New Tory Leader

[horsefly 4,318]

44 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

But then I expect you are probably one of those people that think trans women are women.

We can all recognise a bigoted pr*ick when we see one. Kind of you to remind us what one sounds like.

Edited October 12, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,318]

39 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Except badger just proved that it isn't hard evidence..... 

He's not experienced anything hard for a long time.

[horsefly 4,318]

12 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Because in an economic meritocracy we don't judge people by their ability to work hard but by the value of their output. This, along with demand and supply, is what determines remuneration. A CEO may work eighty hours every week but if her business fails to make a profit she will be sacked. There output has no value.

A care worker will never be paid a stellar salary because her value of output is relatively unscalable whereas a software developer's value of output is potentially massively scalable if they produce the next TikTok or whatever. Even if the care worker works harder, are in short supply, and there is a high demand for care workers, they will probably still earn less than a software developer due to the value of output each can produce.

What a buffoon! "Economics for Dummies" would be too much of a challenge for you to understand.

[Herman 9,838]

55 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Don't worry, mate, I will pray for you.

God can't save me. And He's certainly given up on you.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

41 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Because employers don't pay enough, the jobs aren't always where people's homes are and lots of low level jobs require qualifications which are costly in time and money to get.

Also if you vegetable pick (which is seasonal) you then have to navigate the deliberately Byzantine benefits claim system when you lose that job when the season is over.

Also your favourite party could have done something about this, by passing tax cuts to the lowest paid, therefore making work pay better, but they didn't. They gave it to the richest.

Wrong. The biggest tax cut of all was to reduce income tax rate from 20 to 19%, which benefits those on lower incomes the most.

Employers will pay what it takes to secure a worker. What often prevents securing a worker is the government subsidising someone to sit at home idle all day.

Vegetable pickers do not require qualifications. Care workers and others dealing with the vulnerable and with children need to be properly vetted and trained, unless you think we should let just anybody take care of your kids?

Vegetable pickers are required for most of the year. There has to be checks on benefit claimants since most of us do not take kindly to benefit fraudsters.

What other excuses do you have for the idle? Perhaps you are one of them in which case you can share your experiences.

[sonyc 5,541]

5 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Wrong. The biggest tax cut of all was to reduce income tax rate from 20 to 19%, which benefits those on lower incomes the most.

Except you are wrong RTB.

The 1p cut would save those earning £25000 a year £124.30, if on £35,000 it's £224.30 a year better off. Then, if you're earning £80,000 it's £674 and this rises to £874 better off if you earn £100,000.

 

£124 per year is around £2 per week.

 

Need to do your research. 

[sonyc 5,541]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

Well when the first energy outage occurs, I will be blaming you and the other green climate activists on here, so you have a few weeks to prepare your excuses.

You'll blame me for anything. You've done that for at least 2 years. Your first intent on posting is very often (though not every time) to be personally insulting. And you do that because you don't like a view of a poster being expressed. That's the way you think and you must spend a lot of time seething. Why bother replying or even reading comments on this part of the  forum if you get so angry? I don't think it (a) adds to any of your arguments (b) won't be good for your health 

 

 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Except you are wrong RTB.

The 1p cut would save those earning £25000 a year £124.30, if on £35,000 it's £224.30 a year better off. Then, if you're earning £80,000 it's £674 and this rises to £874 better off if you earn £100,000.

 

£124 per year is around £2 per week.

 

Need to do your research. 

How many people are earning less than £35k and how many earning more than £80k? I think that if you do that math completely, you will find the biggest tax cut goes to the lower income earners.

[horsefly 4,318]

9 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Wrong. The biggest tax cut of all was to reduce income tax rate from 20 to 19%, which benefits those on lower incomes the most.

Employers will pay what it takes to secure a worker. What often prevents securing a worker is the government subsidising someone to sit at home idle all day.

Vegetable pickers do not require qualifications. Care workers and others dealing with the vulnerable and with children need to be properly vetted and trained, unless you think we should let just anybody take care of your kids?

Vegetable pickers are required for most of the year. There has to be checks on benefit claimants since most of us do not take kindly to benefit fraudsters.

What other excuses do you have for the idle? Perhaps you are one of them in which case you can share your experiences.

The usual ignorant bile. Many of the lowest paid do not earn enough to pay tax. Many of the lowest paid are on zero hours and/or temporary contracts and have no control over their hours of work. Many of those who work full-time on minimum wages have to claim benefits because their wages do not cover the very basic necessities for the survival of their family. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

You'll blame me for anything. You've done that for at least 2 years. Your first intent on posting is very often (though not every time) to be personally insulting. And you do that because you don't like a view of a poster being expressed. That's the way you think and you must spend a lot of time seething. Why bother replying or even reading comments on this part of the  forum if you get so angry? I don't think it (a) adds to any of your arguments (b) won't be good for your health 

 

 

If my facts offend you, sorry not sorry. And I post only facts.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The usual ignorant bile. Many of the lowest paid do not earn enough to pay tax. Many of the lowest paid are on zero hours and/or temporary contracts and have no control over their hours of work. Many of those who work full-time on minimum wages have to claim benefits because their wages do not cover the very basic necessities for the survival of their family. 

You know nothing about low-income people. You have probably never met a low income person unless by accident.

[horsefly 4,318]

2 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

How many people are earning less than £35k and how many earning more than £80k? I think that if you do that math completely, you will find the biggest tax cut goes to the lower income earners.

The buffoon is incapable of seeing that it means nothing materially to the individual on £25,000 that the collective amount of everyone receiving a tax cut in her earnings bracket might exceed that collectively going to those on £80,000. The only relevant point is that she benefits by £2 a week while her mortgage or rent is likely to have risen by hundreds a month. It really is economics for the seriously incapable in his case.

[Well b back 3,284]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

Well, she did say explicitly there will be no public spending cuts. So just how the fu*ck is she planning to raise the cash needed for her multi-billions unfunded tax cuts? Expect the markets to vent their continued lack of confidence shortly.

Explained as a bit of Trumpism by one of her business MPs a minute ago. You should have listened to what she said he chirped, she said there will be no cuts, nothing about all extra spending and any inflation increase due to inflation. 
They need to really start realising nobody believes these misleading facts anymore.

[horsefly 4,318]

4 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

You know nothing about low-income people. You have probably never met a low income person unless by accident.

I thought you had permanently blocked me. Please do so again. 

[Well b back 3,284]

Was any one else listening to radio 5 about 1/2 hour ago ? Tony what’s his name was interviewing a Tory business minister. Tony said Labour said they would do x, the ministers reply well they would say that wouldn’t they, to which Tony replied well some might assume I was talking to somebody that knew what they were talking about.

[1902 1,167]

21 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Wrong. The biggest tax cut of all was to reduce income tax rate from 20 to 19%, which benefits those on lower incomes the most.

Employers will pay what it takes to secure a worker. What often prevents securing a worker is the government subsidising someone to sit at home idle all day.

Vegetable pickers do not require qualifications. Care workers and others dealing with the vulnerable and with children need to be properly vetted and trained, unless you think we should let just anybody take care of your kids?

Vegetable pickers are required for most of the year. There has to be checks on benefit claimants since most of us do not take kindly to benefit fraudsters.

What other excuses do you have for the idle? Perhaps you are one of them in which case you can share your experiences.

I was on benefits for 3 weeks. I have absolutely zero shame over that and would have none if I had been for 6 months. 

"Care workers and others dealing with the vulnerable and with children need to be properly vetted and trained, unless you think we should let just anybody take care of your kids?"

That's not an actual argument, that's just an attempt to ignore my point by pointing to predators.

"Vegetable pickers are required for most of the year."

Even if this was true 'Most of the year' doesn't pay unless it's for substantially more than minimum wage.

"Employers will pay what it takes to secure a worker." Well that's not actually been the case since minimum wage legislation arrived.

As for 

"What often prevents securing a worker is the government subsidising someone to sit at home idle all day.

If it can't compete with a conservative governments benefit scheme in an age of austerity then I think my statement that pay is too low is self evident.

"Wrong. The biggest tax cut of all was to reduce income tax rate from 20 to 19%, which benefits those on lower incomes the most."

Which was progressive, doesn't stop the fact that there was also a massive drop in high earners tax rates which should have gone to low earners (except tbh that would still be inflationary. A tax incentive to increase pension contributions would have been the best option).

[horsefly 4,318]

13 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

You know nothing about low-income people. You have probably never met a low income person unless by accident.

Is that one of those facts which you only post. Idiot!

[sonyc 5,541]

7 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

If my facts offend you, sorry not sorry. And I post only facts.

I'm not offended personally. Never feel that. I DO get offended by views that I feel are unfair towards other people. I do get annoyed at the behaviour and policies of the current government. Different things. I don't go for the personal like you do. Like your comments about the poor for example...I would rather not reply to those kinds of views because they are so extreme and I don't wish to get into a fight of words. But I strongly disagree with that view. I don't care who wins an argument either (you stated you had won). It's not important who wins really in the scheme of things on a forum.

Any one more thing. You stated before that I'm an intelligent poster but the truth is I'm not really.  I don't think so anyway. I may score highly on IQ tests but they are ridiculous and also very limited. So many posters are able to lay out an argument better than me. You are probably one of them. 

Surely is very obvious to you by now that my views are quite lightweight and secondly, they are simply not attuned to your way of looking at the world. It's best you ignore stuff I post because it has no worth to you.

But I will post from time to time because I've found there are like-minded folk and that's always life affirming.

[Well b back 3,284]

I will be on benefits soon, my pension fund which I took as drawdown rather than annuity ( as recommended by members of this government ie removed regulation ) I can see in real life decreasing by around £1000 per day. There is always a silver lining of course at least everyday the losses get less as my fund shrinks.

 

[horsefly 4,318]

9 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I'm not offended personally. Never feel that. I DO get offended by views that I feel are unfair towards other people. I do get annoyed at the behaviour and policies of the current government. Different things. I don't go for the personal like you do. Like your comments about the poor for example...I would rather not reply to those kinds of views because they are so extreme and I don't wish to get into a fight of words. But I strongly disagree with that view. I don't care who wins an argument either (you stated you had won). It's not important who wins really in the scheme of things on a forum.

Any one more thing. You stated before that I'm an intelligent poster but the truth is I'm not really.  I don't think so anyway. I may score highly on IQ tests but they are ridiculous and also very limited. So many posters are able to lay out an argument better than me. You are probably one of them. 

Surely is very obvious to you by now that my views are quite lightweight and secondly, they are simply not attuned to your way of looking at the world. It's best you ignore stuff I post because it has no worth to you.

But I will post from time to time because I've found there are like-minded folk and that's always life affirming.

Trust me Sonyc, your posts are head and shoulders above the bile and prejudice fuelled rants produced by that specimen. I've yet to see anything he writes that follows the logic of an actual argument.

Edited October 12, 2022 by horsefly

[Worthy Nigelton 1,079]

RTB really does have some quite horrific views. I have plenty of centre right friends with which I have great debates and disagreements with and they do make me think and change my mind at times.

But this guy is just not very nice. It really is that simple.

[Well b back 3,284]

Clearly like a couple of posters on here Mogg does not understand the Gilt market. Of course you knew it wouldn’t be the mini budget’s fault it’s the BOE ??????????????.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63230001

[Well b back 3,284]

Now we know where Truss and Kassi get their ideas from, thank heavens for science.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63195653

[horsefly 4,318]

1 minute ago, Well b back said:

Clearly like a couple of posters on here Mogg does not understand the Gilt market. Of course you knew it wouldn’t be the mini budget’s fault it’s the BOE ??????????????.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63230001

Silly old BOE, did they not realise that spending tens of billions buying up government bonds to save people's pensions was entirely orthogonal to their overwhelming priority to bring down inflation? They must have all missed that lesson when they did their GCSE economics. Luckily Bogg-brains is around to put them straight.

[horsefly 4,318]

5 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Now we know where Truss and Kassi get their ideas from, thank heavens for science.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63195653

By remarkable coincidence that article includes an identical comment written by his economics master on Kami-Kwasi's school report:

"Other experts describe the work as ''exciting'' but say calling the brain cells sentient is going too far."

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

52 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Wrong. The biggest tax cut of all was to reduce income tax rate from 20 to 19%, which benefits those on lower incomes the most.

😂😂 Given that many on the lowest incomes, or those that are only able to work part-time, don't earn enough to pay income tax and even if they do just get over the threshold have had their personal allowance frozen, then it isn't even a tax cut...........just another Tory stealth tax rise.

Those on the lowest incomes have been sh@fted for the last twelve years by a series of uncaring, deceitful scumbugs, otherwise known as Tory MPs.

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

 

Jason Groves

 

@JasonGroves1

·

13m

 

Tory MP on Liz Truss's appearance at the 1922 Committee: 'It was like someone trying to light a fire using a magnifying glass. Using damp wood. In the dark.'

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

40 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

You know nothing about low-income people. You have probably never met a low income person unless by accident.

Unlike you if my memory serves - didn't you employ people on such low wages that they had to claim universal credit to make up a living wage?

Apologies if I'm mixing you up with one of your fellow nutters - I'm wondering now if it was Jools but as your views and his chime so closely I'm afraid its hard to recall precisely, it could have been either of you (or both 😀).

[Mr Apples 1,335]

39 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Is that one of those facts which you only post. Idiot!

Surely all these tens of thousands of diversity officers will help kick-start the economy? 🤔🤣

Apples

[Well b back 3,284]

And I post only facts.
 

Here’s one, you claimed it was world things that had effected our economy recently. Rees Mogg has just shot you down in flames and called you a liar as he claims the fault lays at the door of the BOE 😀🙈. 
Anyone else think The BOE are aiming to bring the Government down at the weekend ?