Pound slumps to all-time low against dollar

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Welfare and public service spending cuts are already being openly discussed by the Government.

 

Tax cuts for the already wealthy, welfare and services cut for everyone else.

Far too many people claiming welfare that are perfectly capable of filling the million or so job vacancies.

 

Perhaps a reduction in welfare payments will encourage them to go out and work for a living. 

 

If so, my heart won't be bleeding. More money will be available for people who genuinely need help.

[placeholder]

58 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

OK. You seem to be suffering from selective reading. I'll make it short.

 

The 20% to 19% tax cut benefits ALL tax payers.

 

Any services cuts affect EVERYONE.

 

Benefits cuts might lead to the million jobs currently available being taken. More employed, more tax revenue, less benefits paid out. WIN WIN.

 

 

Really? NHS service cuts affect everyone equally? The wealthy won't go elsewhere?

The thing is the distinction between budget cuts and tax cuts is artificial. For example, if the government had chosen not to cut income taxes or the stamp duty, would it be necessary to curtail services at the NHS at all? Mightn't, in fact, service levels actually be restored to their former level? 

 

As for austerity cuts, they also lead to this:

 

Austerity cuts to social care and health caused 57,000 deaths, research suggests

The government has refused to apologise for the “appallingly unnecessary” impact of austerity spending cuts, after researchers linked post-2010 reductions in spending on social care and health to more than 57,000 deaths in just four years.

The findings of the government-funded research suggest that cuts to social care, health and public health caused 57,550 more deaths in England than would have been expected if spending had continued on pre-2010 trends.

The research shows the number of deaths due to austerity was even higher than suggested by previous research, which had linked about 45,000 deaths to health and social care funding cuts between 2010 and 2014.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/austerity-cuts-to-social-care-and-health-caused-57000-deaths-research-suggests/

[candide]

56 minutes ago, candide said:

A rationale which has little to do with reality.

 

The current situation is rather good re people who are officially unemployed (and can get unemployment benefits), as there are less unemployed people than ob vacancies.

 

The problem is older people not participating in the job market. These people may be excluded by age limits defined by recruiters, or may not be adapted to the job vacancies, I.e. not fit for hard physical job and difficult or for jobs requiring specific skills.

 

"Over one in four (27 per cent) people aged 50 to 64 are neither in work nor looking for work – up from 25.4 per cent two years ago.

Experts are urging employers to adopt more flexible working policies and remove age-bias from their recruitment processes to attract older workers to fill surging vacancies. 

“The UK workforce participation crisis is continuing – driven by older workers leaving the labour market,” 

"With 246,000 fewer people aged 50 to 64 participating in the workforce, “companies are missing out on the positive impact older workers can bring,” she continued."

https://www.bigissue.com/news/employment/the-uk-has-more-job-vacancies-than-unemployed-people-for-the-first-time/

 

 

34 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Far too many people claiming welfare that are perfectly capable of filling the million or so job vacancies.

 

Perhaps a reduction in welfare payments will encourage them to go out and work for a living. 

 

If so, my heart won't be bleeding. More money will be available for people who genuinely need help.

You sure?

[JonnyF]

27 minutes ago, candide said:

 

You sure?

Yes, I'm sure.

 

Will every job vacancy be filled? No.

 

Could a lot of them be filled? Absolutely.

 

As I said before, never let perfection stand in the way of improvement.

[transam]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well yes, that’s how progressive taxation works.

 

Now explain the logic behind borrowing money to give most of it to tax payer 2.

I think you are a little confused ......????

[transam]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Really? NHS service cuts affect everyone equally? The wealthy won't go elsewhere?

The thing is the distinction between budget cuts and tax cuts is artificial. For example, if the government had chosen not to cut income taxes or the stamp duty, would it be necessary to curtail services at the NHS at all? Mightn't, in fact, service levels actually be restored to their former level? 

 

As for austerity cuts, they also lead to this:

 

Austerity cuts to social care and health caused 57,000 deaths, research suggests

The government has refused to apologise for the “appallingly unnecessary” impact of austerity spending cuts, after researchers linked post-2010 reductions in spending on social care and health to more than 57,000 deaths in just four years.

The findings of the government-funded research suggest that cuts to social care, health and public health caused 57,550 more deaths in England than would have been expected if spending had continued on pre-2010 trends.

The research shows the number of deaths due to austerity was even higher than suggested by previous research, which had linked about 45,000 deaths to health and social care funding cuts between 2010 and 2014.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/austerity-cuts-to-social-care-and-health-caused-57000-deaths-research-suggests/

Waaaay off-topic, and a suggestion.......

 

The pound slumps against the dollar, and you are talking guesswork on suggested deaths...????

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Waaaay off-topic, and a suggestion.......

 

The pound slumps against the dollar, and you are talking guesswork on suggested deaths...????

Odd. The comment I was replying to should be considered equally off-topic yet mine is the one you critique. Partisan much?

[baboon]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Perhaps a reduction in welfare payments will encourage them to go out and work for a living. 

Or perhaps it will encourage them to crack you over the head and steal your gear. 

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed along with replies.  Keep it civil and on topic.

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why do I need to define ‘wealthy’?

You've been using the word do much. You say the wealthy will get more out of thevtax cuts yet others say the top 1% of earners.

 

Just wondering where the line is drawn. I have savings, no debts, and my wife and I have a combined salary of circa £50k. Are we, in your opinion, wealthy?

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You've been using the word do much. You say the wealthy will get more out of thevtax cuts yet others say the top 1% of earners.

 

Just wondering where the line is drawn. I have savings, no debts, and my wife and I have a combined salary of circa £50k. Are we, in your opinion, wealthy?

I’m not about to get into making comments on the income of other members, it’s not the topic of discussion and it probably go off rails.

 

You can review the chart I posted to determine an estimate of how much the tax cuts impact your income.

 

 

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not about to get into making comments on the income of other members, it’s not the topic of discussion and it probably go off rails.

 

You can review the chart I posted to determine an estimate of how much the tax cuts impact your income.

 

 

 

 if the subject is, say, how to tile a bathroom floor, then invoking personal experience makes sense. But when it comes to large issues like politics and econoics, making it personal is worse than useless.. Not only are their claims uncomfirmable, but what's the point? What evidentiary value does it have?

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, baboon said:

Or perhaps it will encourage them to crack you over the head and steal your gear. 

Unlikely. 

 

From what I saw during my holiday last month, by the time these workshy benefit claiming chav scroungers walked a few steps to get into range and raised their hand they'd be exhausted, collapse onto their fat arzes and crush their "fags" upon landing. 

 

A shortage of food for a few weeks probably wouldn't even bring these individuals down to the acceptable BMI range. It would probably save the NHS millions in diabetes medication.

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Unlikely. 

 

From what I saw during my holiday last month, by the time these workshy benefit claiming chav scroungers walked a few steps to get into range and raised their hand they'd be exhausted, collapse onto their fat arzes and crush their "fags" upon landing. 

 

A shortage of food for a few weeks probably wouldn't even bring these individuals down to the acceptable BMI range. It would probably save the NHS millions in diabetes medication.

A case in point for my comments immediately preceding these of JohnnyF.

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Unlikely. 

 

From what I saw during my holiday last month, by the time these workshy benefit claiming chav scroungers walked a few steps to get into range and raised their hand they'd be exhausted, collapse onto their fat arzes and crush their "fags" upon landing. 

 

A shortage of food for a few weeks probably wouldn't even bring these individuals down to the acceptable BMI range. It would probably save the NHS millions in diabetes medication.

A disgraceful pejorative generalization.

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A disgraceful pejorative generalization.

There is no compelling reason to believe it. It may be invented, it may not be. It's worthless. 

[still kicking]

Is this site only for poms and yanks the American Dollar has been overratet for a long time same as the Thai baht today the AUD was only 64 cents to the US dollar explain to me, the US had an inflation of about 7.8 %, more than Australia the US is in a likely recesscion Australia is not just my state recorded a profit of of 6 billion in 1 year sorry for my American friends but the US dollar is teflon

[baboon]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Unlikely. 

 

From what I saw during my holiday last month, by the time these workshy benefit claiming chav scroungers walked a few steps to get into range and raised their hand they'd be exhausted, collapse onto their fat arzes and crush their "fags" upon landing. 

 

A shortage of food for a few weeks probably wouldn't even bring these individuals down to the acceptable BMI range. It would probably save the NHS millions in diabetes medication.

You just made that up. Why, I have no idea, but you made it up.

[placeholder]

33 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Is this site only for poms and yanks the American Dollar has been overratet for a long time same as the Thai baht today the AUD was only 64 cents to the US dollar explain to me, the US had an inflation of about 7.8 %, more than Australia the US is in a likely recesscion Australia is not just my state recorded a profit of of 6 billion in 1 year sorry for my American friends but the US dollar is teflon

Are you blaming the "poms and yanks" in the forum for the decrease in value of the Australian dollar? You think that the nationality of members making comments is somehow  relevant?

[baboon]

57 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A disgraceful pejorative generalization.

 

 

 

 

As well as untrue: 'Hey, I just spent 36 hours in Beijing. Don't try to tell ME anything about the Chinese...'

[still kicking]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Are you blaming the "poms and yanks" in the forum for the decrease in value of the Australian dollar? You think that the nationality of members making comments is somehow  relevant?

No, I do not but the US dollar has been teflon for a long time

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not about to get into making comments on the income of other members, it’s not the topic of discussion and it probably go off rails.

 

You can review the chart I posted to determine an estimate of how much the tax cuts impact your income.

 

 

I just want to know what your idea of wealthy is. That way I can try to decipher how accurate your comment " mainly for the wealthy" is. If you cannot give any suggestion on your idea of wealth, I will have to suggest you are talking rubbish.

[candide]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

I just want to know what your idea of wealthy is. That way I can try to decipher how accurate your comment " mainly for the wealthy" is. If you cannot give any suggestion on your idea of wealth, I will have to suggest you are talking rubbish.

And for you? From which income bracket could people be considered as wealthy?

[puchooay]

42 minutes ago, candide said:

And for you? From which income bracket could people be considered as wealthy?

That's a good question. How can someone say the tax cuts favour the wealthy when he can't confirm his definition of wealth, when he's been asked several times to do so.

Edited October 4, 2022 by puchooay

[candide]

3 minutes ago, puchooay said:

That's a good question. How can someone say the tax cuts favour the wealthy when he can't confirm his definition of wealth, when he's been asked several times to do so.

Yet, when people like the poster to whom I replied, or like you, are asking this question, it means they should have in mind a criteria, ex. an income bracket for "wealthy people", in order to assess the reply.

 

Alternatively, they may just be trolling and waiting for any reply in order to claim It's wrong., whatever the reply made.

 

So, according to you, what is the income bracket for "wealthy", smartass?

 

How can someone ask another poster to define something he is not himself able to define? ????

[nigelforbes]

4 hours ago, still kicking said:

No, I do not but the US dollar has been teflon for a long time

The US Dollar is the  number 1 reserve currency globally, it's the most traded and people turn to it for safety. Right or wrong, that's why it's teflon, because people think it's safe.

[puchooay]

45 minutes ago, candide said:

So, according to you, what is the income bracket for "wealthy", smartass?

Oh dear. Resorting to insults. How sad.

 

Having looked back at all the posts, it is not I nor the poster you quoted who have been banging on about how the wealthy benefit more by the recent tax cuts. The poster that did surely would be able to answer the question put to him. If he cannot he should not be attacking such a group.

 

For me, an income bracket alone does not define wealth. That is why I too am interested in the posters answer. I, personally, feel he should be using a phrase such as "high earners" rather than "the wealthy". With good investment, property purchases, saving and spending wisely it is possible to be wealthy whilst never having had a salary over 30k a year. Trust me, I know. 

 

I'm sure 30k earners is not the group that is being attacked yet very possibly could be wealthier than those in higher salary brackets. I await his answer with interest.

[nigelforbes]

2 hours ago, puchooay said:

Oh dear. Resorting to insults. How sad.

 

Having looked back at all the posts, it is not I nor the poster you quoted who have been banging on about how the wealthy benefit more by the recent tax cuts. The poster that did surely would be able to answer the question put to him. If he cannot he should not be attacking such a group.

 

For me, an income bracket alone does not define wealth. That is why I too am interested in the posters answer. I, personally, feel he should be using a phrase such as "high earners" rather than "the wealthy". With good investment, property purchases, saving and spending wisely it is possible to be wealthy whilst never having had a salary over 30k a year. Trust me, I know. 

 

I'm sure 30k earners is not the group that is being attacked yet very possibly could be wealthier than those in higher salary brackets. I await his answer with interest.

This may help you decide the answer:

 

https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

I just want to know what your idea of wealthy is. That way I can try to decipher how accurate your comment " mainly for the wealthy" is. If you cannot give any suggestion on your idea of wealth, I will have to suggest you are talking rubbish.

I’ve provided a linked reference to the amount of  borrowed money the Government is handing out based on individual income.

 

The higher your income, the more borrowed money the Government is handing you.

 

If you wish to dispute that provide an argument with evidence, I’m not interested in your semantics.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, puchooay said:

That's a good question. How can someone say the tax cuts favour the wealthy when he can't confirm his definition of wealth, when he's been asked several times to do so.

I don’t need to defend ‘my definition of wealth’ I’ve provided the evidence of how much borrowed money the Government are handing out.

 

The more you earn, the more borrowed money the Government is handing you.