Old Etonians' Annual Gaudy

[Titanic]

The most enterprising, BUCCANEERING, creative, dynamic nation on earth

 

[User removed 4]

I can't really see why you're slagging off the opportunity to get a stake in the company you work for and to be rewarded with a tax-free payout (if that's what it is) if the company does well and the share price increases. Its an incentive to help the company peform and to receive an additional tax-free incomeif it does so. Good for the individual, good for the company and good for the economy.

To be honest I think the scheme is a bit of a non runner, the idea behind it is fair enough, but I work in an industry where if the employer CAN f*** you over for whatever reason , they most certainly WILL, i've had a life changing bonus stolen from me by a man who was previously worth £ 150 million, now he is worth £ 150 and a half million the thieving grasping c*nt, anyway rant over on that part, but they also owed me for £ 20,000 of shares that hadnt vested , they then made me redundant and i also lost out on the shares , can you imagine how many unscrupulous employers would try to do the same , or how much it would cost to make sure the scheme was properly regulated to ensure this couldnt happen ?

 

[Seagull58]

Thing is, they don't anyway, do they? Whenever you hear that tens of thousands are going to this or that family in benefits, it turns out that most of the sum is going straight to the landlord.

This is a stupid policy built on a simplistic argument.

What about housing supply? Rent control? Etc

Then you have to factor in the sum that a family NOT on benefits has to pay in rent or mortgage payments. You can't subtract it from one side of the comparison only.

 

[Was not Was]

Then you have to factor in the sum that a family NOT on benefits has to pay in rent or mortgage payments. You can't subtract it from one side of the comparison only.

If you're going to play the whole 'fairness' game, maybe. But my point is that these sums are quoted to make it seem like people on benefits are rolling in cash, when in fact most of their 'income' doesn't even pass thru their hands.

 

[Seagull58]

To be honest I think the scheme is a bit of a non runner, the idea behind it is fair enough, but I work in an industry where if the employer CAN f*** you over for whatever reason , they most certainly WILL, i've had a life changing bonus stolen from me by a man who was previously worth £ 150 million, now he is worth £ 150 and a half million the thieving grasping c*nt, anyway rant over on that part, but they also owed me for £ 20,000 of shares that hadnt vested , they then made me redundant and i also lost out on the shares , can you imagine how many unscrupulous employers would try to do the same , or how much it would cost to make sure the scheme was properly regulated to ensure this couldnt happen ?

I sympathise with you but it doesn't make the whole idea worthless on the basis that the shares will have no value as argued by Ernest. That only applies if the company fails.

 

[Titanic]

David Cameron: "I'm not here to defend privilege, I am here to spread it"

 

[Seagull58]

If you're going to play the whole 'fairness' game, maybe. But my point is that these sums are quoted to make it seem like people on benefits are rolling in cash, when in fact most of their 'income' doesn't even pass thru their hands.

But I believe we established, and it is certainly true with my tenant, that housing benefit DOES go through the tenant's hands and, indeed sometimes does NOT get paid to the landlord, even though that is the reason it is paid out by the council.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

I say fair play for getting this rent, but I would like to know, in what other country would someone get such a large proportion of their rent paid by the government. 690.00 quid is a lot of money to be handing out.

I understand people fall on bad times, but is it any wonder this country is in such a bad state financially when we are handing out benefits like this.

Exactly, and that £690 is being funded from my (and everyone elses) taxes and it's going via a number of intermediaries into Seagull58's wallet. Why should my taxes be used to make either him wealthy, providing him with a return on his investment, or his tenant wealthy if they decide not to pay their rent on time?

Housing benefit is essentially nothing more than a means of subsidising landlords incomes, when it is paid to them. It's yet another drain on the public purse and taxpayers, and one reason why we cannot continue with the current levels of rent charged by private landlords.

In the days when we did have Council houses, there is no way on God's earth that a Council would have charged £ 800 per month for a 2 bedroom house. The average 2010 Council House rent for a 3 bed house is/was £ 85 a week, equating to £ 368 a month rent. The average taxpayer would not be coughing up nearly as much tax to fund housing benefit as they have to do with private landlords.

Spending Review: New council house tenants face trebling in rents to pay for new homes - Telegraph

 

[Tubby Mondays]

I can't really see why you're slagging off the opportunity to get a stake in the company you work for and to be rewarded with a tax-free payout (if that's what it is) if the company does well and the share price increases. Its an incentive to help the company peform and to receive an additional tax-free incomeif it does so. Good for the individual, good for the company and good for the economy.

My problem isnt so much the share element of the latest load of crap to be cobbled together. It is with the erosion of workplace rights.

The equation is simple. Companies that treat employees well are more productive and profitable than equivalents that don't.Greater protection improves performance, and UK workers already have relatively poor protection.

The UK is already near the bottom of the OECD's employment protection league. UK employees work longer hours, are more likely to work part time and get proportionally half the employment benefits of the average.

It is a back-door re-run of the agenda of Adam Beecroft, the venture capitalist whose fire-at-will proposals were given short shrift by Vince Cable (and many employers) earlier this year.

 

[Seagull58]

Exactly, and that £690 is being funded from my (and everyone elses) taxes and it's going via a number of intermediaries into Seagull58's wallet. Why should my taxes be used to make either him wealthy, providing him with a return on his investment, or his tenant wealthy if they decide not to pay their rent on time?

Housing benefit is essentially nothing more than a means of subsidising landlords incomes, when it is paid to them. It's yet another drain on the public purse and taxpayers, and one reason why we cannot continue with the current levels of rent charged by private landlords.

In the days when we did have Council houses, there is no way on God's earth that a Council would have charged £ 800 per month for a 2 bedroom house. The average 2010 Council House rent for a 3 bed house is/was £ 85 a week, equating to £ 368 a month rent. The average taxpayer would not be coughing up nearly as much tax to fund housing benefit as they have to do with private landlords.

Spending Review: New council house tenants face trebling in rents to pay for new homes - Telegraph

Average in Horsham or average in Halifax? Countrywide average figure is meaningless. If you buy a house for 50K you charge a rent commensurate with the value of the house. If you buy a house for 250K the same applies, subject to the rental market, which braodly aligns with house prices.
Furthermore, the rent doesn't make me wealthy. It covers the cost of me renting a property in Johannesburg and the maintenance costs of the house.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Two million of the lowest-paid workers being taken out of income tax altogether. Over eighteen million households helped with a freeze in their council tax.

FACT

3 million taken out of paying tax at all by being unemployed.

Fact

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Clear 'blue water' now between Tory and Labour parties.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Thanks to the GRIP and RESOLVE of George Osbourne... over 1,000,000 new jobs have been created in the private sector. More in TWO years than Labour managed in TEN years

How many have been lost in the private and other sectors inthe same time?

 

[Tubby Mondays]

I don't disagree and when I took the tenant on I was given references and assurances that she was able to pay the rent out of her own income. It wa sonly after 9 months that she started to receive housing benefit and I have no knowledge of the factors behind that decision.

You have no knowledge of the factors behind her decison to receive housing benefit? You have no knowledge of what happened between her being given references and assurances that she was able to pay her rent and her not being able to pay her rent and having to claim housing benefit?

Is my understanding on those points correct?

 

[Seagull58]

My problem isnt so much the share element of the latest load of crap to be cobbled together. It is with the erosion of workplace rights.

The equation is simple. Companies that treat employees well are more productive and profitable than equivalents that don't.Greater protection improves performance, and UK workers already have relatively poor protection.

The UK is already near the bottom of the OECD's employment protection league. UK employees work longer hours, are more likely to work part time and get proportionally half the employment benefits of the average.

It is a back-door re-run of the agenda of Adam Beecroft, the venture capitalist whose fire-at-will proposals were given short shrift by Vince Cable (and many employers) earlier this year.

How would you compare the performance of the US economy vs the UK economy? I certainly don't disagree with the objective of enhanced employee protection but a comparison of US company and economy performance, including job creation in the private sector, suggests that greater regulatory protection does not boost performance. Foxconn perhaps also gives the lie to the statemet that companies that treat employees well are more productive and profitable than equivalents. Once again, I'm not disagreeing with the objectivebut the equation is certaily not as simple as you make out and could well be the opposite, at least in some sectors.

 

[User removed 4]

Exactly, and that £690 is being funded from my (and everyone elses) taxes and it's going via a number of intermediaries into Seagull58's wallet. Why should my taxes be used to make either him wealthy, providing him with a return on his investment, or his tenant wealthy if they decide not to pay their rent on time?

Housing benefit is essentially nothing more than a means of subsidising landlords incomes, when it is paid to them. It's yet another drain on the public purse and taxpayers, and one reason why we cannot continue with the current levels of rent charged by private landlords.

In the days when we did have Council houses, there is no way on God's earth that a Council would have charged £ 800 per month for a 2 bedroom house. The average 2010 Council House rent for a 3 bed house is/was £ 85 a week, equating to £ 368 a month rent. The average taxpayer would not be coughing up nearly as much tax to fund housing benefit as they have to do with private landlords.

Spending Review: New council house tenants face trebling in rents to pay for new homes - Telegraph

Perhaps people wouldn't have felt the the need to invest in private housing as a form of income had gordon not ruined this countries private pension schemes with his meddling ?

 

[Seagull58]

You have no knowledge of the factors behind her decison to receive housing benefit? You have no knowledge of what happened between her being given references and assurances that she was able to pay her rent and her not being able to pay her rent and having to claim housing benefit?

Is my understanding on those points correct?

No clear knowledge would be more accurate. I believe she is still employed but I am given to understand that she has not been to work for several months (because she has been seen in my house during the day on many occasions) and I do not know whether she is still being paid by her employer. The Council refuses to discuss their decision quoting the data protection act and confidentiality. She also refuses to discuss the situation and will not answer the phone or the door. I was informed at one point that the company had not paid her salary because they had not been paid by a large customer (the NHS) but subsequently it was admitted that it was a lie to stop me pursuing the back rent. So, i have no clear knowledge. Her employer once paid a month's rent for her on his credit card so one can only guess what is gpoing on.
Is that enough information to validate my statement?

 

[topbanana36]

All I want is an improvement in the economy so I can come home, would not care if Willie Whitelaw made a comeback like lazarus or Tony Benn and his flower men as long as I could get a job teaching.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

How would you compare the performance of the US economy vs the UK economy? I certainly don't disagree with the objective of enhanced employee protection but a comparison of US company and economy performance, including job creation in the private sector, suggests that greater regulatory protection does not boost performance. Foxconn perhaps also gives the lie to the statemet that companies that treat employees well are more productive and profitable than equivalents. Once again, I'm not disagreeing with the objectivebut the equation is certaily not as simple as you make out and could well be the opposite, at least in some sectors.

If the aim is to increase engagement, the two halves of the proposal cancel each other out. If as an employer you have a problem with unfair dismissals, you need to improve management – that's what the government should be giving incentives for.There is nothing in the OECD figures to show a correlation between low employment protection and high economic performance. Rather, the reverse: greater protection seems to go with better economic performance.

If employees are feeling helpless and worried about their jobs, that is what they are likely to concentrate on rather than customers or quality. Fear destroys trust, which is a key component of any good workplace. Comparing the UK economy with the US is clearly not comapring like for like, but if you want to go down that road; in Japan companies are doing their best to protect employment and strengthen employee relations.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

No clear knowledge would be more accurate. I believe she is still employed but I am given to understand that she has not been to work for several months (because she has been seen in my house during the day on many occasions) and I do not know whether she is still being paid by her employer. The Council refuses to discuss their decision quoting the data protection act and confidentiality. She also refuses to discuss the situation and will not answer the phone or the door. I was informed at one point that the company had not paid her salary because they had not been paid by a large customer (the NHS) but subsequently it was admitted that it was a lie to stop me pursuing the back rent. So, i have no clear knowledge. Her employer once paid a month's rent for her on his credit card so one can only guess what is gpoing on.
Is that enough information to validate my statement?

I wasnt looking to validate you statement so dont get the arse if you cant have a debate properly.

Quite clearly something has 'gone wrong' with her life between her taking on your property and now. The council are obviously right not to tell you about her claim. She probably should have told you that she was going to claim housing benefit as you would be affected. Obviously she didnt but there could be many reasons why she didnt do this, as with why she wont discuss it with you. As you are owed money I can understand why you would rather the benefit be paid to you and not to her.