*_ash_* Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I'm not against businesses generating profit; it's the level of profit that's obscene. Obscene profits are generated from the sale expensive goods which cost the consumer more and drive up the cost of living as people strive to purchase basic goods such as food. How many millions do supermarkets like Tescos make? Last year was £3.4bn. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/20/tesco-rings-up-record-profits-again. Then there are power generators and just about everyone else chipping away. People have had enough of corporate greed which is why we are seeing all these protests. If hypothetically speaking Mecky - you were the PM... I popped along to your office, and said me and my investors can open a business, and I will take 450,000 people and employ them, and have them paying taxes to you. I'll also pay you (gov) £100m in taxes too (legit). You can say no, and I'll take my business to India and employ 900,000 people and pay their gov nothing... what would you answer? Your morals might think - 'I hate that ash consortium, and he will put other small businesses out of work'... but these figures are good, and you will not lose votes, knowing that I will go to the papers and tell them that £100m isn't enough for you greedy barstewards. Let me tell you what I would have - I would have you by the squollocks. What would you answer M? Be honest. They are certainly doing far less sat on the dole and not contributing to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Not one of her best ideas She would agree. It wasn't her idea and she opposed it. (I realize that the following quote might as well be written in invisible ink as far as some forumers go, but if anyone is interested in actual facts rather than stale old "received wisdom", read on.) When the Conservative party under Edward Heath won the 1970 general election, Thatcher became Secretary of State for Education and Science. In her first months in office, forced to administer a cut in the Education budget, she was responsible for the abolition of universal free milk for school-children aged seven to eleven (Labour had already abolished it for secondary schools). This provoked a storm of public protest, and led to one of the more unflattering names for her: "Thatcher Thatcher, Milk Snatcher". However, papers later released under the Thirty Year Rule show that she spoke against such a move in Cabinet, but was forced, due to the concept of collective responsibility, to implement the will of her fellow ministers. She also successfully resisted the introduction of library book charges. LINK I should also point out that the biggest “milk snatchers” were Labour. In 1968 they took free school milk away from all 11 to 18 year olds. (link) Also The cabinet papers for 1971, released this week at the Public Record Office under the 30-year rule, show Mrs Thatcher as secretary of state for education dumping the "Robbins principle" governing university numbers for the same reason that she had axed school milk - the absolute priority given to a building programme for primary schools. LINK I guess building schools on the never never using PFI (as Labour did) is seen as somehow better than paying for them out of money you actually have. Flagship PFI schools are "significantly worse" Public works dream turned into two decades of disaster Private Finance Initiative: where did all go wrong? More on the disaster of the PFI 'Naivety' blamed for PFI fiasco PFI always was a Pretty Farcical Idea Ah...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 If hypothetically speaking Mecky - you were the PM... I popped along to your office, and said me and my investors can open a business, and I will take 450,000 people and employ them, and have them paying taxes to you. I'll also pay you (gov) £100m in taxes too (legit). You can say no, and I'll take my business to India and employ 900,000 people and pay their gov nothing... what would you answer? Your morals might think - 'I hate that ash consortium, and he will put other small businesses out of work'... but these figures are good, and you will not lose votes, knowing that I will go to the papers and tell them that £100m isn't enough for you greedy barstewards. Let me tell you what I would have - I would have you by the squollocks. What would you answer M? Be honest. I'd say don't let the door hit your ass on the way out and you would never be able to set foot in the UK again under any circumstance, neither would you be allowed to do business here. Your assets would be stripped and your entire family would be shipped out with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Yes but it doesn't matter if it's the public sector or a private sector company making £10 profit or £10 Billion profit, if there isn't actually a postition within the company for someone to work in, then what is the point of employing them if you have no work for them to do. Again, why wouldn't there be a position for someone to be employed in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 She would agree. It wasn't her idea and she opposed it. (I realize that the following quote might as well be written in invisible ink as far as some forumers go, but if anyone is interested in actual facts rather than stale old "received wisdom", read on.) LINK I should also point out that the biggest “milk snatchers” were Labour. In 1968 they took free school milk away from all 11 to 18 year olds. (link) Also LINK I guess building schools on the never never using PFI (as Labour did) is seen as somehow better than paying for them out of money you actually have. Flagship PFI schools are "significantly worse" Public works dream turned into two decades of disaster Private Finance Initiative: where did all go wrong? More on the disaster of the PFI 'Naivety' blamed for PFI fiasco PFI always was a Pretty Farcical Idea Ah...... Facts, I’m afraid don’t go down to well on here, they will be read ignored and next week there will be another thread about how Thatcher took everyone’s milk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 If hypothetically speaking Mecky - you were the PM... I popped along to your office, and said me and my investors can open a business, and I will take 450,000 people and employ them, and have them paying taxes to you. I'll also pay you (gov) £100m in taxes too (legit). You can say no, and I'll take my business to India and employ 900,000 people and pay their gov nothing... what would you answer? Your morals might think - 'I hate that ash consortium, and he will put other small businesses out of work'... but these figures are good, and you will not lose votes, knowing that I will go to the papers and tell them that £100m isn't enough for you greedy barstewards. Let me tell you what I would have - I would have you by the squollocks. What would you answer M? Be honest. if the £100 million they payed the government was a % equivalient to that what a working man pays id say welcome aboard if not id say go to india . we are only talking hypothetically here but these workers would more than likely be agency workers because you as an employer would want to get away with making as much money as you could. you would also want them to not have any rights regarding their pensions/redundancies also as a agency worker if they were regarded as self employed would pay less in tax than what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpist Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Thatcher wanted Britain to run as a buisness,she didn't consider running the country to the benefit of the people. In my opinion she was the leader of the me first attitude that has become prevelant in our society. Failure to provide redundant miners with any meaningful adjustment programmes or job training schemes was unbelievable. It seemed to me that profit came first middle and last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Thatcher wanted Britain to run as a buisness,she didn't consider running the country to the benefit of the people. In my opinion she was the leader of the me first attitude that has become prevelant in our society. Failure to provide redundant miners with any meaningful adjustment programmes or job training schemes was unbelievable. It seemed to me that profit came first middle and last. Which PM would you say ran the country for the benefit of the people? Workers in a successful business usually do better than those working for unsuccessful businesses which as massif overheads and is over staffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Which PM would you say ran the country for the benefit of the people? Workers in a successful business usually do better than those working for unsuccessful businesses which as massif overheads and is over staffed. being in the government business seems to be a good job to be in what with their handsome wage packets/good pension schemes/hours worked/expences fiddles as yosser hughes once said gis a job i can do that :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpist Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Blair started his term with good ideas and intentions, however he ended as Thatcher did thinking he could ignore the electorate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.