Nurses to get a pay rise of 1%

[crustyfolker]

Well, i mean, thats what i was asking.
Your money is worth about 1 and a half more than ours. Do u get paid and is your stuff 1 and a half cheaper than ours. Or do u just have to pay more for things like rent for instance.

I can get a no-frills cell plan for $15, but a reasonable price is about 40

I can find a $500 per month 1 bedroom apartment, but it will not b a pleasant living situation, lol. 750 is more typical, 1000 for a nice one

@-

Well, i mean, thats what i was asking.
Your money is worth about 1 and a half more than ours. Do u get paid and is your stuff 1 and a half cheaper than ours. Or do u just have to pay more for things like rent for instance.

I can get a no-frills cell plan for $15, but a reasonable price is about 40

I can find a $500 per month 1 bedroom apartment, but it will not b a pleasant living situation, lol. 750 is more typical, 1000 for a nice one

Before xmas and when Trump was in office the pound was only worth $1.16 its now closer to $1.40 . When i started vaping it was around $1.50 and when i was a kid your president was Jimmy Carter our £1 was worth $2 i am sure it was around that during Tony Blairs era in the 90's. Milk in Asda is £1.59 for 3 litres a loaf is about £1.50, 20 cigarettes £12 . Pint of beer in a pub £4. PS5 is £450 or £370 digital version.
Council flat 2 bedroom rent is about £80 a week same for houses. Private rent is usually more than £500 a month. Private rent is a bad thing, you pay for someone elses house. Council rent similar but you have the option to buy at a reduced cost after 3 years by 30% then an additional 1% off for every extra year you rent. I pay £8 a month for my phone bill which allows fee calls to UK mobiles and landlines, free texts and some data which i never use. £31 for a month internet.

 

[crustyfolker]

Don’t really agree that rich people should pay more tax but I do think that people and organisations should to be able to avoid paying taxes.

haven’t looked into it but I’d be interested to know what the numbers would look like if everyone paid a flat rate, no ifs or buts, when they’re earning.

So would you rather have the 20% bracket increased so the poorest families pay for it?. sensible thing to do is take more from those who don't need it. I doubt many people would suffer if there was a set fortune limit. I can't see the point in allowing some to have millions or Billions it is no use to them apart from using it to create more wealth which then gives them more power. No one needs to be be in control of everything else just themselves but many use money as a weapon to get what they want, cover up their wrong doings while looking down their noses at those in an unprivilidged position. Most folks would be more than happy with enough to get by and a bit extra for a treat now and again, yet there are many who don't even have enough to get by, how can they pay, . 2 pint glasses one full the other empty how are you drinking when i take the full one?. That's right you can't drink cos there is nothing to drink, cos i have it all. But i would offer you half because it's the decent thing to do. Absolutly agree about loopholes and that, the loopholes will always exist in one form or another because the Gov wants to keep the big money makers in the UK, Tax them to much they will leave and take their business with them creating a bigger hole in the public finances. The only way to combat it would be a law that doesn't allow the Business to be took to another country which is not going to happen

 

[Jd_]

@-


Before xmas and when Trump was in office the pound was only worth $1.16 its now closer to $1.40 . When i started vaping it was around $1.50 and when i was a kid your president was Jimmy Carter our £1 was worth $2 i am sure it was around that during Tony Blairs era in the 90's. Milk in Asda is £1.59 for 3 litres a loaf is about £1.50, 20 cigarettes £12 . Pint of beer in a pub £4. PS5 is £450 or £370 digital version.
Council flat 2 bedroom rent is about £80 a week same for houses. Private rent is usually more than £500 a month. Private rent is a bad thing, you pay for someone elses house. Council rent similar but you have the option to buy at a reduced cost after 3 years by 30% then an additional 1% off for every extra year you rent. I pay £8 a month for my phone bill which allows fee calls to UK mobiles and landlines, free texts and some data which i never use. £31 for a month internet.

That sounds like a good system, depending the council flat.
i like yours has some path towards ownership.

Ours is called section 8 housing, and its essentially just rent paid to the owner by the government instead of the tenant. It can be assigned to pretty much any property or apartment and is completely based on your ability to pay. I have known families who pay nothing for an entire house.

If there is a path to ownership, typically it would be through a foreclosed property owned by a bank, they would set the terms.

problem is often a multi-year long waiting list for applications and not all landlords want to comply with the regulations, and it is heavily stigmatized.

(There is also a set price range that is deemed acceptable for a monthly rent)

 

[Jd_]

.

 

[onion]

So would you rather have the 20% bracket increased so the poorest families pay for it?. sensible thing to do is take more from those who don't need it. I doubt many people would suffer if there was a set fortune limit. I can't see the point in allowing some to have millions or Billions it is no use to them apart from using it to create more wealth which then gives them more power. No one needs to be be in control of everything else just themselves but many use money as a weapon to get what they want, cover up their wrong doings while looking down their noses at those in an unprivilidged position. Most folks would be more than happy with enough to get by and a bit extra for a treat now and again, yet there are many who don't even have enough to get by, how can they pay, . 2 pint glasses one full the other empty how are you drinking when i take the full one?. That's right you can't drink cos there is nothing to drink, cos i have it all. But i would offer you half because it's the decent thing to do. Absolutly agree about loopholes and that, the loopholes will always exist in one form or another because the Gov wants to keep the big money makers in the UK, Tax them to much they will leave and take their business with them creating a bigger hole in the public finances. The only way to combat it would be a law that doesn't allow the Business to be took to another country which is not going to happen

I haven’t really thought about the logistics of a flat tax rate in any real depth and in an ideal world a flat tax rate wouldn’t see people at the lower end of the pay spectrum earning less. Personally, I don’t have any issue with the current bandings sure, there are some very rich people out there and taxing them more would deliver more revenue, I’m not disputing that, or the relatively small impact on them. I’d just prefer a simpler system and one which in particular ensured that businesses which turn over significantly more than the rich list (as a total % of the economy) aren’t able to use complex fiddles to avoid what they ought to pay.

Should people who have less have more support? Yes. Should there be two pints on that table instead of one? Yes. If taxing people more gets that, that’s great but i think sorting out the loopholes and the government spending money more effectively is the problem that needs to be solved. All of these over inflated (cost wise) underperforming contracts and deals is as much a part of the problem. Look at those £30 school meal boxes that were being sent out - a great example of how ineffective the government is at procuring what should be a simple solution.

In my limited understanding, we keep making the same changes in some areas and not changing others because of perceived threats to the economy at large. These haven’t yielded the benefits we keep getting told. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome...

 

[crustyfolker]

That sounds like a good system, depending the council flat.
i like yours has some path towards ownership.

Ours is called section 8 housing, and its essentially just rent paid to the owner by the government instead of the tenant. It can be assigned to pretty much any property or apartment and is completely based on your ability to pay. I have known families who pay nothing for an entire house.

If there is a path to ownership, typically it would be through a foreclosed property owned by a bank, they would set the terms.

problem is often a multi-year long waiting list for applications and not all landlords want to comply with the regulations, and it is heavily stigmatized.

Uk rent, if you are not employed the new Universal credit comes with your rent included and then you have to pay the rent out of it. I am on the old system before Universal credit came about because i would be way worse off if i opt for universal credit. Because i am on the old benefit the Council is responsible for my rent, which they hate as it uses their income not the Gov's. One thing about the ownership thing is it creates atmosphere. Some folks go mad as it reduces the amount of council homes, but the folks buying already live there so i can't see why the buyers get stick, it's another poking noses in thing for me, none of my business what folks do so no opinion formed. The stick sgould go to the Council for failing to build more housing using the money from the sale towards it. There's just way to much inflation on home prices it's crazy. 40 years ago my parents purchased a 4 bedroom 3 story house it was huge cost £27,000. I bet theres a naught after the 7 now.
1999 2 bed flat £18 grand. 10 years later valued at 70 odd grand massive price differences.

 

[Simon G]

There's just way to much inflation on home prices it's crazy. 40 years ago my parents purchased a 4 bedroom 3 story house it was huge cost £27,000. I bet theres a naught after the 7 now.
1999 2 bed flat £18 grand. 10 years later valued at 70 odd grand massive price differences.

IMO that's the biggest problem we have, the cost of somewhere to live ... it takes a massive chuck of people's earnings whether they are buying or renting. One of my friends was lucky enough to inherit a property and he's feels pretty well off even though he only earns just over minimum wage, no rent, no mortgage, he just pays the bills,buys a bit of food and the rest is just fun tokens.

 

[crustyfolker]

I haven’t really thought about the logistics of a flat tax rate in any real depth and in an ideal world a flat tax rate wouldn’t see people at the lower end of the pay spectrum earning less. Personally, I don’t have any issue with the current bandings sure, there are some very rich people out there and taxing them more would deliver more revenue, I’m not disputing that, or the relatively small impact on them. I’d just prefer a simpler system and one which in particular ensured that businesses which turn over significantly more than the rich list (as a total % of the economy) aren’t able to use complex fiddles to avoid what they ought to pay.

Should people who have less have more support? Yes. Should there be two pints on that table instead of one? Yes. If taxing people more gets that, that’s great but i think sorting out the loopholes and the government spending money more effectively is the problem that needs to be solved. All of these over inflated (cost wise) underperforming contracts and deals is as much a part of the problem. Look at those £30 school meal boxes that were being sent out - a great example of how ineffective the government is at procuring what should be a simple solution.

In my limited understanding, we keep making the same changes in some areas and not changing others because of perceived threats to the economy at large. These haven’t yielded the benefits we keep getting told. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome...

Good points mate, i just think a flat rate system penalises lower earners or it really benefits the rich even more. They couldn't do a 30% for all as the rich would save enormous amounts of money which would really affect the Gov's plans. The problem with all Gov plans is they don't work, councils are similar they waste money left right and centre then say they are skint we need to take more. Everything has some corruption, lies etc behind it. You are better off in work they said, yet they do not realise you now pay rent and council tax on top of all living expenses. which is probably £500 plus a month in council homes, when they add up things after rent and council tax folks are no better off sometimes worse than when they where not working. so with £125 a week gone from a minimum wage earner add the expense of travel to work it doesn't leave much more than being on Universal credit.

 

[crustyfolker]

IMO that's the biggest problem we have, the cost of somewhere to live ... it takes a massive chuck of people's earnings whether they are buying or renting. One of my friends was lucky enough to inherit a property and he's feels pretty well off even though he only earns just over minimum wage, no rent, no mortgage, he just pays the bills,buys a bit of food and the rest is just fun tokens.

Totally agree Si, the main problem today is the private rent sector, £550 a month apposed to £360 a month in the same council property. It's probably £600 a month now as i based it on my previous 2 addresses one private one council. The other problem was mass immigration from Eu countries, local councils where told to house the folks coming in before the folks who where already there. With the lack of housing prices rise and rents go up. I think it should be illlegal to buy a council or ex council property to rent it out. When a ex council home is vacated by a death of the owner the Council should be made to buy it back, if surviving family live there then that's different, but at least folks who's parents payed for their homes would get the cash equivalent from the council.

 

[zouzounaki]

Some folks go mad as it reduces the amount of council homes, but the folks buying already live there

not when the majority of houses in a certain area end up privately owned and then the people who bought them from the council sell them on for a tidy profit once the area increases in the desirability stakes. a terrible and 100% thatcher tory ideological scheme to destroy social housing and divide and atomise communities.