Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit

[Anonymous]

All I know is the extra day's holiday cost me a day's work. Might send the old cow an invoice.

Well others reported a boost in sales which was my point that you questioned.

Sorry mate, I didn't question anything just pointing out it cost me dough ;-)

I'll let you know if I get a response from Buck House to my invoice.

 

[SWP's back]

Well Dave has certainly got his priorities spot on. To save £2 billion he wants to kick young people out on the streets but doesn't mind losing the country £1.2 billion for a oversized birthday do.

Roll on.

SO you think there shouldn't have been a bank holiday for a major jubilee for the first time in history, something no political party would do? Would you slate "Call me Ed" for it? Would you fuck you hypocrite.

You also fail to consider that the jubilee wasn't just a "normal" bank holiday (ie one when no extra spending occurs)

It also makes me smile that you can't understand the difference between costing the economy and costing the taxpayer which are two very different things.

Why am I a hypocrite? The vast majority of MPs are lying fucks wether that be Tory, Labour or Lib-Dem.

If any politician regardless of party comes out with a plan to take the roof from over the head of our jobless youngsters when there's a major employment crisis especially for those of that age. I will think he or she is fucking bonkers.

No I didn't think it warranted the extra bank holiday as a lot of people just wanted to get back to work.

SWP I will however bow to your superior knowledge on financial matters. Just took it as read that if the economy lost £1.2 billion it has not helped the country.

Look I fully agree with you about politicians, I can't stand any of them and I am not party political, if Labour were in power and being slated I would probably be defending them like I used to pre-Milliband et al. I just don't get why Cameron gets all the flak on the bank holiday issuie when all MP's were in favour. (I personally wasn't as I was bored fuckless as my Mrs still had to work that weekend and there is only so much watching porn you can do before you get sore)

The proposals about housing benefit are never going to go through, they are simply a ploy from Cameron to curry favour with the right of the party who are concerned that the Lib Dems are watering down Conservative values.<br /><br />-- Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:08 am --<br /><br />

All I know is the extra day's holiday cost me a day's work. Might send the old cow an invoice.

Well others reported a boost in sales which was my point that you questioned.

Sorry mate, I didn't question anything just pointing out it cost me dough ;-)

I'll let you know if I get a response from Buck House to my invoice.

Sorry you are right, stoner questioned it.

Good luck with the invoice mind.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Thing is SWP, we're constanly being told now that we are living in extraordinary times, and as such WE ALL have to take extraordinary measures and cut our cloth accordingly, you can't really blame people for looking at this Jubilee situation and questioning the money that was spent can you ?

Don't know why she couldn't just invite a couple of mates around with a few cans and a curry and watch a video from Blockbusters (it's more than I can afford this week lol).

The money that was spent was £32m, more than offset by the boost from tourism and spending for that party so I really don't understand that argument. If you are hard up and have only a few grand to your name, you have to cut your cloth accordingly however if you can spare £300 for some stuff that you then sell for £7k then it is worthwhile.

And no political party said they were not in favour of a bank holiday so why is Cameron getting the flak on it?

You'll have to explain to me how the taxpayer benefitted from all this then bud, all I see (and I'm sure many others like me who aren't particularly 'au fait' with finances do too) is that £32m of 'taxpayers money' may have been 'risked' in the hope that sales will out-strip that cost, but to the benefit of said companies, if that profit is directed into creating permanent jobs for people I could easily see the point, but as it stands I really don't mate.

 

[SWP's back]

Thing is SWP, we're constanly being told now that we are living in extraordinary times, and as such WE ALL have to take extraordinary measures and cut our cloth accordingly, you can't really blame people for looking at this Jubilee situation and questioning the money that was spent can you ?

Don't know why she couldn't just invite a couple of mates around with a few cans and a curry and watch a video from Blockbusters (it's more than I can afford this week lol).

The money that was spent was £32m, more than offset by the boost from tourism and spending for that party so I really don't understand that argument. If you are hard up and have only a few grand to your name, you have to cut your cloth accordingly however if you can spare £300 for some stuff that you then sell for £7k then it is worthwhile.

And no political party said they were not in favour of a bank holiday so why is Cameron getting the flak on it?

You'll have to explain to me how the taxpayer benefitted from all this then bud, all I see (and I'm sure many others like me who aren't particularly 'au fait' with finances do too) is that £32m of 'taxpayers money' may have been 'risked' in the hope that sales will out-strip that cost, but to the benefit of said companies, if that profit is directed into creating permanent jobs for people I could easily see the point, but as it stands I really don't mate.

Well the tax on £700m is at conservative estimates £100m (it's likely far higher).

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of profit or loss to the taxpayer of the Monarchy and their "party", The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010). This income is received by the Crown (i.e. the state) as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign.

So whichever way you cut it, it's not as though the taxpayer is/was losing out.

 

[twinkletoes]

Nobody up here saw any of the cash.

The same with the Olympics. All we got to see was a fucking torch.

 

[Dirty Harry]

The money that was spent was £32m, more than offset by the boost from tourism and spending for that party so I really don't understand that argument. If you are hard up and have only a few grand to your name, you have to cut your cloth accordingly however if you can spare £300 for some stuff that you then sell for £7k then it is worthwhile.

And no political party said they were not in favour of a bank holiday so why is Cameron getting the flak on it?

You'll have to explain to me how the taxpayer benefitted from all this then bud, all I see (and I'm sure many others like me who aren't particularly 'au fait' with finances do too) is that £32m of 'taxpayers money' may have been 'risked' in the hope that sales will out-strip that cost, but to the benefit of said companies, if that profit is directed into creating permanent jobs for people I could easily see the point, but as it stands I really don't mate.

Well the tax on £700m is at conservative estimates £100m (it's likely far higher).

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of profit or loss to the taxpayer of the Monarchy and their "party", The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010). This income is received by the Crown (i.e. the state) as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign.

So whichever way you cut it, it's not as though the taxpayer is/was losing out.

OK bud, I think I get it, so the taxpayer didn't lose out financially, but we didn't benefit either ?
PS I'll insert this link for future reference when you are talking about finances to me mate ;-) <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_layman's_terms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_layman's_terms</a>

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Nobody up here saw any of the cash.

The same with the Olympics. All we got to see was a fucking torch.

The Olympics were bid for under Labour.

And I hardly think the Tories decided when the queen came to power.

 

[twinkletoes]

Nobody up here saw any of the cash.

The same with the Olympics. All we got to see was a fucking torch.

The Olympics were bid for under Labour.

And I hardly think the Tories decided when the queen came to power.

I dont give a fuck who it was.

I am saying that London gets more than it's fair share and it's about time the rest of the country saw some of the money/investment.

 

[SWP's back]

You'll have to explain to me how the taxpayer benefitted from all this then bud, all I see (and I'm sure many others like me who aren't particularly 'au fait' with finances do too) is that £32m of 'taxpayers money' may have been 'risked' in the hope that sales will out-strip that cost, but to the benefit of said companies, if that profit is directed into creating permanent jobs for people I could easily see the point, but as it stands I really don't mate.

Well the tax on £700m is at conservative estimates £100m (it's likely far higher).

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of profit or loss to the taxpayer of the Monarchy and their "party", The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010). This income is received by the Crown (i.e. the state) as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign.

So whichever way you cut it, it's not as though the taxpayer is/was losing out.

OK bud, I think I get it, so the taxpayer didn't lose out financially, but we didn't benefit either ?
PS I'll insert this link for future reference when you are talking about finances to me mate ;-) <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_layman's_terms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_layman's_terms</a>

If it's agreed that there was always going to be an extra bank holiday whoever was in power as it has always happened then the tax payer looks to have benefitted to a small extent. The next GDP (growth) figures will be interesting. This summer should hopefully see a nice bounce thanks to the Jubilee, Euro's and Olympics which is all good news for the taxpayer.

Anything that gets people spending money as opposed to letting it sit on deposit in the banks is good news.

 

[Balti]

Well the tax on £700m is at conservative estimates £100m (it's likely far higher).

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of profit or loss to the taxpayer of the Monarchy and their "party", The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010). This income is received by the Crown (i.e. the state) as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign.

So whichever way you cut it, it's not as though the taxpayer is/was losing out.

OK bud, I think I get it, so the taxpayer didn't lose out financially, but we didn't benefit either ?
PS I'll insert this link for future reference when you are talking about finances to me mate ;-) <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_layman's_terms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_layman's_terms</a>

If it's agreed that there was always going to be an extra bank holiday whoever was in power as it has always happened then the tax payer looks to have benefitted to a small extent. The next GDP (growth) figures will be interesting. This summer should hopefully see a nice bounce thanks to the Jubilee, Euro's and Olympics which is all good news for the taxpayer.

Anything that gets people spending money as opposed to letting it sit on deposit in the banks is good news.

putting more money in peoples pockets by taxing them less so that they have summat to spend in the first place would also help

this means spending less on people that are abusing the state system or simply don't deserve to be benefiting disproportionately from the hard work (and taxes) of others

(yes of course some do deserve it and there's no problem there)