• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Cost of living increases

Agency nursing. Hmm.
Stinks o corruption and greed. Lots of agencies run by ex NHS management and staff, getting work through contacts, employing other trusts nurses on bonus rates and so on.
System is rotten to the core.
If NHS got it's priorities straight, banned agency, paid enhanced rates for bank (rest day) shifts worked, then the cycle would get broken.
Plus agency staff, like fill in teachers etc, are not so hot on their responsibilities when the work is so short time only and walk away on the clock ticking.
 
Everybody should be able to afford a home, a car, a holiday and decent food on one salary. **** the 'gig economy' and **** the pig bankers and their lackeys in government for turning us all into debt slaves.
Back in the 70's, many wife's didn't work & as far as i can recall most families had 1 car, a weeks holiday ( many in this country ), & ate ok?.
So when did the situation radically change?. Was it because back then, many more lived in council houses, & when the option to buy them in early 80's changed because many peoples disposable incomes decreased because of mortgage payments?.
 
Back in the 70's, many wife's didn't work & as far as i can recall most families had 1 car, a weeks holiday ( many in this country ), & ate ok?.
So when did the situation radically change?. Was it because back then, many more lived in council houses, & when the option to buy them in early 80's changed because many peoples disposable incomes decreased because of mortgage payments?.
The average house price is 65 times higher than in 1970 but average wages are only 36 times higher. That's the problem.
 
The average house price is 65 times higher than in 1970 but average wages are only 36 times higher. That's the problem.
Yet income tax has been increased further penalising those who work. Unearned income on property, land and investments has barely been touched.

The decrease in CGT annual exempt amount will only affect the little people. It is inconsequential to those with large unearned incomes.
 
the worse thing is "in work" benefits .....

where working families have to rely on additional money from the government because ****e employers pay them ****e money ..

so as a tax payer we are subsidising Amazons low wages and profits...
 
The average house price is 65 times higher than in 1970 but average wages are only 36 times higher. That's the problem.
It's blatantly obvious why as well. In 1968 there were 425,000 new homes built, fast forward to 2018 and less than 200,000 new homes were built. The majority of this change is down to local authorities, who built 168,000 new homes in 1968 but only 4,000 new homes in 2018.

Councils have stopped building houses but the private sector has seen no reason to up their production, as a result there has been a massive increase in demand for private housing (both to buy and to let) from people that can no longer get a council house with no real increase in supply to meet that demand. It's good news if you already own a house because it means your value has skyrocketed but if you aren't on the ladder it means housing is becoming more and more unaffordable and those on low incomes can barely cope (especially with the energy crisis).
 
It's blatantly obvious why as well. In 1968 there were 425,000 new homes built, fast forward to 2018 and less than 200,000 new homes were built. The majority of this change is down to local authorities, who built 168,000 new homes in 1968 but only 4,000 new homes in 2018.

Councils have stopped building houses but the private sector has seen no reason to up their production, as a result there has been a massive increase in demand for private housing (both to buy and to let) from people that can no longer get a council house with no real increase in supply to meet that demand. It's good news if you already own a house because it means your value has skyrocketed but if you aren't on the ladder it means housing is becoming more and more unaffordable and those on low incomes can barely cope (especially with the energy crisis).

How many homes are built by housing associations? Probably need to include those in your comparison for council built housing as HA's have largely replaced councils in the provision of social housing.
 
How many homes are built by housing associations? Probably need to include those in your comparison for council built housing as HA's have largely replaced councils in the provision of social housing.
33,000, which is only just over double the 15,000 that housing associations built in 1968. If they're supposed to have replaced the output from councils then they're doing a remarkably poor job of it.

Source:

 
Last edited:
look up the pay bands a private is on (20k) a year and has to pay for her/his food and accommodation, boot and Brase Polish. This is a typical Civilian comment who knows nothing about the British Army.

They're very underpaid.

The Army covers everyone who goes on strike.

Quite frankly I'm shocked that someone has questioned they don't deserve more.
There plenty of people on 20k a year who have to pay for their own food and lodging. I never questioned that they deserve more I asked where you got the 100% figure. Which you haven't answered.
 
Yet income tax has been increased further penalising those who work. Unearned income on property, land and investments has barely been touched.

The decrease in CGT annual exempt amount will only affect the little people. It is inconsequential to those with large unearned incomes.
Yep, the rich don’t make their money as income/wages so they don’t pay Income Tax. They make it via investments. Whilst our incomes are taxed at 20% or 40% their accountants are largely able to avoid tax or at least reduce it way below the rate we pay at.

What’s happened since the financial crash is effectively that there’s been a significant wealth redistribution from the working and professional classes to the mega rich. This has been exasperated by a series of below inflation pay increases and stealth tax increases.

The devaluation of the pound since 2016 has then made matters worse as everything is now so much more expensive.
 
Yep, the rich don’t make their money as income/wages so they don’t pay Income Tax. They make it via investments. Whilst our incomes are taxed at 20% or 40% their accountants are largely able to avoid tax or at least reduce it way below the rate we pay at.

What’s happened since the financial crash is effectively that there’s been a significant wealth redistribution from the working and professional classes to the mega rich. This has been exasperated by a series of below inflation pay increases and stealth tax increases.

The devaluation of the pound since 2016 has then made matters worse as everything is now so much more expensive.
And there was me thinking that the last devaluation of the pound took place under Wislon. :Winking:
 
There plenty of people on 20k a year who have to pay for their own food and lodging. I never questioned that they deserve more I asked where you got the 100% figure. Which you haven't answered.

They put their life on the line for our Country, isn't that enough for you? Would you do it for 20k?
 
Yep, the rich don’t make their money as income/wages so they don’t pay Income Tax. They make it via investments. Whilst our incomes are taxed at 20% or 40% their accountants are largely able to avoid tax or at least reduce it way below the rate we pay at.

What’s happened since the financial crash is effectively that there’s been a significant wealth redistribution from the working and professional classes to the mega rich. This has been exasperated by a series of below inflation pay increases and stealth tax increases.

The devaluation of the pound since 2016 has then made matters worse as everything is now so much more expensive.
All true, and we are being turned against each other rather than against the real enemies of the people. Sad.
 
They put their life on the line for our Country, isn't that enough for you? Would you do it for 20k?
My daughter had a great 6+ years in the RAF, started on much less than that, but it made her into a much better person who became, from an ill disciplined teenager into a self assured professional AND eminently employable.
Any and all such forces, or even police, fire etc start at low pay scale, have good training and a reasonable scale of increase with service time and experience.
Very few lives are put on the line for 20k but many great careers and life skills are learnt.
Your argument is, imo, respectfully, just an impact headline and disappointing.
 
Even worse, they generally put their life on the line for another country.
You (or I) might not agree with the foreign policy they are deployed in support of, but it is very much our foreign policy. What conflicts we participate in depends very much on what our interests are, be it oil, in support of strategic regional partners or political allies.
 
You (or I) might not agree with the foreign policy they are deployed in support of, but it is very much our foreign policy. What conflicts we participate in depends very much on what our interests are, be it oil, in support of strategic regional partners or political allies.
I agree to an extent. It is not 'our foreign policy'. It is the foreign policy of the government of the United Kingdom, yes. If the voting public were fully aware of the true rationale behind such cretinous adventurism as that happening in Ukraine, I'm certain they wouldn't vote for it.
 
Back
Top