Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot

Cost of living crisis.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Jobs for life and final salary pensions?  I think if you do a survey of the people working in the cotton mills of East Lancashire in 1950, that few of them had jobs for life (since the mills didn;t last long enough) and equally few had final salary pensions.  If the retirement age in 1950 was 63.9 it meant that they had been working full time for over 50 years to get it, and life expectancy was much less so less taxes were needed to pay for it.  The average person is richer and healthier than ever, though as for smarter and better looking I can only speak for myself. :whistle:  Working one day a week was cloud cuckoo land.  No country has achieved that.

 

And we aren't worse off than we were 6 decades ago.  I'm sure there are people nowadays with no phone, no TV, no internet, no central heating, no inside toilet or bathroom, no heat in the bedroom, no car, no more than 1 week holiday per year (and that in the same county you live in) - but they are exceptions.  To say that living standards now are lower than in 1960, is absurd.

I just it’s the normal everyday people putting out questions ,trying to find answers

I don’t people are saying anything,just trying to find  answers within absurdity..

I doubt any so called expert or other insider has any answer..

They put up arguments to cover their arses, but never a solution..

Edited by fuchsntf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

People who retired in 1950 didn't start work in 1950.  They started work 50 or so years earlier, and in 1900 the standard school leaving age was 12.

 

The largest industry in that era was shipbuilding/metalwork, followed by mining, followed by cotton (about a couple of million, just in those three industries).  None of those people had jobs for life, and few of them had final salary pensions.  Labourers, even skilled labourers, didn't.  In 1950 they might have believed they had jobs for life, but few of them did.

 

If what you're saying is that living standards now are better than they were, but not as good as they should be, that's a fair comment and can be argued.  But to say they are worse now than then, that's a nonsense.  Sorry.

Ah fair enough yeh massive oversight from me on the retiring start of work age lol. I think we’ve reached some sort of happy agreement here! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

If Peston thinks that 3% is "windfall-y high" rate of interest, he needs a better grasp of history.  Base Rate has seldom been below 3%, and almost never below 2%.

 

Corporation Tax for banks was 19+8=27%, and from April it will be 25+3=28%.  That's a tax rise, and if complaints are to be made, it should that it hasn't risen enough.  Complaints that it has fallen are nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

This is an interesting one and surprised it’s being talked about in the mainstream. A fat chunk of those reserves are through QE, ie created money… All well in the good times as rates were so low and govt were making a profit. but now rates are increasing and we’re at a loss. It’s like me creating £500k, putting it in a base rate account and profiting from it. Not gonna happen. Bank will have to move on this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It almost feels as if the public are being punished after the current war and Covid-19 events over the past 18 months.

 

Hope it doesn't put people off wanting to start a business and vulnerable people who need the heating on for their health.

Edited by Wymsey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kenny said:

The raw price of gas is still sitting at October 2021 levels. I'm still confused as to why the gas and electric prices are going up?

Me too. These are the things the msm should be picking up on. Also the pound has reached 1.19 whilst wti oil is back to just above 1.80 a barrel. Yet diesel is still rising. Oh and the bastards are planning a 12p per ltr fuel duty increase next March. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

If Peston thinks that 3% is "windfall-y high" rate of interest, he needs a better grasp of history.  Base Rate has seldom been below 3%, and almost never below 2%.

 

Corporation Tax for banks was 19+8=27%, and from April it will be 25+3=28%.  That's a tax rise, and if complaints are to be made, it should that it hasn't risen enough.  Complaints that it has fallen are nonsense.

That it hasn't risen *enough*, means that it's fallen in real terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Me too. These are the things the msm should be picking up on. Also the pound has reached 1.19 whilst wti oil is back to just above 1.80 a barrel. Yet diesel is still rising. Oh and the bastards are planning a 12p per ltr fuel duty increase next March. 

You seem to be consistently confused about the policy choices of the people you voted for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

That it hasn't risen *enough*, means that it's fallen in real terms.

You've lost me there.  Percentages don't need to be inflation adjusted.  The tax raised by a 27% rate would rise with inflation because the underlying profit would rise with inflation (all else being equal).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

People who retired in 1950 didn't start work in 1950.  They started work 50 or so years earlier, and in 1900 the standard school leaving age was 12.

 

The largest industry in that era was shipbuilding/metalwork, followed by mining, followed by cotton (about a couple of million, just in those three industries).  None of those people had jobs for life, and few of them had final salary pensions.  Labourers, even skilled labourers, didn't.  In 1950 they might have believed they had jobs for life, but few of them did.

 

If what you're saying is that living standards now are better than they were, but not as good as they should be, that's a fair comment and can be argued.  But to say they are worse now than then, that's a nonsense.  Sorry.

This is the key point.

 

They aren't nearly as good as they should be, and the reason that status quo persists, at cost to both humanity at large and the Earth itself, is down to the short-term self-interested greed of powerful people who use political influence to keep it that way and maintain their power.

 

Technological development when done purely for profit motive is not fast nor thorough enough to raise living standards in the way that would be ethical and necessary.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is the key point.

 

They aren't nearly as good as they should be, and the reason that status quo persists, at cost to both humanity at large and the Earth itself, is down to the short-term self-interested greed of powerful people who use political influence to keep it that way and maintain their power.

 

Technological development when done purely for profit motive is not fast nor thorough enough to raise living standards in the way that would be ethical and necessary.

But what sort of technological development (other than military weapons) is done for any motive other than profit?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

But what sort of technological development (other than military weapons) is done for any motive other than profit?  

There isn't, not really.

 

And that's a fundamental failing of our species - at least in some areas - that needs correcting, and soon.

 

Don't get me wrong - driving such things through pounds, dollars and whatever other currency is fine, but it can't be the only motive for progress. That doesn't end well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, fox_up_north said:

I look forward to the council tax rises next year and the improvements to services they will bring

Maaaaaate.

I work in local government, and I can't tell you, there will be no improvement unless the rates go up by about 20%.

The last 5 years has all been damage limitation.  Very little, if any money is received direct from Govt with regards to Council funding.

Main funding streams are usually Council tax, parking rates and planning fees.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

If Peston thinks that 3% is "windfall-y high" rate of interest, he needs a better grasp of history.  Base Rate has seldom been below 3%, and almost never below 2%.

 

Corporation Tax for banks was 19+8=27%, and from April it will be 25+3=28%.  That's a tax rise, and if complaints are to be made, it should that it hasn't risen enough.  Complaints that it has fallen are nonsense.

The wind fall he’s referring to is because the vast majority of reserves are there because of QE. Banks have huge upside on this money, which has been created, and is costing govt billions a month. The definition of windfall and unearned income. And now they have got the levy cut lol. Yesterday was an absolute bonanza for banks and intra day share price movements reflected that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...