Budget 2015

[Bold Seagull]

It's very over simplistic for people to start shouting 'ban then, ban them' in a Monty Python stoning style when they haven't actually experienced them ( and let's admit it - the politicians complaining about them won't have ever worked under one ! ).

It's over simplistic for you to keep saying people are shouting ban them! Labour have said they want to ban 'exploitative' versions of the contracts. Vince Cable wants to reform the laws about them. You said they need revised / altered or regulated in some way. So why do you keep on like everyone is saying ban them? It is surely a healthy debate?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Given the calls to ban them and Bold Seagull's posts ( and yes I know, he hasn't said ban them ) I'd suggest they clearly aren't simple enough ! I'm not sure how difficult it is for people to understand that they do and can work .... in the right circumstance. Only an idiot would call for an outright ban on them.

I think the bad far outweighs the good here. I really struggle to see how a minimum number of hours cannot be incorporated into a contract.

 

[Nibble]

Another Tory mess. Targeting savers this time. Can't have hard working, regular people who've saved all their lives being well off can we? No! Just Dave and his chums. Disgusting human beings.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think the bad far outweighs the good here. I really struggle to see how a minimum number of hours cannot be incorporated into a contract.

and what would be the point? all the claims being made against zero hours would apply if a contract had minimum hours. how many hours is suitable and for who? dont know why you still dont comprehend that for some employees they don't want to commit to any hours and the zero hour structure suits them. or are you actually suggesting they are replaced with a 1 hour a month contract where the employer pays that even if no work was done? or maybe force people to work a set minimum hours to be able to continue with the contract? touching on one of the problems there i think. end of the day the hours aren't the problem, its the unfair clauses and conditions that are, and this continuously gets overlooked.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I think the bad far outweighs the good here. I really struggle to see how a minimum number of hours cannot be incorporated into a contract.

Just as long as that minimum number of hours is zero if the employee decides so then we're in agreement.

 

[beorhthelm]

Another Tory mess. Targeting savers this time. Can't have hard working, regular people who've saved all their lives being well off can we? No! Just Dave and his chums. Disgusting human beings.

i'm confused: savers got a tax break and this is bad for them how?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Another Tory mess. Targeting savers this time. Can't have hard working, regular people who've saved all their lives being well off can we? No! Just Dave and his chums. Disgusting human beings.

What savers got hit then ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

and what would be the point? all the claims being made against zero hours would apply if a contract had minimum hours. how many hours is suitable and for who? dont know why you still dont comprehend that for some employees they don't want to commit to any hours and the zero hour structure suits them. or are you actually suggesting they are replaced with a 1 hour a month contract where the employer pays that even if no work was done? or maybe force people to work a set minimum hours to be able to continue with the contract? touching on one of the problems there i think. end of the day the hours aren't the problem, its the unfair clauses and conditions that are, and this continuously gets overlooked.

Changing the subject, have you ever in your life argued for something which isn't the status quo? Have you ever wondered what-could-be?

 

[Butch Willykins]

Another Tory mess. Targeting savers this time. Can't have hard working, regular people who've saved all their lives being well off can we? No! Just Dave and his chums. Disgusting human beings.

What are you on about?

 

[LamieRobertson]

I wonder how successful this new Help to buy ISA will be ..maximum 3k ..perhaps there should be a regional variation.
Hopefully it will be more successful than a government initiative such as Child Trust Funds

I would have liked to have seen something done about more 'social' house building to deal with under supply and create more competition with the private sector

 

[beorhthelm]

Changing the subject, have you ever in your life argued for something which isn't the status quo? Have you ever wondered what-could-be?

yes. if you weren't being so myopic, you'd see i'm advocating that the law should change to address exploitative conditions. is that your response to the question? shame you cant see that there's more to zero hours contracts than political soundbites, no matter what is said about them.

 

[sten_super]

I wonder how successful this new Help to buy ISA will be ..maximum 3k ..perhaps there should be a regional variation.
Hopefully it will be more successful than a government initiative such as Child Trust Funds

I would have liked to have seen something done about more 'social' house building to deal with under supply and create more competition with the private sector

There is regional variation, but it's on the purchase price that the ISA can be put towards. It's £450,000 in London and £250,000 outside.

It's a ludicrously political policy, because it costs relatively little in the short term, with most of the cost falling in 2020 and beyond, and it's more demand-side policies when the housing sector is desperately crying out for supply side measures. Apparently the government has got to bring it's debts down but it's absolutely fine to expect households to take on massive debts (at much higher interest rates).

 

[Machiavelli]

There is regional variation, but it's on the purchase price that the ISA can be put towards. It's £450,000 in London and £250,000 outside.

It's a ludicrously political policy, because it costs relatively little in the short term, with most of the cost falling in 2020 and beyond, and it's more demand-side policies when the housing sector is desperately crying out for supply side measures. Apparently the government has got to bring it's debts down but it's absolutely fine to expect households to take on massive debts (at much higher interest rates).

You have it right again. Just build more houses -- and affordable, energy-efficient ones too. That's what's required. Not this craven playing around by Osborne, appealing to the self-righteous property owners, merely interested in protecting their pile.

 

[Mattywerewolf]

Tapering only applies where the gift is in excess of the nil rate band (£325k per person). Gifts below this simply reduce the nil rate band if death occurs within 7 years with the result being effectively 40% tax on the whole gift for seven years.

Thanks...That is a nuance i hadn't understood before which is very sly. Effectively this makes it a 7 year window with no relief in the majority of cases since i would imagine not many can afford to gift more than £325k! (since you can't retain any ownership of the assets...e.g. living in the house)

 

[LamieRobertson]

There is regional variation, but it's on the purchase price that the ISA can be put towards. It's £450,000 in London and £250,000 outside.

It's a ludicrously political policy, because it costs relatively little in the short term, with most of the cost falling in 2020 and beyond, and it's more demand-side policies when the housing sector is desperately crying out for supply side measures. Apparently the government has got to bring it's debts down but it's absolutely fine to expect households to take on massive debts (at much higher interest rates).

Thanks for the reply I havnt had anytime to look at the detail...as you can see from the rest of my post I'm not impressed with the lack of imagination re the social housing sector

 

[Mr Bridger]

Another Tory mess. Targeting savers this time. Can't have hard working, regular people who've saved all their lives being well off can we? No! Just Dave and his chums. Disgusting human beings.

Never fail to be amazed at the bile and terminology you use sometimes, which is a shame as some of your points are valid.
Sweeping statements about a certain group of people, a bit like saying everyone on benefits are scroungers and cheats.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Another Tory mess. Targeting savers this time. Can't have hard working, regular people who've saved all their lives being well off can we? No! Just Dave and his chums. Disgusting human beings.

Ridiculous over generalisation. Bit like saying all Labour policies are good and all Tory ones are bad.

The whole point is that when rates go up as a result of economic improvement, its the savers who will benefit.

 

[LamieRobertson]

£12bn in welfare cuts.... despicable.

Drawing blood from a stone - I fear there will be suicides over this, or fingers crossed, a revolution.

care to elaborate how this revolution would evolve...anarchy? overthrowing a 'democratically' elected government? Troops on the streets?
or a new party evolving (no not UKIP) promising a revolution in the way things are done.
Please expand.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

care to elaborate how this revolution would evolve...anarchy? overthrowing a 'democratically' elected government? Troops on the streets?
or a new party evolving (no not UKIP) promising a revolution in the way things are done.
Please expand.

Russell Brand?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Russell Brand?

He was going to apply to be the new lead presenter on Top Gear until he realised it was a TV programme about cars. #sniff