The "Living Wage" apparently comes into operation today !!

First topic message reminder :

Apparently the Living wage that has been described as "Not the living wage" by the ..Living Wage Foundation.. comes into operation today..

With the cuts in work support however two million families are set to lose £1600 a year.....

The introduction of the Universal Credit apparently will see in-work support fall for 2.3 million of the 3.1 million families currently on Tax credits...

It's a shame so many British people show so much Political apathy......Unlike some stuck in the middle of these statistics..I won't be affected... but I made my way down to the station to tick the Labour box....Although in fairness it has to be said mainly to get rid of the Liberal moron........

But what can you do.....My heart goes out to Wheelie who bangs his head against a brick wall trying to educate people that they are going to be screwed..

Big believer in fairness and while Labour have this Corbyn joke not sure people are going to see any !!....Especially with boundary changes a-comin....

TopHat24/7 wrote:Using your grossly ignorant and laughably flexible definition of council tenants there are/will be no council tenants left.

I'm pleased you've finally admitted it, though it really isn't ignorant - they are not council tenants and they do not rent from the council.

I'm going to quote you again

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:Going off topic slightly, TH's post pushed me to look at a former council estate in Kidbrooke, SE London, which is now in the hands of a private HA and Berkeleys. Once home to thousands of council tenants, the cheapest purchase is this little number.



And a bargain at only £392,500. As part of the deal with the council there was also supposed to be some 'affordable' housing, with 1 bed apartments starting from £207,000. That pretty much rules out anyone earning min wage. Seriously, can over £200k for a one bed flat ever be described as 'affordable'? Not so good for those who couldn't afford to buy either:

However, it is also important to note that some residents from the Ferrier Estate were unable to return to Kidbrooke Village because they could not afford higher rents and higher council tax payments compared to the costs of their previous homes. Interviewees also noted that overall there has been a net loss of affordable housing at Kidbrooke Village from 1,906 to 1,525

This is an excellent (if slightly biased) article on council/private HA/developer initiatives and how they affect the local communities, long but worth a read.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/18/-sp-truth-about-gentrification-how-woodberry-down-became-woodberry-park

Like how you undid your own point though: "Once home to thousands of council tenants" then pointing our there are over 1,500 affordable housing units (each will have several occupants) at the new scheme.

What point was that? The one you misunderstood? Try reading it again - I mentioned there was once thousands of council tenants (completely true), then went on to mention the starting prices of properties both shared and full ownership. Yet it didn't occur to you that my point was how hard it would be for many of those tenants to afford to buy on shared ownership (hint: the bit that suggests it would be difficult for anyone on minimum wage to afford it was a dead giveaway).
I then quoted from an article regarding some residents not being able to afford to return - a completely separate issue (hint: 'Not so good for those who couldn't afford to buy either'), which also mentioned the 1,525 affordable homes. At what point did I suggest that there would be less than 1,000 ex council tenants living in the new complex?

TopHat24/7 wrote:According to the SPD, 43% (this is v high) of the new homes would be 'affordable', a minimum of 1,900.  Of these 70% should be rented (council tenants by any logical/intelligent/correct definition) which is 1,300+ either social or intermdediate rented. Remaining 30% shared ownership.

http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/downloads/file/153/kidbrooke_spd_chapter_4_jun_2008

So whichever way you cut it, there will be over one thousand council list tenants occupying the site once it's completed.

Dated 2008
As much as I loathe letting you drag me back in to your ridiculous 'thousands' argument, this is from Inside Housing, dated June 2014

On the development’s completion, 1,525 of these will be affordable, of which 738 will be let at social rents. There were 1,910 social homes on the original Ferrier estate, although some had been sold under the right to buy.

Let's also throw in then that your quoted 1900 homes was actually the entire estate when originally built, much of which will already have been divested from the council books.

Basically, you still can't grasp the difference (or lack thereof) between a 'council tenant' which has an LA as landlord and a 'council tenant' which has an HA as landlord. They are exactly the same save for 1 difference - that the former was kiboshed as a concept decades ago and has been dwindling ever since, being replaced by the latter.

The persons housed are exactly the same.

Thousands of people from council waiting lists will continue to be housed on the estate (contrary to your statement).

But carry one making yourself look as stupid as you did last time you tried to debate on here and couldn't grasp basic factual concepts. I'm done with this now, it's just getting embarassing and I'll end up banned (again).

More guff while completely ignoring the question asked of you. I can very easily grasp the difference between HA and council tenant, but the only one that actually matters here is the terminology.

(contrary to your statement)

Which statement was that? Quote it, in context.

TopHat24/7 wrote: Get over yourself.  Want to live in a nicer area or bigger house? Fooking work harder and earn more. It's a simple fact of life.  What next, automotive-social segregation because minimum wagers deserve to drive BMW X5s too??!  

I saw in another post you made reference to strawman arguments. I'm afraid that most of your own posts on this subject have been little else. The above quote is a ridiculous example. Campaigning for a livable wage has nothing to do with assuming that everyone should have a right to luxury cars. It's about wanting people (yes, even those terrible minimum wage workers you seem to despise) to have an income that allows them to live with some dignity.

Saying that people who earn minimum wage should simply 'work harder' if they want a decent standard of living is as short-sighted as it is despicable. Firstly, are we as a society so divorced from compassion that we think that people whose jobs are less esteemed should simply be cast adrift? Are shelf-stackers and coffee shop workers really deserving of nothing (or at least nothing but scorn)? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, how does the 'work harder' argument even make sense? We need people to do these jobs. If they are so badly paid as to make it impossible to sustain a life in the UK, then no one will want to do them. The upshot? Increased immigration.

In this argument, you always seem to come back to your own position - to say "if I have worked so hard for so long to have something, then no on should get that for less." The logic is entirely one-sided. You assume that the other person would be having too much for their labour, and never question whether you have too little for yours.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote: Get over yourself.  Want to live in a nicer area or bigger house? Fooking work harder and earn more. It's a simple fact of life.  What next, automotive-social segregation because minimum wagers deserve to drive BMW X5s too??!  

I saw in another post you made reference to strawman arguments. I'm afraid that most of your own posts on this subject have been little else. The above quote is a ridiculous example.  Campaigning for a livable wage has nothing to do with assuming that everyone should have a right to luxury cars. It's about wanting people (yes, even those terrible minimum wage workers you seem to despise) to have an income that allows them to live with some dignity.

Saying that people who earn minimum wage should simply 'work harder' if they want a decent standard of living is as short-sighted as it is despicable. Firstly, are we as a society so divorced from compassion that we think that people whose jobs are less esteemed should simply be cast adrift? Are shelf-stackers and coffee shop workers really deserving of nothing (or at least nothing but scorn)? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, how does the 'work harder' argument even make sense? We need people to do these jobs. If they are so badly paid as to make it impossible to sustain a life in the UK, then no one will want to do them. The upshot? Increased immigration.

In this argument, you always seem to come back to your own position - to say "if I have worked so hard for so long to have something, then no on should get that for less." The logic is entirely one-sided. You assume that the other person would be having too much for their labour, and never question whether you have too little for yours.

If you want to be that 'compassionate' then double/triple your own taxes to foot the bill.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote: Get over yourself.  Want to live in a nicer area or bigger house? Fooking work harder and earn more. It's a simple fact of life.  What next, automotive-social segregation because minimum wagers deserve to drive BMW X5s too??!  

I saw in another post you made reference to strawman arguments. I'm afraid that most of your own posts on this subject have been little else. The above quote is a ridiculous example.  Campaigning for a livable wage has nothing to do with assuming that everyone should have a right to luxury cars. It's about wanting people (yes, even those terrible minimum wage workers you seem to despise) to have an income that allows them to live with some dignity.

Saying that people who earn minimum wage should simply 'work harder' if they want a decent standard of living is as short-sighted as it is despicable. Firstly, are we as a society so divorced from compassion that we think that people whose jobs are less esteemed should simply be cast adrift? Are shelf-stackers and coffee shop workers really deserving of nothing (or at least nothing but scorn)? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, how does the 'work harder' argument even make sense? We need people to do these jobs. If they are so badly paid as to make it impossible to sustain a life in the UK, then no one will want to do them. The upshot? Increased immigration.

In this argument, you always seem to come back to your own position - to say "if I have worked so hard for so long to have something, then no on should get that for less." The logic is entirely one-sided. You assume that the other person would be having too much for their labour, and never question whether you have too little for yours.

If you want to be that 'compassionate' then double/triple your own taxes to foot the bill.

I think that might be another strawman.

The "living wage" argument is made a mockery of by the fact that, in London, there are kids working in McDonald's who can look outside and see parking meters that get a higher hourly rate than they do.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote: Get over yourself.  Want to live in a nicer area or bigger house? Fooking work harder and earn more. It's a simple fact of life.  What next, automotive-social segregation because minimum wagers deserve to drive BMW X5s too??!  

I saw in another post you made reference to strawman arguments. I'm afraid that most of your own posts on this subject have been little else. The above quote is a ridiculous example.  Campaigning for a livable wage has nothing to do with assuming that everyone should have a right to luxury cars. It's about wanting people (yes, even those terrible minimum wage workers you seem to despise) to have an income that allows them to live with some dignity.

Saying that people who earn minimum wage should simply 'work harder' if they want a decent standard of living is as short-sighted as it is despicable. Firstly, are we as a society so divorced from compassion that we think that people whose jobs are less esteemed should simply be cast adrift? Are shelf-stackers and coffee shop workers really deserving of nothing (or at least nothing but scorn)? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, how does the 'work harder' argument even make sense? We need people to do these jobs. If they are so badly paid as to make it impossible to sustain a life in the UK, then no one will want to do them. The upshot? Increased immigration.

In this argument, you always seem to come back to your own position - to say "if I have worked so hard for so long to have something, then no on should get that for less." The logic is entirely one-sided. You assume that the other person would be having too much for their labour, and never question whether you have too little for yours.

If you want to be that 'compassionate' then double/triple your own taxes to foot the bill.

Come on Toppy, one more for a hat-trick!

Top hats argument summarised.

STOP BEING POOR! STOP BEING POOR! STOP BEING POOR!!!

Everyone else's argument summarised:

Anyone not earning £40k+ pa is totally screwed by the system and it's never not their fault ever ever ever they should be helped every step of the way and given lots and lots of stuff for free which others have to work for because aren't we such a nice loving caring bunch.

Foot the bill? Nah. We'll get higher earning mugs to do that.

So far this year I've seen 45% of my bonus half inched, £11k of SDLT get chucked down the drain and my income take a circa £5k pa hit due to Osbourne tax changes.

So people complaining about getting paid £7.20 rather than £8 ph can cry me a f*cking river.

My heart bleeds for you mate.

As I said, get yourself over here in Jersey mate. You can take my place on this economically fascist rock, if you like. You'd love it here.

If I could domicile there and live & work in London I would!

Partly because of how much it'd upset this board full of hand-wringing left-liberal faux socialists.

TopHat24/7 wrote:So far this year I've seen 45% of my bonus half inched, £11k of SDLT get chucked down the drain and my income take a circa £5k pa hit due to Osbourne tax changes.

So people complaining about getting paid £7.20 rather than £8 ph can cry me a f*cking river.

Maybe you should work harder? FWIW I wouldn't have any problems if prices went up to pay low earners a bit more, nor would I mind a small tax increase to help those on low wages and full time employment. I probably don't get paid as much as TH, but if that's what money does to you then you can keep it

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So far this year I've seen 45% of my bonus half inched, £11k of SDLT get chucked down the drain and my income take a circa £5k pa hit due to Osbourne tax changes.

So people complaining about getting paid £7.20 rather than £8 ph can cry me a f*cking river.

Maybe you should work harder? FWIW I wouldn't have any problems if prices went up to pay low earners a bit more, nor would I mind a small tax increase to help those on low wages and full time employment. I probably don't get paid as much as TH, but if that's what money does to you then you can keep it

The thing is that it's a complete irrelevance. Employees paying their staff a livable salary has no impact on Toppy's tax. If anything, it should reduce his tax by reducing the requirement for working tax credits. To that end, I can't understand why he wouldn't stand behind it.

TopHat24/7 wrote:So far this year I've seen 45% of my bonus half inched, £11k of SDLT get chucked down the drain and my income take a circa £5k pa hit due to Osbourne tax changes.

So people complaining about getting paid £7.20 rather than £8 ph can cry me a f*cking river.

Why don't you work harder or get a better job?

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So far this year I've seen 45% of my bonus half inched, £11k of SDLT get chucked down the drain and my income take a circa £5k pa hit due to Osbourne tax changes.

So people complaining about getting paid £7.20 rather than £8 ph can cry me a f*cking river.

Maybe you should work harder? FWIW I wouldn't have any problems if prices went up to pay low earners a bit more, nor would I mind a small tax increase to help those on low wages and full time employment. I probably don't get paid as much as TH, but if that's what money does to you then you can keep it

The thing is that it's a complete irrelevance. Employees paying their staff a livable salary has no impact on Toppy's tax. If anything, it should reduce his tax by reducing the requirement for working tax credits. To that end, I can't understand why he wouldn't stand behind it.

Because the Greggs queue is on the left