I Believe...

Ha! Yes indeed. And that's why it's such a meaningless declaration
(though cleverly done).

Very true, except that it's always been a Tory hobbyhorse, hasn't it -
scroungers, and spongers and asylum seekers, and "everyone on the dole
has got a Rolls Royce".

There's always a flip-side. Easier to hire is easier to fire. a.k.a.
Sacking people just before their one year period when they have no
rights, as happened to a mate of mine at Bloomberg a few weeks before
Christmas.

And - you'll know more about this than me (I've recruited more people in
Texas than in the UK) - is it really *hard* to hire people? In terms of
legislation, I mean?

Both with concomitant problems: lower taxes, and you have to raise the
money somewhere else, or cut expenditure; not signing up to Euro stuff
may leave us in breach of the agreement from when we entered.

Yes it's fair. Prince William is extremely wealthy because a social
construct - the Royal Family. If I earn more than - say, sir.tony
through being cleverer because my parents are cleverer (and, through not
being a fucking moron) then that's just life. There's nothing we can do
about it.

Fees, okay. But there are no grants, only loans, and whatever parents
are willing or able to come up with. Obviously people on the breadline
will struggle with that more than the average middle-class person. And
it *must* be a disincentive.

We're going to miss out on a rich vein of talent and ability from
working class kids, if they turn down the opportunity to go to
university because they don't think they can afford it. Dudley Moore
was lamented here the other day. If he was 18 today, I doubt he'd be
considering Oxford.

It is wrong. A graduate will earn more, and so they will pay more tax.
Thus paying back the money that the Govt weighed out for their
education. Why none of the parties can focus on this point I don't
know. Well, I do, of course, it's because no-one wants to confront the
central issues.

No. That's what it is now - well, the Retail Price Index. But it's not
enough. Some goods and services are getting cheaper out of proportion
to others which takes the whole thing out of kilter. There are
pensioners who don't put the heating on because they can't afford it,
and I think that it's a sick society that creates a situation like that.

Free market, mate. They should be free of red tape and interference
from the state, surely. And if they **** up - hey, that's capitalism.

There's not a lot of clear water between those two, it seems to me. I
don't advocate removing 2,499 of Richard Branson's 2,500 millions pounds
and giving 1m each to 2,499 people. But I would tax very high earners
slightly more so that we don't have one in three children in Britain
growing up under the poverty line.

Does that mean they get to touch us in "special" places?

Over to you, sir.tony...

ditto.

 

Even with grants this used to happen, but I'm not questioning that it's
a situation needing a remedy, and bringing back grants is one approach.

Something else worth considering however is that a huge number of
talented people go stright into employment aged 16- 18, to address this
there also needs to be a better, and recognised (and government backed)
apprenticeship system in place, something that could run alongside any
university reforms. I'd suggest a a scheme incorporating recognised
qualifictions,not simply related to the standard trades like
bricklaying, but encompasing industry skills like finance, technology,
engineering, as well as general business, and running for a similar
duration to a degree, with the option of night classes.

With such a scheme people would have the option to work, learn, and
support themselves without being a burden on the system, and at the end
of it they'd still be competitive in the free-market, and also have real
experience without the weight of huge debt that faces many students.

 

Ginge wrote

We used to have them once upon a time and them the structure of our
industry changed and we sold the manufacturing to the third world.

Apprenticeships of the old school just don't work with the new
technologies.

You do have something very similar to this idea in the credits systems
for degrees and things.

What is more important I think though is to get the qualifications, from
whatever source, recognised by employers or perhaps by the tax man so
that there is a real incentive to go out and get some.

and their families.

 

Well, the technical colleges and polytechnics used to serve this very
purpose allowing people to study part time for a vocational
qualification.

Couldn't agree more.

I suspect part of the motivation to put 50% of our young people through
uni may be more to do with reducing unemployment than anything else.

 

No, they don't. We need a new way of dealing with apprenticeships, but
we still need apprenticeships, maybe in this day and age apprenticeships
wrapped around a formal fixed 5 year contract with penalties and get
outs on both sides.

Yep, and common throughout (at least) the UK. Like the city and guilds
qualifications are in the trades.

 

I know, I did a BTEC ND via technical college, rather than taking A
levels.

The scary thing is as a concept generally it works.

The idea I listed above isn't something I just thought up, it's the
approach I and many like me took to building a career.

The problem right now is that by taking route it's possible to build
lots of experience and skill, but without any the paperwork to back
one's knowledge in the form of a degree. There are probably hundreds of
thousands of people out there in a similar situation.

Quite possibly, I'm sure there are also other more workable approaches
to the situation though.

Also as a further downside you miss out on 4 years of being a drunken
student, you have to make up for this in your late 20's and early 30's
by drinking too much.

 

It's been portrayed as one in the mean spirited tory press, yes. Not
something I agree with FWIW.

Oh, I know. I know...

No, it's the legislation about letting them go that makes it hard to
hire. That's why so many companies employ contractors rather than
permies. It's also a problem in France (so I'm told by French
colleagues).

A contractor doesn't have to have NI payments for, and more importantly
isn't a 'future liability' on the companies P&L since they can let them
go just like that without any cost implication. I don't fully
understand this but I've observed it's easier for me to get a contractor
employed at 500 quid a day than a permie at 25k a year (note the
contractor's equivalent wage would probably be 35-40k PA in my
experience if I had the headcount available for one). Still I'm not a
man manager at the moment and haven't been for 3 months; I've enjoyed
it, it's been like a holiday in some ways (though the hours have been
longer if anything without people to delegate to...).

I can see the arguments on both sides. I don't think it's clear enough
*to me* for me to hold a valid opinion. The flexible labour market has
been good to me so far; I hope it stays that way. I've seen others
suffer both in the long term (unemployment) and also benefit if they can
cope with contracting.

I don't understand why an accident of birth placing you in a position to
benefit from education is any different from one placing you in a
position to inherit; although I am being deliberately awkward here.

It's equally unfair that you had advantages (one assumes) of a stable
and nurturing background.

I don't agree with a lack of grants. I also don't think grants should
be means tested; mine was and that was part of the reason I didn't
finish poly the first time around; money problems. I'm completely in
favour of student loans as long as the loan doesn't need repaying until
the ex-student is earning some reasonable amount and doesn't have
interest applied to it at 'commercial' rates.

I agree; I think that we need to *reduce* the number of people in full
time education but make sure those that go are those that will make best
advantage of the opportunities. We don't need a labour force made up of
50% graduates. I've spoken to people who studied hard for three years
and then ended up managing a mobile phone shop; they felt they'd been
cheated- they did what was expected but didn't reap the benefits they
thought would be part of the contract.

I guess the problem is that I did a vocational subject and did it part
time over 7 years; around the time my daughter was born. My degree cost
me a lot in terms of my relationship with my kids and I don't buy a lot
of the whining I hear from students; life's hard, get on with it...

I guess we basically agree. It's a hard one, as I said I'm a born and
bred Tory yet I don't agree with a lot of what the Tories do. Come to
that I don't think you agree with a lot of what Labour do. I despair
that the SDP didn't come to more!

I agree that's wrong. There are also pensioners who don't put heating
on through 'thrift'. The measure of inflation is the issue then rather
than the principle about RPI or average earnings?

I think the only reasoned response to this is name your fucking
roundabout.

I don't buy taxing very high earners heavily since:
i) there are so few of them that it becomes tokenism
ii) they are in a position to skew their remuneration such that it falls
outside of the tax rules, or at least falls into the most favourable
areas
iii) If we tax the high earners they will **** off to other Countries
where tax regimes are more 'sympathetic' leaving us with a lower quality
of people to run our businesses at the very top level.

If we need to raise more taxes the only way to do this is to raise the
tax of the middle earners as well since that's where you will get the
most. It's what Labour's done with their despicable 1% hike on national
insurance- despicable because they didn't have the balls to put it on
income tax

Well it certainly seems so. Actually, no... it means *we* get to touch
*them* in special places of their dictation^w choice.

If it was easy it would have been solved years ago. I don't consider
myself a mug but I can't come up with the answers.

I think Champ once said he thought (when younger) that people in their
40s understood life and were sorted; once he reached that age he
realised that they just made it up as they went along (I paraphrase).

I guess politics is like that. Politicians don't have the answers and
just need the balls to be brave and try things, some work, some don't.

 

Oh, and me too. ONC, HNC, Degree all done part time (well the ONC was
done as an alternative to unemployment funded by the MSC).

I was and did the HNC and Degree part time. I'm fucked if my kids are
doing the same though; well if I can help anyway.

No, you never make up for it. You missed it and that's all there is to
say about it.

 

It won't entirely be down to you, my cousins are both lucky to have been
born into the financially well off side of the family, one has spent 10+
years becoming an architect, and benefiting from the family savings, the
other got a job at 18 and did the work + qualifications thing.

Of the 2, the one that worked for it off their own back is doing better
despite being the younger. She's also the more supportive of her family
from what I'm told.

 

Goodness me! I am appalled, Do you really think so?

 

Oh, I know it won't be down to me but, if I can give my kids an easier
path through life than the one I've taken (given that they've both
inherited some aspects of my character and temperament) then as far as
I'm concerned that's what I'm here for and it's my duty to do it.

 

Fair enough. My dad was the same and I respect him for it.

 

Well... I can't see any other reason for it, so yes.

 

wrote:

<huge snips>
I snipped a lot because there wasn't any more to be said, not least
because we were agreeing a lot. I wasn't tactical snipping to appear to
be "winning" the argument.

Because I benefit from the principles and encouragement of my parents.
Prince William benefits from the social construct that is The Royal
Family, which gives him - directly, without question and taking no
regard of merit - wealth and power. I think that's wrong.

I can't away from the principle that they're paying twice - once in
higher tax revenues from earning more, and again through the loans
system.

This is all true. But it's boring to agree on all these things, so I'll
throw in a "what is Michael Howard going to do about it?".

At the heart of things, no. If you link Old Age Pensions to the RPI, it
gets fucked up because lots of stuff gets a lot cheaper in real terms
over time. That looks like a good result, or at least a maintenance of
the status quo for wrinklies, but it isn't. Look at the things that are
loads cheaper now than twenty years ago - Ferraris, computers, stuff
like that. Pensioners have no need for that stuff. Getting back to the
heart of things, I think it's fair, and right and proper for us to keep
our old people in reasonable comfort. They've paid in all this time,
and they should be able to live out their lives as they wish.

There's no point; I don't stand much chance of getting there without
crashing.

I shouldn't have put "very"; I just mean high. 50K or thereabouts. A
couple of years ago there was a feature in one of the broadsheet
supplements with facts about earning 50K. Very interesting. I'm
googling like a motherfucker but I can't find it. I don't want to bandy
around what I recall, in case I misremember.

I'm with you on that.

There's a big misnomer about putting up tax. Politicians like to
sweeten things by talking about "ringfencing", saying that money raised
will go to a specific area. They don't need to do that, they just need
to credit the electorate with a little more intelligence. If they
explain that 1p on income tax on earnings over 50K/pa raises x million
pounds, and that x million pounds buys x hospitals, or raises the state
pension by x pounds per week or whatever - I reckon people will
understand and accept that.

 

Ginge wrote

Yes but then again no. The biggest problem of all with this idea is the
speed of development in new technologies.

When I were a lad it was at the end of the formal apprenticeship system
but even then employers could be fairly confident that the money they
were investing would still be paying off in 20 years time. **** nose
what technology is going to bring us in the next 20 years but you can
bet your life that nobody working now will be trained to use it.

Some of the ideas regarding continuous working life training that are
being discussed as policy by the Labour party are on the right lines but
realistically it should be a matter removed from the general political
arena.

Trouble is: C&G are seen as _vocational_ awards and thus not suitable
for the aspiring middle classes who are, after all, the ones who spend
most on education. Solve that problem and you are halfway there.

 

Ginge wrote

I am the same but if my kids ever dared show respect for me they would
get the tongue lashing of their miserable lives.

 

Oh, I wouldn't accuse you of tactical snipping.

Well I suppose defending the indefensible is always a hard line to
argue. To be blunt, it doesn't bother me in the slightest and I'd
prefer my life over his.

I don't have a problem with the concept of inherited wealth but would
with inherited power (I'm studiously ignoring the point that power often
comes with wealth here).

It seems to be the thin end of the wedge though, if you feel that the
Royal Family shouldn't be able to pass their wealth on when do you call
a stop to this? How much should one be allowed to pass on?

But I don't think they are since the country; that's the tax payer, has
invested in them over and above what they've invested in their
contemporaries who didn't go onto university.

And I'll throw in a "fucked if I know since it should have been Clarke
wot got the job". I don't trust Howard and he seems too weak and fickle
as a politician.

I agree they should be kept in reasonable comfort, I don't agree that
this necessarily needs a link to average earnings to manage this though.

Private pensions don't get linked to average earnings and the state
pension isn't good enough to retire on without resource to supplementary
benefits anyhow.

Nice answer!

Well if it was over the 50k mark I'd agree that this would raise a tidy
sum. I still don't think it's right since 40% of 50k is more than 40%
of 49k but I can see an argument for removing the NI cap (although I
hope this doesn't happen...)

And of course there is no hypothecation of taxation revenues anyway, it
all goes into a big pool. I think the problem with the raising of taxes
is no-one (or almost no one) wants to pay more and for the sorts of
things that need investment we aren't going to see a payback for many
years- 5 or 10.

Labour had an opportunity to sort things out early in their term of
office but they said (to get elected) that they wouldn't raise income
taxes above 'tory' rates (or something very like this). They've had
their honeymoon period and now would not be the time for them to make a
massive tax raising exercise if they wanted to get re-elected in one or
two years.

I suspect even introducing a 45% rate for those earning over 50k would
lose them a hell of a lot of votes, possibly enough to make government
hard in the next parliament. As I said earlier it's a hard one.

I find it difficult to fault a lot of what you say because whilst I'm an
instinctive Tory I'm on the very wet side of the party which is probably
almost the same as the current government (as I said earlier...)

 

<FHM> Oh, the irony, the irony! They all have it irony </FHM>... hang
on, that doesn't quite work for some reason.

 

My parents live off it, but worked hard to clear all their debts before
retirement. In 10 years time they'd probably be f*cked though.

 

That's why I don't really let on, but he's smart enough to know.