General Election 2015

[Hockey_saint]

Supermarkets profits are massively down. I would rather we topped up pay, than pay full job-seekers allowance.

 

Let's take Tesco as an example. They made £0.97 bn net profit last year. That's approximately £1920 per member of its 500000 workforce. They have a massive £2.6 bn pension deficit (partly thanks to Gordon Brown). Where do they have room to raise wages.?

 

That was kinda my point but you could say the same about every retailer (Unbelievable Jeff, I also started to work for Waitrose for about the same pay about then too). That's the quandary though "do we pay to prop them up or not pay them via our taxes and essentially chuck most onto the dole" as believe you me, retailers make it very clear to their employees that their biggest cost is wages and they'd very happily have a couple of staff in and use those automatic till points.

[buctootim]

So you want them to cost you and me by charging us extra for stuff on the shelves?

 

Sure. The cost wont be more than £11bn pa. We'll be nett better off

[Nolan]

If you are to believe those figures its £2,200 for every one of the 5 million supermarket workers.

 

Which is more money than Tesco make per employee.

[saintbletch]

Don't know about the accuracy of these claims. Anyone closer to the NHS/legislation care to comment?

 

Edited 12 April, 2015 by saintbletch
Embedding video

[Nolan]

Only Andy Burnham for labour limited the shortlist for the running of a hospital, that it was privatized.

 

Only labour privatized 4.5 percent of the NHS. Under the coalition it has increased by a further 1 1%. Only labour massively increased the indebtedness of the NHS by the overuse of PFI.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Good move by the Conservatives on inheritance tax. Save people planning ahead and signing property etc over 7 years before they die.

[pap]

Good move by the Conservatives on inheritance tax. Save people planning ahead and signing property etc over 7 years before they die.

 

A few people.

 

It'll píss a load more people off, I reckon.

[Nolan]

A few people.

 

It'll píss a load more people off, I reckon.

Those who don't believe you should be able to pass on what you have worked hard for?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

A few people.

 

It'll píss a load more people off, I reckon.

 

Now for someone to tackle the idiocy of stamp duty, help more people to purchase houses.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Those who don't believe you should be able to pass on what you have worked hard for?

 

Probably the Tories core vote, those with millions. UKIP have said they'd scrap it altogether.

[Nolan]

Now for someone to tackle the idiocy of stamp duty, help more people to purchase houses.

That was mainly sorted in the last budget, moving to a income tax style banded system, rather than a flat rate system.

[pap]

Now for someone to tackle the idiocy of stamp duty, help more people to purchase houses.

 

Heh. Tell an American that we pay a regressive 20% sales tax on most things deemed a luxury.

 

He won't think he's the idiot.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Heh. Tell an American that we pay a regressive 20% sales tax on most things deemed a luxury.

 

He won't think he's the idiot.

 

Americans pay various sales taxes dependent on state do they not?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

That was mainly sorted in the last budget, moving to a income tax style banded system, rather than a flat rate system.

 

It's better, but it still has to be paid. People shouldn't be taxed for purchasing a property.

[pap]

Americans pay various sales taxes dependent on state do they not?

 

Around 5%, give or take 3-4 percentage points in either direction, depending on the state.

 

We pay 5% for the "luxury" of things like electricity, water and gas.

 

Now I'm not too interested in a comparison of our sales tax vs their sales tax, because we do tons of things better than they do. But VAT is an example of something sounding perfectly reasonable to start with (it'll just be luxury items! There will be safeguards) and ending up becoming entirely unreasonable with no real safeguards.

 

The utility VAT rate of 5% won't be around forever.

[Nolan]

With local surtaxes on top of their base taxes it can go up to 12%

[Wes Tender]

A few people.

 

It'll píss a load more people off, I reckon.

 

It'll p*ss off people like you and the Mansion Tax brigade who despise anybody possessing things that they have worked hard to accumulate. Property prices have risen historically well ahead of inflation, so that vast areas of the country are affected by it because people own property in certain postcode areas. A tax originally introduced to milk the super rich and the landed gentry, is now caning large swathes of the middle classes and because the differential between the increase in property prices and inflation has not been successfully addressed for years, it now becomes harder for governments to do it, for fear of being accused by the left of favouring the rich.

[Nolan]

The scariest part of the Labour Manifesto

 

"Reform the employment tribunal system to ensure workplace justice is affordable."

 

it is currently near impossible to sack someone who is not up to scratch. not to mention Labours litigation legacy: the no win - no fee culture that they endowed upon us.

[bridge too far]

The scariest part of the Labour Manifesto

 

"Reform the employment tribunal system to ensure workplace justice is affordable."

 

it is currently near impossible to sack someone who is not up to scratch. not to mention Labours litigation legacy: the no win - no fee culture that they endowed upon us.

 

I think you'll find they're wanting to reform the bit that says an individual needs to stump up increasingly unaffordable fees just to bring a case to court.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jan/06/employment-tribunal-fees-price-workers-out-of-justice

 

It's not about changing employment law

[View From The Top]

Good move by the Conservatives on inheritance tax. Save people planning ahead and signing property etc over 7 years before they die.

 

I doubt it affects very many outside tory core areas. I see it more of an effort to keep tory voters from voting UKIP.

 

Inheritance tax, like stamp duty, are such idiotic things they should be scrapped.

[View From The Top]

The scariest part of the Labour Manifesto

 

"Reform the employment tribunal system to ensure workplace justice is affordable."

 

it is currently near impossible to sack someone who is not up to scratch. not to mention Labours litigation legacy: the no win - no fee culture that they endowed upon us.

 

So you think it's fair that employees are now priced out of seeking a fair and independent hearing?

 

As for not being able to sack people not up to scratch, that's simply boll ocks.

[View From The Top]

It'll p*ss off people like you and the Mansion Tax brigade who despise anybody possessing things that they have worked hard to accumulate. Property prices have risen historically well ahead of inflation, so that vast areas of the country are affected by it because people own property in certain postcode areas. A tax originally introduced to milk the super rich and the landed gentry, is now caning large swathes of the middle classes and because the differential between the increase in property prices and inflation has not been successfully addressed for years, it now becomes harder for governments to do it, for fear of being accused by the left of favouring the rich.

 

LOL. What a muppet.

[Nolan]

I don't see £160 to £250 to discourage frivolous claims as an issue, no.

[Whitey Grandad]

I doubt it affects very many outside tory core areas. I see it more of an effort to keep tory voters from voting UKIP.

 

Inheritance tax, like stamp duty, are such idiotic things they should be scrapped.

 

Indeed they should. One indirect consequence of exempting the family home will be a freeing up of the housing market. Anything else that discourages moving house, such as stamp duty, should also be removed. One of the reasons for transport congestion is the reluctance to move house because of the high cost of changing. 50 years ago people used to move if they got a job much more than 12 miles from their home, now they can drive up to 40 miles or more.

 

One other interesting proposal I read was to make it more attractive for older people living in big houses to sell up and move to somewhere smaller. They argued that we needed to build more retirement homes rather than starter houses and that anyone downsizing should be exempt from stamp duty.

[bridge too far]

I doubt it affects very many outside tory core areas. I see it more of an effort to keep tory voters from voting UKIP.

 

Inheritance tax, like stamp duty, are such idiotic things they should be scrapped.

 

And it's not actually that big a hike. Currently the joint tax free amount is 2 x £350K. They are proposing 2 x £500K.

 

It's just a tax on unearned income after all.

[shurlock]

It'll p*ss off people like you and the Mansion Tax brigade who despise anybody possessing things that they have worked hard to accumulate. Property prices have risen historically well ahead of inflation, so that vast areas of the country are affected by it because people own property in certain postcode areas. A tax originally introduced to milk the super rich and the landed gentry, is now caning large swathes of the middle classes and because the differential between the increase in property prices and inflation has not been successfully addressed for years, it now becomes harder for governments to do it, for fear of being accused by the left of favouring the rich.

 

Les- Vast areas? As in Steve Davis MOTM vast? Less than 0.5% of households, overwhelmingly in London vast?

 

There is a debate to be had about the means, though the policy ends have a clear rationale. As the IFS and others have pointed out, higher-value properties are significantly under-taxed given the way Council Tax is calculated, based as it is on outdated property valuations.

[Whitey Grandad]

Les- Vast areas? As in Steve Davis MOTM vast? Less than 0.5% of households, overwhelmingly in London vast?

 

There is a debate to be had about the means, though the policy ends have a clear rationale. As the IFS and others have pointed out, higher-value properties are significantly under-taxed given the way Council Tax is calculated, based as it is on outdated property valuations.

 

It's the threat of the tax that people hate. The reason that so few properties fall under it is that the occupants haven't died. Yet.

[Wade Garrett]

Indeed they should. One indirect consequence of exempting the family home will be a freeing up of the housing market. Anything else that discourages moving house, such as stamp duty, should also be removed. One of the reasons for transport congestion is the reluctance to move house because of the high cost of changing. 50 years ago people used to move if they got a job much more than 12 miles from their home, now they can drive up to 40 miles or more.

 

One other interesting proposal I read was to make it more attractive for older people living in big houses to sell up and move to somewhere smaller. They argued that we needed to build more retirement homes rather than starter houses and that anyone downsizing should be exempt from stamp duty.

 

Brilliant, all that will do would be to increase the price of houses even more. This would have the effect of making it even more difficult for first-time buyers.

 

Downsizers being exempt from stamp-duty is just another idea from the selfish baby boomer generation, who have already had the best of everything from the state (my parents included).

[shurlock]

It's the threat of the tax that people hate. The reason that so few properties fall under it is that the occupants haven't died. Yet.

 

Was referring specifically to the Mansion Tax.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I doubt it affects very many outside tory core areas. I see it more of an effort to keep tory voters from voting UKIP.

 

Inheritance tax, like stamp duty, are such idiotic things they should be scrapped.

 

Agree.

[CB Saint]

So you think it's fair that employees are now priced out of seeking a fair and independent hearing?

 

As for not being able to sack people not up to scratch, that's simply boll ocks.

 

It is absolutely unfair that people cannot afford to bring a genuine case - it is also unfair that employers have to defend frivolous claims which they usually settle because it is cheaper to do that than defend them because an employer had the devils own job trying to recover costs. The current rules have swung the pendulum back into the employers favour. I am not sure how you strike a fair balance - maybe kill off this no win no fee culture?

 

You can get rid of people who dont perform, you just have to follow a process and accept it might take you a few months.

[hypochondriac]

So you think it's fair that employees are now priced out of seeking a fair and independent hearing?

 

As for not being able to sack people not up to scratch, that's simply boll ocks.

 

As the victim of a malicious and untrue campaign which cost us an awful lot of money and stress, I despise the claim culture and I support any attempt to get rid of it.

[pap]

It'll p*ss off people like you and the Mansion Tax brigade who despise anybody possessing things that they have worked hard to accumulate. Property prices have risen historically well ahead of inflation, so that vast areas of the country are affected by it because people own property in certain postcode areas. A tax originally introduced to milk the super rich and the landed gentry, is now caning large swathes of the middle classes and because the differential between the increase in property prices and inflation has not been successfully addressed for years, it now becomes harder for governments to do it, for fear of being accused by the left of favouring the rich.

 

How do you know they've worked hard to accumulate it? Could be inherited money, or like in Cameron's dad's case, he could have been diverting funds destined for the exchequer to an island that'd be a banana republic if it wasn't for that huge, tax-free banking industry. What about lottery winners? Did they work hard for their money? Your assertion that anyone with cash must be deserving of it is entirely false.

[hypochondriac]

It is absolutely unfair that people cannot afford to bring a genuine case - it is also unfair that employers have to defend frivolous claims which they usually settle because it is cheaper to do that than defend them because an employer had the devils own job trying to recover costs. The current rules have swung the pendulum back into the employers favour. I am not sure how you strike a fair balance - maybe kill off this no win no fee culture?

 

You can get rid of people who dont perform, you just have to follow a process and accept it might take you a few months.

 

You think you can but even if you follow everything by the book, if they take you to a tribunal then it's purely the whims of a judge and how they are feeling on any particular day. Invariably they side with the poor hard done by employee regardless of the facts.

[View From The Top]

As the victim of a malicious and untrue campaign which cost us an awful lot of money and stress, I despise the claim culture and I support any attempt to get rid of it.

 

I've no issue with getting rid of the claim culture but it shouldn't be at the expense of genuine cases.

[Wade Garrett]

As the victim of a malicious and untrue campaign which cost us an awful lot of money and stress, I despise the claim culture and I support any attempt to get rid of it.

The claim culture is a little different from those with genuine cases though.

[Whitey Grandad]

Was referring specifically to the Mansion Tax.

 

My apologies.

[JackFrost]

How do you know they've worked hard to accumulate it? Could be inherited money, or like in Cameron's dad's case, he could have been diverting funds destined for the exchequer to an island that'd be a banana republic if it wasn't for that huge, tax-free banking industry. What about lottery winners? Did they work hard for their money? Your assertion that anyone with cash must be deserving of it is entirely false.

 

Your assertion that anyone with cash is automatically privileged and doesn't know hard work is entirely false.

 

Behind a significant proportion of the private sector is someone who has set up a business, worked bloody hard for years, made themselves a lot of money in the process through being entrepreneurial and have created numerous jobs for other people. People who create jobs deserve the rewards.

 

I've just become a shareholder in a friend's son's company. Lad in his mid 20s started out in the garden shed a few years ago, now employs 3 other people full-time on decent wages and is doing extremely well for himself.

 

From a business perspective it's people like him who should be getting every tax break going (within reason).

[View From The Top]

Your assertion that anyone with cash is automatically privileged and doesn't know hard work is entirely false.

Behind a significant proportion of the private sector is someone who has set up a business, worked bloody hard for years, made themselves a lot of money in the process through being entrepreneurial and have created numerous jobs for other people. People who create jobs deserve the rewards.

 

I've just become a shareholder in a friend's son's company. Lad in his mid 20s started out in the garden shed a few years ago, now employs 3 other people full-time on decent wages and is doing extremely well for himself.

 

From a business perspective it's people like him who should be getting every tax break going (within reason).

 

 

That's not his assertion at all.

[hypochondriac]

The claim culture is a little different from those with genuine cases though.

 

So what's the answer? Imo there should be some sort of financial commitment if someone truly believes they have a case. Maybe free legal aid on a case by case basis we it's clear there has been wrongdoing on behalf of the employer?

[Whitey Grandad]

So what's the answer? Imo there should be some sort of financial commitment if someone truly believes they have a case. Maybe free legal aid on a case by case basis we it's clear there has been wrongdoing on behalf of the employer?

 

The problem is that many employers will reach a settlement in order to reduce the potential costs.

[pap]

Your assertion that anyone with cash is automatically privileged and doesn't know hard work is entirely false.

 

Behind a significant proportion of the private sector is someone who has set up a business, worked bloody hard for years, made themselves a lot of money in the process through being entrepreneurial and have created numerous jobs for other people. People who create jobs deserve the rewards.

 

I've just become a shareholder in a friend's son's company. Lad in his mid 20s started out in the garden shed a few years ago, now employs 3 other people full-time on decent wages and is doing extremely well for himself.

 

From a business perspective it's people like him who should be getting every tax break going (within reason).

 

What assertion? I never made it. I just listed a few obvious examples where Wes had missed the mark. Child's play really, but then it always is with easily contestable claims and fabrications.

 

Still, I'm sure evidence will be "found" by the end of the day and you'll have me bang to rights.

[bridge too far]

So what's the answer? Imo there should be some sort of financial commitment if someone truly believes they have a case. Maybe free legal aid on a case by case basis we it's clear there has been wrongdoing on behalf of the employer?

 

Very difficult to get Legal Aid nowadays

[Special K]

The problem is that many employers will reach a settlement in order to reduce the potential costs.

 

Larger Employers are also known for calling the Employees bluff and putting the hammer on the Employee in order to frighten them into dropping the case. I know of a few cases where the Employee had a very good case, but the Employer played at obstruction and pretty underhand tactics to get the case dropped, only for them to offer a settlement on the morning of the tribunal hearing. Equally, I also know of people who have royally stitched up small business Employers with fabricated claims. The system doesn't suit anyone who is honest, to be fair, and breaks easily with unscrupulous behaviour. Difficult one to sort out.

 

With regard to getting rid of Employees (some other posts above), I think an Employer can pretty much get rid of someone within 24 months for very little reason, as it stands, which seems more than reasonable (not for the Employee mind). If you haven't sussed out that an Employee is either difficult or not up to scratch by then, then I'd say it is one's own fault anyway.

[Wade Garrett]

So what's the answer? Imo there should be some sort of financial commitment if someone truly believes they have a case. Maybe free legal aid on a case by case basis we it's clear there has been wrongdoing on behalf of the employer?

 

Don't see what's wrong with no win no fee myself. In the event of a lost case, the lawyers pick up the bill. If they didn't think there was a case to answer, they wouldn't take the case on. It's good that people who otherwise wouldn't be able to fund a claim can do so.

[CB Saint]

You think you can but even if you follow everything by the book, if they take you to a tribunal then it's purely the whims of a judge and how they are feeling on any particular day. Invariably they side with the poor hard done by employee regardless of the facts.

 

In my experience that is just not true - there is a lot of cases that go to the employee because the employer has screwed up the process somehow or was ignorant of the process - but a tribunal does not actively disregard the facts.

 

Many years ago our firm (when it was small) got caught out on not following process and the dismissal was deemed automatically unfair even though the judge said that the employee should have been sacked (this is where the system is truly daft). Since then we have engaged legal advice when going down the disciplinary process and have not come unstuck once when we have been challenged. If you follow the process and your reasons for dismissal are reasonable then it can be straightforward.

[View From The Top]

Larger Employers are also known for calling the Employees bluff and putting the hammer on the Employee in order to frighten them into dropping the case. I know of a few cases where the Employee had a very good case, but the Employer played at obstruction and pretty underhand tactics to get the case dropped, only for them to offer a settlement on the morning of the tribunal hearing. Equally, I also know of people who have royally stitched up small business Employers with fabricated claims. The system doesn't suit anyone who is honest, to be fair, and breaks easily with unscrupulous behaviour. Difficult one to sort out

.

 

I'd say that was pretty much my experience of it as well.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What assertion? I never made it. I just listed a few obvious examples where Wes had missed the mark. Child's play really, but then it always is with easily contestable claims and fabrications.

 

Still, I'm sure evidence will be "found" by the end of the day and you'll have me bang to rights.

 

I suppose the difficulty is where you draw the line. You can't have someone going through and deciding whether or not the way the money was attained was through hard work and graft and ethically sound. I would say the vast majority of the people who would benefit from the inheritance change would be those who have gained the money through hard work, as those who made their money through luck etc, will generally have a lot more than £1m to hand down...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Larger Employers are also known for calling the Employees bluff and putting the hammer on the Employee in order to frighten them into dropping the case. I know of a few cases where the Employee had a very good case, but the Employer played at obstruction and pretty underhand tactics to get the case dropped, only for them to offer a settlement on the morning of the tribunal hearing. Equally, I also know of people who have royally stitched up small business Employers with fabricated claims. The system doesn't suit anyone who is honest, to be fair, and breaks easily with unscrupulous behaviour. Difficult one to sort out.

 

With regard to getting rid of Employees (some other posts above), I think an Employer can pretty much get rid of someone within 24 months for very little reason, as it stands, which seems more than reasonable (not for the Employee mind). If you haven't sussed out that an Employee is either difficult or not up to scratch by then, then I'd say it is one's own fault anyway.

 

Yep, within 2 years it's very easy to get rid of someone. As soon as that has lapsed it becomes very, very difficult.

[hypochondriac]

Don't see what's wrong with no win no fee myself. In the event of a lost case, the lawyers pick up the bill. If they didn't think there was a case to answer, they wouldn't take the case on. It's good that people who otherwise wouldn't be able to fund a claim can do so.

 

That screws the employers though because then you get numerous people trying it on as well as wasting the employers time. Just two cases from lawyers we have had in the last four years but they strung us along for months asking for numerous little pieces of information before deciding it wasn't worth pursuing (and then another case they pursued it and lost.) how is that fair?