be taken as dividends, which attract a tax of 10%, but
>> that is offset by a 10% tax credit. No NI is payable on dividends.
>
>Maybe, but you still have to make private provision for NI expenses like
>medical care and pension.
An NI credit is simply that. It will give you the very basic
pension and provide you with medical care. (in fact even without a NI
credit you still get medical care. It's called the NHS, which is still
free at the point of delivery, at least for the time being.)
--
John
John
Mar 11, 2013, 8:49:44 PM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:47:27 +0000, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 11/03/2013 11:08, John wrote:
>
>> If what you meant was a levy on the profit, then this gentleman's
>> contribution would be 58p a week, which most households could
>> undoubtably stretch to.
>
>I presume it was on profits.
In which case you gave a highly misleading comment in your earlier
post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>58p isn't much these days; it was a heck of a lot in the early 1900s
>about which the book was written.
I was using todays figures Ken because I haven't a clue what was a
weekly wage back then.
But to make the argument. If the shopkeepers profit was £5 a week, he
would need to have made sales of £700 a week. That's one heck of a
lot of sales to do back in the ealy 1900's. Of course his
contribution to the levy would have only been two and a half pence a
week, so that highlights your entirely misleading comment above. Two
and a half pence out of £5 is not "hitting the girl's father hard".
--
John
wrote:
>On 11/03/2013 11:08, John wrote:
>
>> If what you meant was a levy on the profit, then this gentleman's
>> contribution would be 58p a week, which most households could
>> undoubtably stretch to.
>
>I presume it was on profits.
post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forget whether it was in that book or somewhere else that there was
discussion of the effect when the merchants and businessmen of
Liverpool decided, after much debate, to voluntarily contribute 1d in
the £1 towards some charity or hospital or something. It meant nothing
to the big businesses, but it hit this girl's father hard - his profit
margin wasn't much more than 1d in the £1!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
discussion of the effect when the merchants and businessmen of
Liverpool decided, after much debate, to voluntarily contribute 1d in
the £1 towards some charity or hospital or something. It meant nothing
to the big businesses, but it hit this girl's father hard - his profit
margin wasn't much more than 1d in the £1!
>58p isn't much these days; it was a heck of a lot in the early 1900s
>about which the book was written.
weekly wage back then.
But to make the argument. If the shopkeepers profit was £5 a week, he
would need to have made sales of £700 a week. That's one heck of a
lot of sales to do back in the ealy 1900's. Of course his
contribution to the levy would have only been two and a half pence a
week, so that highlights your entirely misleading comment above. Two
and a half pence out of £5 is not "hitting the girl's father hard".
--
John
Kendall Down
Mar 12, 2013, 1:07:53 AM3/12/13
to
On 11/03/2013 23:18, John wrote:
> That's a mistruth Ken, When Gordon took over as Chancellor, the first
> £4,045 was exempt from tax. It has slowly increased over the 13 years
> Labour were in power to £6475. To their credit (mainly Lib Dem
> lobbying) the present Govt has increased that to £8105 in the two tax
> years since, and it will rise to £9440 from April.
Hmmmm. I don't want to get into a slanging match with an accountant, as
> That's a mistruth Ken, When Gordon took over as Chancellor, the first
> £4,045 was exempt from tax. It has slowly increased over the 13 years
> Labour were in power to £6475. To their credit (mainly Lib Dem
> lobbying) the present Govt has increased that to £8105 in the two tax
> years since, and it will rise to £9440 from April.
I am not one, but on the other hand, I do my own books for NWTV Ltd.
When I first started in 2000 there was a figure up to which you paid no
corporation tax and my recollection is that that figure was £3,000. Then
that tax-free sum was abolished and you now pay corporation tax on *all*
profits.
Are you sure you aren't talking about personal allowances?
Kendall Down
Mar 12, 2013, 1:11:54 AM3/12/13
to
On 11/03/2013 17:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
> The median UK income is just under £26,000. 70% of that is £18,000, and 60%
> of it is £15,600. Both of those are more than I was earning when I worked
> full time for a charity.
I don't know when that was, but in 1996 when I was in full-time church
> The median UK income is just under £26,000. 70% of that is £18,000, and 60%
> of it is £15,600. Both of those are more than I was earning when I worked
> full time for a charity.
employment, I was earning a little under £13,000. I did receive a petrol
allowance on top of that, but it never covered the expense of a rural
district.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 11, 2013, 4:27:14 PM3/11/13
to
"Mark Goodge" wrote in message news:
>I do think that 60% of median income is a reasonable starting point for a
>practical measure of poverty, as that is an income at which people will
>need to make serious decisions about what they want to have and what they
>must go without. And, of course, the more children you have, the harder it
>will get.
LOL!
>practical measure of poverty, as that is an income at which people will
>need to make serious decisions about what they want to have and what they
>must go without. And, of course, the more children you have, the harder it
>will get.
"A jobless mother appeared on national television yesterday and insisted
that she 'didn't beg' for a £400,000 council home built for her and her 11
children and paid for by the taxpayers.
Unemployed Heather Frost, 37, of Churchdown, Gloucestershire, was on ITV's
Daybreak where she defended the purpose-built eco-home but said she was only
'50/50 whether I’m going to take it'.
MailOnline had earlier revealed that the family own a horse, despite Ms
Frost claiming benefits for her 11 children. Yesterday 16-year-old Angel
defended her mother saying that it is she who pays for the upkeep of the
£200-a-month horse named Annie, but failed to explain where she gets the
money."
'They were going to buy two more horses recently, but that deal fell
through. It’s sickening to think that she can afford what most people would
consider a luxury at the expense of the British taxpayer.’
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281172/Mother-11-having-400k-taxpayer-funded-house-built-says-in.html#ixzz2NGTke4Rs
Sigh!
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 12, 2013, 4:16:11 AM3/12/13
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:alksj8l05rdkcmbrg...@news.markshouse.net...
But you snipped it out.
"Thus the incentive to save and make provision for old age
is not all that encouraging"
John
Mar 12, 2013, 6:45:09 AM3/12/13
to
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:07:53 +0000, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk>
wrote:
Yes I am. The clue was in "Become a Ltd Company. You are allowed to
earn approx £7500 without attracting tax and NI, *and this can be done
through the PAYE system.*
Obviously I appreciate Corporation Tax is still payable on any profit.
I will take your word regarding Corporation Tax, as it's before my
time as a bookkeeper. (not an accountant, but thanks for the accolade)
--
John
wrote:
earn approx £7500 without attracting tax and NI, *and this can be done
through the PAYE system.*
Obviously I appreciate Corporation Tax is still payable on any profit.
I will take your word regarding Corporation Tax, as it's before my
time as a bookkeeper. (not an accountant, but thanks for the accolade)
--
John
Mark Goodge
Mar 12, 2013, 2:05:56 PM3/12/13
to
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:16:11 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
But do you think that's a bad thing?
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 12, 2013, 4:01:01 PM3/12/13
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ojruj8953b0lo0s2k...@news.markshouse.net...
that really matters to me.
Jeff...
Nobody
Mar 13, 2013, 5:39:01 PM3/13/13
to
On 10 Mar, 11:22, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/03/2013 00:51, Alwyn wrote:
>
> The deprived children of today are those who, whatever their parents'
> income, are unloved, uncared for, brought up without moral values,
> taught (by example or precept) to lie, cheat, whinge, and feel no
> responsibility for the effect of their actions.
>
> Instead of doling out money, the government would do far better to use
> that money to teach parenting skills - how to discipline your children,
> what moral values to teach them, how to show love to them and spend time
> with them, and so on.
>
I agree with part with your recommendation. To say the children just
need better parenting and more love etc is a bit out of touch with
reality, albeit may be true in some cases.
I remember presenting ideas to a local authority in the midlands to
help build social cohesion in our society etc. The idea they did pick
up on was allowing all local residents free gym classes which as far
as I know is still being advertised in places; through this schemes I
have noticed locals (mostly women of different religion and race)
attending gym session together. The idea I with regard to children did
present was that children needed at least one family member (ideally
the mother or the father) at home looking after them, or at the very
least be their for them after school and in school when required. This
in our society is not possible, due to modern economic pressures both
parents have to work and the situation is bleaker for single parent
families. It does not help when many of the children are themselves
parents; this is where parenting classes particularly may help, to
those that want the help. Some families are under financial pressure
due to the high cost of living in the UK; the cost of gas,
electricity, water and council tax does put a huge hole in the income
of families particularly where there is one main earner, this does
leave very little behind for food, and food is not cheap these days.
The idea being presenting in the recession we are all at fault in one
way or another because many of us took out loans, credit cards etc, is
a big lie, this is real economic terrorism. The people that did take
our loans mortgages etc, some may have defaulted on their debt but
many paid by having their assets taken over, homes repossessed etc;
but the main characters made the system sold the system, then betted
against the system that they designed to fail, where given money from
the public purse to keep afloat while they were making people homeless
by re-possessing homes from the very tax payers whose money that just
bailed them out.
> On 10/03/2013 00:51, Alwyn wrote:
>
> The deprived children of today are those who, whatever their parents'
> income, are unloved, uncared for, brought up without moral values,
> taught (by example or precept) to lie, cheat, whinge, and feel no
> responsibility for the effect of their actions.
>
> Instead of doling out money, the government would do far better to use
> that money to teach parenting skills - how to discipline your children,
> what moral values to teach them, how to show love to them and spend time
> with them, and so on.
>
I agree with part with your recommendation. To say the children just
need better parenting and more love etc is a bit out of touch with
reality, albeit may be true in some cases.
I remember presenting ideas to a local authority in the midlands to
help build social cohesion in our society etc. The idea they did pick
up on was allowing all local residents free gym classes which as far
as I know is still being advertised in places; through this schemes I
have noticed locals (mostly women of different religion and race)
attending gym session together. The idea I with regard to children did
present was that children needed at least one family member (ideally
the mother or the father) at home looking after them, or at the very
least be their for them after school and in school when required. This
in our society is not possible, due to modern economic pressures both
parents have to work and the situation is bleaker for single parent
families. It does not help when many of the children are themselves
parents; this is where parenting classes particularly may help, to
those that want the help. Some families are under financial pressure
due to the high cost of living in the UK; the cost of gas,
electricity, water and council tax does put a huge hole in the income
of families particularly where there is one main earner, this does
leave very little behind for food, and food is not cheap these days.
The idea being presenting in the recession we are all at fault in one
way or another because many of us took out loans, credit cards etc, is
a big lie, this is real economic terrorism. The people that did take
our loans mortgages etc, some may have defaulted on their debt but
many paid by having their assets taken over, homes repossessed etc;
but the main characters made the system sold the system, then betted
against the system that they designed to fail, where given money from
the public purse to keep afloat while they were making people homeless
by re-possessing homes from the very tax payers whose money that just
bailed them out.
Kendall Down
Mar 14, 2013, 1:07:56 PM3/14/13
to
On 13/03/2013 21:39, Nobody wrote:
> The idea being presenting in the recession we are all at fault in one
> way or another because many of us took out loans, credit cards etc, is
> a big lie, this is real economic terrorism. The people that did take
> our loans mortgages etc, some may have defaulted on their debt but
> many paid by having their assets taken over, homes repossessed etc;
> but the main characters made the system sold the system, then betted
> against the system that they designed to fail, where given money from
> the public purse to keep afloat while they were making people homeless
> by re-possessing homes from the very tax payers whose money that just
> bailed them out.
Your computer program for selecting random words and stringing them
> The idea being presenting in the recession we are all at fault in one
> way or another because many of us took out loans, credit cards etc, is
> a big lie, this is real economic terrorism. The people that did take
> our loans mortgages etc, some may have defaulted on their debt but
> many paid by having their assets taken over, homes repossessed etc;
> but the main characters made the system sold the system, then betted
> against the system that they designed to fail, where given money from
> the public purse to keep afloat while they were making people homeless
> by re-possessing homes from the very tax payers whose money that just
> bailed them out.
together is quite clever - sort of the English equivalent of Lorem
Ipsum. However it is not quite random enough. Once or twice in that
paragraph it actually seemed as though there was some meaning in the
words, but only once or twice, so congratulations.
When are you going to put this nonsense generator on the market?
John Cooper
Mar 14, 2013, 2:45:13 PM3/14/13
to
"Kendall Down" <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kht026$v9r$1...@dont-email.me...
You mean you don't understand the concepts, Ken. I understood it, despite
the not-so-good English. You need to wise up as to what's going on.
John Cooper
news:kht026$v9r$1...@dont-email.me...
the not-so-good English. You need to wise up as to what's going on.
John Cooper
Alwyn
Mar 14, 2013, 3:08:09 PM3/14/13
to
On 14/03/2013 18:45, John Cooper wrote:
> "Kendall Down" <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:kht026$v9r$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> The idea being presenting in the recession we are all at fault in one
>>> way or another because many of us took out loans, credit cards etc, is
>>> a big lie, this is real economic terrorism. The people that did take
>>> our loans mortgages etc, some may have defaulted on their debt but
>>> many paid by having their assets taken over, homes repossessed etc;
>>> but the main characters made the system sold the system, then betted
>>> against the system that they designed to fail, where given money from
>>> the public purse to keep afloat while they were making people homeless
>>> by re-possessing homes from the very tax payers whose money that just
>>> bailed them out.
<snip>
> "Kendall Down" <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:kht026$v9r$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> The idea being presenting in the recession we are all at fault in one
>>> way or another because many of us took out loans, credit cards etc, is
>>> a big lie, this is real economic terrorism. The people that did take
>>> our loans mortgages etc, some may have defaulted on their debt but
>>> many paid by having their assets taken over, homes repossessed etc;
>>> but the main characters made the system sold the system, then betted
>>> against the system that they designed to fail, where given money from
>>> the public purse to keep afloat while they were making people homeless
>>> by re-possessing homes from the very tax payers whose money that just
>>> bailed them out.
>> When are you going to put this nonsense generator on the market?
>
> You mean you don't understand the concepts, Ken. I understood it,
> despite the not-so-good English. You need to wise up as to what's going
> on.
not lack of knowledge of English but an impaired ability to set his
thoughts down on paper. In other words, his education is deficient, as
he has admitted himself, and we, his readers, have to go the extra mile
to find out what he means.
Anyway, in broad lines, I agree with the above. We, the taxpayers, have
been led up the garden path and have to foot the bill for the mistakes
made by the few in privileged financial positions.
Alwyn
Nobody
Mar 14, 2013, 3:17:13 PM3/14/13
to
and untrue statements is that they are written in sound English?. It
certainly seems to be a common theme that you constantly resort to
(with me) as a form of attack most certainly when you fail to
understand or have very little in the way of substance to add to the
topic.
Michael J Davis
Mar 14, 2013, 5:41:38 PM3/14/13
to
Nobody <tos...@gmail.com> was inspired to say
up huge debts on rent, CT, & water. And this becomes a burden long after
a period of unemployment has passed.
Part of the trouble is that Citizens Advice Bureaux are being cut down.
- A real false economy that. One family I'm involved in helping had a
£1000 bill owed to the water board - but it was all based on 'estimated'
meter readings (at nearly double my own bill). I hope I've persuaded
them to get the meter read so they know what they owe. But my
expectation is that they 'don't want to know', and will do nothing.
While food may be restricted, there increasing numbers of 'food banks'
being set up. In Rochdale we have one that only started last September
and is now turning over some £10k per month, much given by local
churches. We are only scratching the surface.
>The idea being presenting in the recession we are all at fault in one
>way or another because many of us took out loans, credit cards etc, is
>a big lie, this is real economic terrorism. The people that did take
>our loans mortgages etc, some may have defaulted on their debt but
>many paid by having their assets taken over, homes repossessed etc;
>but the main characters made the system sold the system, then betted
>against the system that they designed to fail, where given money from
>the public purse to keep afloat while they were making people homeless
>by re-possessing homes from the very tax payers whose money that just
>bailed them out.
Yes, I think that is generally true; albeit that those who prospered
didn't necessarily plan to do that. It was just a passing bandwagon on
which to jump thoughtless, but not malicious.
I do hope Ken is able to understand my reply.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
>On 10 Mar, 11:22, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/03/2013 00:51, Alwyn wrote:
>>
>> The deprived children of today are those who, whatever their parents'
>> income, are unloved, uncared for, brought up without moral values,
>> taught (by example or precept) to lie, cheat, whinge, and feel no
>> responsibility for the effect of their actions.
>>
>> Instead of doling out money, the government would do far better to use
>> that money to teach parenting skills - how to discipline your children,
>> what moral values to teach them, how to show love to them and spend time
>> with them, and so on.
>
>I agree with part with your recommendation. To say the children just
>need better parenting and more love etc is a bit out of touch with
>reality, albeit may be true in some cases.
Agreed.
>> On 10/03/2013 00:51, Alwyn wrote:
>>
>> The deprived children of today are those who, whatever their parents'
>> income, are unloved, uncared for, brought up without moral values,
>> taught (by example or precept) to lie, cheat, whinge, and feel no
>> responsibility for the effect of their actions.
>>
>> Instead of doling out money, the government would do far better to use
>> that money to teach parenting skills - how to discipline your children,
>> what moral values to teach them, how to show love to them and spend time
>> with them, and so on.
>
>I agree with part with your recommendation. To say the children just
>need better parenting and more love etc is a bit out of touch with
>reality, albeit may be true in some cases.
>
>I remember presenting ideas to a local authority in the midlands to
>help build social cohesion in our society etc. The idea they did pick
>up on was allowing all local residents free gym classes which as far
>as I know is still being advertised in places; through this schemes I
>have noticed locals (mostly women of different religion and race)
>attending gym session together.
>The idea I with regard to children did
>present was that children needed at least one family member (ideally
>the mother or the father) at home looking after them, or at the very
>least be their for them after school and in school when required. This
>in our society is not possible, due to modern economic pressures both
>parents have to work and the situation is bleaker for single parent
>families.
>It does not help when many of the children are themselves
>parents; this is where parenting classes particularly may help, to
>those that want the help. Some families are under financial pressure
>due to the high cost of living in the UK; the cost of gas,
>electricity, water and council tax does put a huge hole in the income
>of families particularly where there is one main earner, this does
>leave very little behind for food, and food is not cheap these days.
The problem is that, apart from gas & electricity, it is possible to run
>I remember presenting ideas to a local authority in the midlands to
>help build social cohesion in our society etc. The idea they did pick
>up on was allowing all local residents free gym classes which as far
>as I know is still being advertised in places; through this schemes I
>have noticed locals (mostly women of different religion and race)
>attending gym session together.
>The idea I with regard to children did
>present was that children needed at least one family member (ideally
>the mother or the father) at home looking after them, or at the very
>least be their for them after school and in school when required. This
>in our society is not possible, due to modern economic pressures both
>parents have to work and the situation is bleaker for single parent
>families.
>It does not help when many of the children are themselves
>parents; this is where parenting classes particularly may help, to
>those that want the help. Some families are under financial pressure
>due to the high cost of living in the UK; the cost of gas,
>electricity, water and council tax does put a huge hole in the income
>of families particularly where there is one main earner, this does
>leave very little behind for food, and food is not cheap these days.
up huge debts on rent, CT, & water. And this becomes a burden long after
a period of unemployment has passed.
Part of the trouble is that Citizens Advice Bureaux are being cut down.
- A real false economy that. One family I'm involved in helping had a
£1000 bill owed to the water board - but it was all based on 'estimated'
meter readings (at nearly double my own bill). I hope I've persuaded
them to get the meter read so they know what they owe. But my
expectation is that they 'don't want to know', and will do nothing.
While food may be restricted, there increasing numbers of 'food banks'
being set up. In Rochdale we have one that only started last September
and is now turning over some £10k per month, much given by local
churches. We are only scratching the surface.
>The idea being presenting in the recession we are all at fault in one
>way or another because many of us took out loans, credit cards etc, is
>a big lie, this is real economic terrorism. The people that did take
>our loans mortgages etc, some may have defaulted on their debt but
>many paid by having their assets taken over, homes repossessed etc;
>but the main characters made the system sold the system, then betted
>against the system that they designed to fail, where given money from
>the public purse to keep afloat while they were making people homeless
>by re-possessing homes from the very tax payers whose money that just
>bailed them out.
didn't necessarily plan to do that. It was just a passing bandwagon on
which to jump thoughtless, but not malicious.
I do hope Ken is able to understand my reply.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Gareth McCaughan
Mar 14, 2013, 7:49:37 PM3/14/13
to
you'd need to make sense of "Nobody"'s paragraph above, allow me
to paraphrase it.
It's sometimes suggested that the recession is everyone's
fault, e.g., because many people borrowed unwisely. This is
a big lie. The whole business is really a case of economic
terrorism.
Yes, some people borrowed unwisely. But many of those people
did actually repay what they borrowed (for instance, by having
their houses repossessed). The people really responsible, on
the other hand -- the people who made our economic system the
way it was, who deliberately designed it to fail, who persuaded
others to buy into it, and who then betted against it as it
fell -- those people did not repay their victims. Instead,
they were given big piles of public money to make sure they
continued to succeed. And while they were being given money
raised from taxpayers, they carried on making some of those
taxpayers homeless by repossessing their homes.
I disagree with much of it -- e.g., I don't think the system was
actually designed to fail, and I don't think the analogy with
terrorism is strong -- but I found it perfectly comprehensible.
Perhaps what I have and you evidently lack isn't some bit of mental
machinery or training, but merely the willingness to put a little
mental effort into reading and act on the assumption that there's
some sort of thought there. To be sure, it *is* much easier to leap
on any deficiencies of expression, pretend that they prove the
writer is an idiot, and go no further.
--
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc
- .. -- Tim .-.
Mar 14, 2013, 8:00:41 PM3/14/13
to
Tim.
>
>
> Alwyn
>
>
>
Kendall Down
Mar 15, 2013, 9:50:43 AM3/15/13
to
On 14/03/2013 18:45, John Cooper wrote:
me. What about "where given money from the public purse"? Complete the
sentence using no more than twelve words.
Sure, I know that he meant to write "out" and "were", but even making
allowances for such typos, his writing doesn't make much sense. Do you
really support the idea that anyone who takes out a loan is an economic
terrorist? Do you think that your debts are paid off if your home is
repossessed? And so on.
Kendall Down
Mar 15, 2013, 9:55:21 AM3/15/13
to
On 14/03/2013 19:08, Alwyn wrote:
> "Nobody" made good sense to me. It seems to me that his deficiency is
> not lack of knowledge of English but an impaired ability to set his
> thoughts down on paper. In other words, his education is deficient, as
> he has admitted himself, and we, his readers, have to go the extra mile
> to find out what he means.
I agree that his education is deficient; for that he more to be pitied
> not lack of knowledge of English but an impaired ability to set his
> thoughts down on paper. In other words, his education is deficient, as
> he has admitted himself, and we, his readers, have to go the extra mile
> to find out what he means.
than to be blamed. The trouble is that his education *continues* to be
deficient - that is, he appears to make no attempt at improvement.
I could easily claim that my education was deficient, for I have only
one year of schooling under my belt. The rest was correspondence. I
could probably also claim a degree of dyslexia.
I don't. Instead, when I make a mistake, I determine to learn. Much of
this learning goes on elsewhere, but for an example, some may remember a
degree of joviality at my expense when I wrote "grammer" here. I haven't
made that mistake again.
Kendall Down
Mar 15, 2013, 10:00:01 AM3/15/13
to
On 14/03/2013 19:17, Nobody wrote:
>> Your computer program for selecting random words and stringing them
>> together is quite clever - sort of the English equivalent of Lorem
>> Ipsum. However it is not quite random enough. Once or twice in that
>> paragraph it actually seemed as though there was some meaning in the
>> words, but only once or twice, so congratulations.
> Very clever ken.
Yes, I thought it wasn't bad, too.
>> Your computer program for selecting random words and stringing them
>> together is quite clever - sort of the English equivalent of Lorem
>> Ipsum. However it is not quite random enough. Once or twice in that
>> paragraph it actually seemed as though there was some meaning in the
>> words, but only once or twice, so congratulations.
> Very clever ken.
> The reason we should all go by much of your biased
> and untrue statements is that they are written in sound English?.
> It
> certainly seems to be a common theme that you constantly resort to
> (with me) as a form of attack most certainly when you fail to
> understand or have very little in the way of substance to add to the
> topic.
logically and then no one will have any cause to mock or quibble. For
example, see Gareth's masterly attempt to rephrase your diatribe, study
it and learn.
Nobody
Mar 15, 2013, 10:52:33 AM3/15/13
to
The idea that we all must pay for the "mistakes" of a few is in
essence economic terrorism. The thing is some of these people did not
see their actions as potential mistakes or mistakes, they had a master
plan. They sold the glossed up investments they knew would fail, and
insured themselves against that risk. It is well reported a high end
bank in the US made about 50 million USD, in one day of trading. It
was also reported this company made about 3 billion USD from the
insurance packages. This is just one example another would be the so
called federal reserve making billions during the recession.
Robert Billing
Mar 15, 2013, 12:34:06 PM3/15/13
to
The hyperspace communicator crackled into life and we heard Nobody say:
> The idea that we all must pay for the "mistakes" of a few is in essence
True, but I see no prospect of getting my money back from Tony and Gordon
> The idea that we all must pay for the "mistakes" of a few is in essence
Alwyn
Mar 15, 2013, 1:56:12 PM3/15/13
to
On 15/03/2013 16:34, Robert Billing wrote:
>
> True, but I see no prospect of getting my money back from Tony and Gordon
You should be living in Italy, where Silvio has promised to pay back the
>
> True, but I see no prospect of getting my money back from Tony and Gordon
property taxes extorted by Mario and his gang.
Alwyn
Gareth McCaughan
Mar 15, 2013, 4:32:33 PM3/15/13
to
Kendall Down wrote:
> The cure lies in your own hands. Write good English and express
> yourself logically and then no one will have any cause to mock or
> quibble. For example, see Gareth's masterly attempt to rephrase your
> diatribe, study it and learn.
to mock and quibble at what I write, despite my excellent command
of the language.
Kendall Down
Mar 16, 2013, 12:10:18 AM3/16/13
to
On 15/03/2013 14:52, Nobody wrote:
>> Sure, I know that he meant to write "out" and "were", but even making
>> allowances for such typos, his writing doesn't make much sense. Do you
>> really support the idea that anyone who takes out a loan is an economic
>> terrorist? Do you think that your debts are paid off if your home is
>> repossessed? And so on.
> Very shallow. Your usual attempts to distort, a well learned trick.
I don't need to distort; you are the one who made those claims. Or did
>> Sure, I know that he meant to write "out" and "were", but even making
>> allowances for such typos, his writing doesn't make much sense. Do you
>> really support the idea that anyone who takes out a loan is an economic
>> terrorist? Do you think that your debts are paid off if your home is
>> repossessed? And so on.
> Very shallow. Your usual attempts to distort, a well learned trick.
you? As I said in the first response to your diatribe, you wrote such
nonsense that it is impossible to be sure exactly what you believe.
Kendall Down
Mar 16, 2013, 12:11:40 AM3/16/13
to
On 15/03/2013 20:32, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> It may be worth noting that Ken somehow finds plenty of opportunities
> to mock and quibble at what I write, despite my excellent command
> of the language.
Indeed, but it is your confused ideas I quibble over, not your confused
> It may be worth noting that Ken somehow finds plenty of opportunities
> to mock and quibble at what I write, despite my excellent command
> of the language.
language. With nobody it is the language, but I suspect that the ideas
are just as confused.
- .. -- Tim .-.
Mar 16, 2013, 3:42:47 AM3/16/13
to
We all know that.
Tim.
Michael J Davis
Mar 15, 2013, 6:40:23 PM3/15/13
to
Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> was inspired to say
Were I to give nobody a lesson in English, I would say:
Make your sentences shorter with one idea in each. If necessary make
them as 'bullet points' - then any confusion in the structure would be
obvious to you.
Spelling misteaks we can all make!
Make your sentences shorter with one idea in each. If necessary make
them as 'bullet points' - then any confusion in the structure would be
obvious to you.
Spelling misteaks we can all make!
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mar 17, 2013, 4:21:48 AM3/17/13
to
"Kendall Down" <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ki0rai$df8$2...@dont-email.me...
> On 15/03/2013 20:32, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> It may be worth noting that Ken somehow finds plenty of opportunities
>> to mock and quibble at what I write, despite my excellent command
>> of the language.
>
> Indeed, but it is your confused ideas I quibble over,
LOL!
>
>> It may be worth noting that Ken somehow finds plenty of opportunities
>> to mock and quibble at what I write, despite my excellent command
>> of the language.
>
> Indeed, but it is your confused ideas I quibble over,
Is that not why we are all here?
The atheist to convince us of their godless state in a no-hoper-world.
The authentic followers of Christ and the Apostles, to zealously and
"Earnestly contend for the faith" and oppose the uncovered women who
are defying Christ in their refusal to be silent in the churches, and bring
to nought the foolish and feminized bigoted ideas of this 21st Century.
And the "dyed in the wool" errorists who are forever trying to convince us
that
fornication, adultery, and homosexual practises are now quite acceptable for
God's Children to be indulging themselves in.
Jeff...
philip....@ntlworld.com
Mar 17, 2013, 5:16:57 AM3/17/13
to
"Kendall Down" wrote in message news:kht026$v9r$1...@dont-email.me...
On 13/03/2013 21:39, Nobody wrote:
> Your computer program for selecting random words and stringing them
> together is quite clever - sort of the English equivalent of Lorem
> Ipsum. However it is not quite random enough. Once or twice in that
> paragraph it actually seemed as though there was some meaning in the
> words, but only once or twice, so congratulations.
> When are you going to put this nonsense generator on the market?
Phil
0 new messages