Last I heard, the level of poverty in the UK is gauged on how big the screen of your flat TV is.

 Poverty in the UK?  Don't make me laugh.

Propaganda promises from the left. Just like the propagandistic promises as well as from the right side. The solution will probably be somewhere in the middle.

I doubt I will ever understand the desire for so many working class people to deny opportunities for other working class people's kids, while simultaneously supporting the system that sees so much wealth transfer from the many to the few. Stockholm syndrome, stupidity or simply bitterness?

It's an excellent way to speed up job automation.

14 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I doubt I will ever understand the desire for so many working class people to deny opportunities for other working class people's kids, while simultaneously supporting the system that sees so much wealth transfer from the many to the few. Stockholm syndrome, stupidity or simply bitterness?

I absolutely agree with you.

2 minutes ago, oilinki said:

And yet UK keeps on immigrating workers from Commonwealth states to the UK, to do UK's dirty works. Why is that?

The problem was never really about rather expensive EU workers coming to England, but more of cheaper labour from Commonwealth countries. 

England, not the UK.

No, all Poles and Romanians at the moment.

1 minute ago, oilinki said:

And yet UK keeps on immigrating workers from Commonwealth states to the UK, to do UK's dirty works. Why is that?

 

The problem was never really about rather expensive EU workers coming to England, but more of cheaper labour from Commonwealth countries. 

 

England, not the UK.

 

You are right of course. The problem with the UK is that they have been governed by social hypocrites  for decades. Fundamentally as it makes those that "have" even more.  The fact that 68% voted to remain in  the common market in 1975 is testimony I think to the fact those generations able to vote were mindful of the deprivation that existed and wanted a UK more socially aware. Unfortunately in the intervening period , primarily started by Thatcher, the UK devised ways and means to ensure proper governance was removed and that those "that had" could have more. Witness the removal of UK and US banking controls by Thatcher and Reagen that ultimately brought about the 90 and 00s financial collapses. Unfortunately those that made billions escaped and the poor , yet again, are still suffering those pains. The UK leaving the UK was grasped as a chance once again to escape the social care of the EU and revert to the US system of he who has much rules, and he who has little does not matter.  That is the Brexit philosophy  and unfortunately those that oppose a basic living wage for those under 18 are the self same people who are in the category of "I'm all right Jack, "

 

Frankly being British I am ashamed that the UK is throwing away a heritage of doing whats best for people and siding with the dinosaurs and the US principles of if you are poor, it must be your fault".

9 minutes ago, oilinki said:

So do I. I find it absolute shame that the Labour party has not understood this. 

 

Labour party is supposed to be pro people's and workers rights. They are not that currently.

 

Likewise the Tories are supposed to be pro business party and they don't give a darn what the businesses want. 

 

Both UK's main parties are in total chaos. They have no idea what they want or what they represent at the moment. They don't represent the people, that's given. 

Not a lot to choose between any of them. Care for the poor and socially deprived has given way to nonsense politics.

10 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Them horrifying people who have similar attitudes of making Europe a better place. 

 

Them horrifying people with their horrifying work attitudes to get things done, without constantly complaining that the work they do is really hard.

 

You say you hate "Those kind of people". The foreigners, who are not genuine Brits as they don't complain as much?

 

Britain had a new Commonwealth country with EU on for it to abuse. It didn't work that well. I can only conclude that Britain have lost its power to abuse people from other countries since Suez. 

Owing to massive losses of manpower due to WW1 the UK welcomed many thousands of Italians into the brick making industries during the late 20s and 30s.   Due to similar manpower shortfalls as a result of WW2 many Poles (+others) were welcomed into the construction industry in order to rebuild a shattered Britain during the 50s and 60s.  The British recovery could never have happened without this influx of foreign labour.  Most  people now complaining about migrant labour ( and hence wanting to leave the EU) were never even born during those times. Ignorance of facts is damning. The UK and these people would never have been in a position it is now in without support of this migrant labour.   Ignorance of past facts is incredible but basic ignorance by the Brexiteers is outstandingly beyond comprehension.

Edited May 12, 20197 yr by geoffbezoz

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

I doubt I will ever understand the desire for so many working class people to deny opportunities for other working class people's kids, while simultaneously supporting the system that sees so much wealth transfer from the many to the few. Stockholm syndrome, stupidity or simply bitterness?

the top 1% of rich people in the UK pay 28% of the taxes (Sunday Times today ). They create the vast majority of jobs and therefore wealth in the country. Their employees pay the other 70 odd % of tax raised. The only transfer I see is from the rich to the rest of the country.  Without the wealth creators, we would all be poor. 

5 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

the top 1% of rich people in the UK pay 28% of the taxes (Sunday Times today ). They create the vast majority of jobs and therefore wealth in the country. Their employees pay the other 70 odd % of tax raised. The only transfer I see is from the rich to the rest of the country.  Without the wealth creators, we would all be poor. 

Complete lies as outlined in this reference

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-top-1-earners-pay-28-tax-burden/

Just now, oilinki said:

Have you ever asked yourself why the 1% people should have that amount of power?

 

 

no. never,  it has always been thus.  I refer to to the ancient history of humankind, since the first Kings were anointed by their tribes, wealth in a very few increases prosperity for all, while making the lucky few very rich indeed.  It's the way of the world. 

4 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

the top 1% of rich people in the UK pay 28% of the taxes (Sunday Times today ). They create the vast majority of jobs and therefore wealth in the country. Their employees pay the other 70 odd % of tax raised. The only transfer I see is from the rich to the rest of the country.  Without the wealth creators, we would all be poor. 

You ignored the first part of my post; can I assume, therefore, that you recognise the condition?

 

But actually, you (or possibly the Sunset Times) are not correct with your statement. The top 1% pay 28% of all INCOME tax, but this accounts for only about 25% of the government's total tax take. Direct and Indirect taxes make up the bulk of the government's income, and while it is hard to say how much of this comes from the 1%, it is certainly a lot less than 28%. 

 

That said, do you think it is a healthy situation to be in for any country to be so reliant upon such a tiny, powerful band of individuals for such a significant portion of its income?

 

Still at the Sunset Times:

 

Private school woe over rise of state pupils at Oxbridge

 

So while Oh Jeremy is trying to better the lot of working class kids, the elite are complaining about working class kids taking places at the top universities that should be going to well heeled private school kids - makes one's heart bleed, does it not?

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

You say you hate "Those kind of people". The foreigners, who are not genuine Brits as they don't complain as much?

I didn't say that at all,

foreign workers from poor EU countries need less money in their home countries and will accept lower living and working conditions so can undercut wages in the Uk and put Uk nationals onto benefits. They save their wages and send the money back to their home country. Companies get cheap workers and the remaining taxpayers have to pay the benefits for those made unemployed, in effect subsidising private companies. It's actually a triple blow to the British economy. (local workers undercut/more tax needed for benefits/UK pounds exported).

 

One of the problems with stupid people, they can't think, they can only feel.

Oh, it must be hate, because I can't understand economics.

Edited May 12, 20197 yr by BritManToo

Some off topic posts and replies about minimum wages in Thailand have been removed, the topic is about minimum wages in the UK. 

10 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I didn't say that at all,

foreign workers from poor EU countries need less money in their home countries and will accept lower living and working conditions so can undercut wages in the Uk and put Uk nationals onto benefits. They save their wages and send the money back to their home country. Companies get cheap workers and the remaining taxpayers have to pay the benefits for those made unemployed, in effect subsidising private companies. It's actually a triple blow to the British economy. (local workers undercut/more tax needed for benefits/UK pounds exported).

 

One of the problems with stupid people, they can't think, they can only feel.

Oh, it must be hate, because I can't understand economics.

Utter hogwash.

 

Your claimed superior knowledge of economics fails to consider the benefit immigrants who were educated and trained at somebody else's expense bring to the UK economy. You ignore taxes paid by immigrants and the economic multiplier from immigrants purchase of goods and services.

 

You also paint all immigrants as low skilled low pay workers, a blatant mis representation of reality.

 

Back to economics class you go.

 

 

Laudable as the intent of increasing pay for young people is it is simply a sticking plaster on wider problems that are not being addressed.

 

Like very many of my age, by the age of 20 I had completed my (real and paid)  apprenticeship, I was earning a full man’s (adult) wage, I had already been a member of a defined pension scheme for two years, I saved my money in a building society I was a share holder in and I had access to

full time employment and affordable housing.

 

These opportunities were the foundation of the prosperity I enjoyed all my adult life, if members are honest they’ll admit they too benefitted from these same fantastic opportunities when they were young.

 

The only difference between me as a youth and a young person in 2019 is I had those opportunities, the youth of today do not.

 

The removal of these opportunities started the rise of neoliberalism and in the UK with Thatcher’s declaration the UK was to become a post industrial nation.

 

Industries stripped and destroyed, the nation’s ‘crown jewel’ of apprenticeships and training wiped out, work place pensions closed, mutual societies privatized, the nation’s public housing stock sold off and never replaced. The rise of buy to let and those who are already property owners competing with the young for starter homes.

 

The whole economy is twisted.

 

The change the young need is a little more substantial than a rise in their minimum pay.

20 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'- Margaret Thatcher

And how many recessions did that one cause....three over a 12 year period

2 minutes ago, baansgr said:

And how many recessions did that one cause....three over a 12 year period

Interesting facts about past recessions in the UK

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom

20 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'- Margaret Thatcher

A minimum wage is not socialism.

 

Henry Ford raised worker wages for the express reason of increasing the ability of working people to buy the cars he was selling.

I assume it has not escaped the attention of most here that there is a important election coming up and this is just a cheap vote catcher something that Labour hope will be forgotten long before (or if even) they have a majority government, but at this time they need a vote catcher to plug the gap as they are hemorrhaging voters at an alarming rate.

 

Labour should remember what happened to the Lib/Dems after failing to abolish University Tuition Fees...

On 5/12/2019 at 10:36 AM, dutchdude said:

I wonder where he finds the money to pay for it

 

Income tax, capital gains tax, corporations tax, and maybe a new "land tax" to levy on sales of all properties.

         End  zero  hour  contracts ,  a disgrace to the  working class .

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

You ignored the first part of my post; can I assume, therefore, that you recognise the condition?

 

But actually, you (or possibly the Sunset Times) are not correct with your statement. The top 1% pay 28% of all INCOME tax, but this accounts for only about 25% of the government's total tax take. Direct and Indirect taxes make up the bulk of the government's income, and while it is hard to say how much of this comes from the 1%, it is certainly a lot less than 28%. 

 

That said, do you think it is a healthy situation to be in for any country to be so reliant upon such a tiny, powerful band of individuals for such a significant portion of its income?

 

Still at the Sunset Times:

 

Private school woe over rise of state pupils at Oxbridge

 

So while Oh Jeremy is trying to better the lot of working class kids, the elite are complaining about working class kids taking places at the top universities that should be going to well heeled private school kids - makes one's heart bleed, does it not?

 

I don't disagree with your sentiments.

 

But Jeremy isn't bothered about any working class kids. He simply wants to "buy" votes. Increasing young people's minimum wage, abolishing education fees (which I agree with btw), etc etc.

 

Labor hate the idea of the old grammar schools, ability segmentation. But many Labor MP's who will try to deny you the opportunity to send your children to fee paying private schools, send their own to such establishments.

 

The Labor party are the biggest practitioners of hypocrisy in UK politics and have been since the 60's.

If I have to pay a wet behind the ears INEXPERIENCED youth £10 an hour to get in the way while he learns and also have to pay the same rate to someone who knows what they're doing and will contribute to the bottom line - who would I pick ? 
 
Not all companies can a) wait for the youth to flourish or b) run the risk that when trained he will bugger off 
 
The more companies have to shoulder the less they will produce the less jobs they will offer - Corbyn/Abbott what a dream ticket that is !!

They WERE a " dream ticket " some years ago.[emoji2][emoji2][emoji2]

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

5 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

But Jeremy isn't bothered about any working class kids. He simply wants to impress,,

    unemployed,  working class graduates.

   

 

Edited May 13, 20197 yr by elliss

On 5/12/2019 at 3:07 PM, geoffbezoz said:

Guess it depends upon how you rate success in the world. Academic achievements, business success etc etc.

 

 Common sense,  comes to mind, ?? 

So sorry,  I am ex working class , taxpayer .

 

 

Edited May 13, 20197 yr by elliss

another leftist policy to buy votes with stupid nonsense. 

Blimey, listening to the hard core on this thread anybody would think workers are after the crown jewels! You can only live on so little, you know.

 

One of the more shocking developments in recent years is the phenomenon of decent, hard working families falling in to poverty, whilst the wealth gap ever widens.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 20197 yr by mommysboy

On 5/12/2019 at 10:39 AM, ThaiBunny said:

He's not paying for it - he's going to force the employers to pay

No he is forcing the customers to pay it.