This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Jeremy Corbyn
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
nickgusset  Shizzlehurst 16 Jan 16 10.54am |
|
Quote matt_himself at 16 Jan 2016 10.50am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.46am
Quote matt_himself at 16 Jan 2016 10.37am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.24am
Quote matt_himself at 16 Jan 2016 10.19am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.18am
Quote matt_himself at 16 Jan 2016 10.13am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.09am
I think that you'll find governments of all hues introduce policy and legislation without actually going through the house.
[Link] for example.
Are you agreeing then that Corbyn intends to bypass the House if elected and introduce his policies as he pleases?
Interesting.
It would be a policy in the manifesto I would imagine, somewhat different. So no I am not saying that.
That said, I agree with the idea.
So you agree with a policy that would potentially deny pensioners their regular income and would strangle investment into the UK?
Would it really strangle investment? Is there evidence for this or is this mere scaremongering?
If you were an investor and a ideologically driven government was introducing laws that could prevent you receiving a return on your investment, what would be your incentive to invest in Britain?
Let's leave this here Gusset. You have returned to type and are refusing to answer questions, or answering questions with questions. I am sure this will be a relief for you as you clearly don't want to answer awkward questions or don't have anything to answer them with. Twice I asked you about pensions, twice you twisted.
Edited by matt_himself (16 Jan 2016 10.40am)
Can you explain how it would 'potentially' (your words so not definite then) hamper pensions, then I will respond.
From where I see it, you seem to be ok with investment at the cost of employee rights and salary. Is this correct?
no more Gusset. You are deliberately being obtuse.
Fair enough. You cannot defend your stance that people should be payed less so that shareholders can make money.
We'll leave it there as you said.
Have a lovely day.
Little tip for Vietnam btw. There are not loads of KFC's out there, it's images of Ho Chi Minh.
|
 OldFella London 16 Jan 16 10.56am |
|
Quote matt_himself at 16 Jan 2016 10.50am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.46am
Quote matt_himself at 16 Jan 2016 10.37am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.24am
Quote matt_himself at 16 Jan 2016 10.19am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.18am
Quote matt_himself at 16 Jan 2016 10.13am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.09am
I think that you'll find governments of all hues introduce policy and legislation without actually going through the house.
[Link] for example.
Are you agreeing then that Corbyn intends to bypass the House if elected and introduce his policies as he pleases?
Interesting.
It would be a policy in the manifesto I would imagine, somewhat different. So no I am not saying that.
That said, I agree with the idea.
So you agree with a policy that would potentially deny pensioners their regular income and would strangle investment into the UK?
Would it really strangle investment? Is there evidence for this or is this mere scaremongering?
If you were an investor and a ideologically driven government was introducing laws that could prevent you receiving a return on your investment, what would be your incentive to invest in Britain?
Let's leave this here Gusset. You have returned to type and are refusing to answer questions, or answering questions with questions. I am sure this will be a relief for you as you clearly don't want to answer awkward questions or don't have anything to answer them with. Twice I asked you about pensions, twice you twisted.
Edited by matt_himself (16 Jan 2016 10.40am)
Can you explain how it would 'potentially' (your words so not definite then) hamper pensions, then I will respond.
From where I see it, you seem to be ok with investment at the cost of employee rights and salary. Is this correct?
no more Gusset. You are deliberately being obtuse.
This is all an argument in an empty room, anyway - there is virtually zero chance of Corbyn ever being elected, for reasons articulated well by Hoof earlier in this thread.
Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..
|
| Hoof Hearted 16 Jan 16 11.07am |
|
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 16 Jan 16 11.10am |
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.07am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
Immigration again?
Are immigrants responsible for the fact that some CEO's and senior execs earn 187 times more than other workers?
Same story that Lord Himself posted earlier today from a different perspective...
[Link]
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 16 Jan 16 11.16am |
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.07am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
85% of the UK population do not own shares
[Link]
How many of the 15% that do have shares who rely on dividends for income is not cited.
|
| Hoof Hearted 16 Jan 16 11.28am |
|
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.16am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.07am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
85% of the UK population do not own shares
[Link]
How many of the 15% that do have shares who rely on dividends for income is not cited.
Doesn't say how many of the 85% are aged 18 or under either.
You are making a silly point as usual. 15% of the population is a lot and as I have pointed out earlier the majority of those are elderly and more likely to vote in a general election.
Those not holding shares directly will still be affected if they work in the private sector and are members of a pension scheme or have taken out a PPP because this will reduce their scope for investment growth.
I'm going to join Matt and disengage with you on this matter as it is clearly beyond your scope of understanding.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.29am)
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 16 Jan 16 11.44am |
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.28am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.16am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.07am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
85% of the UK population do not own shares
[Link]
How many of the 15% that do have shares who rely on dividends for income is not cited.
Doesn't say how many of the 85% are aged 18 or under either.
You are making a silly point as usual. 15% of the population is a lot and as I have pointed out earlier the majority of those are elderly and more likely to vote in a general election.
Those not holding shares directly will still be affected if they work in the private sector and are members of a pension scheme or have taken out a PPP because this will reduce their scope for investment growth.
I'm going to join Matt and disengage with you on this matter as it is clearly beyond your scope of understanding.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.29am)
Be interesting to see how many of the 15% are very minor investors or were given shares as part of deals - e.g postal workers.
As for the foreign investors. You're a bit UKIP hoof, if you don't mind me saying. Are you happy that much of our infrastructure is owned by foreign concerns? - meaning that dividends and profits actually is moved out of our economy.
|
| Hoof Hearted 16 Jan 16 11.55am |
|
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.44am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.28am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.16am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.07am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
85% of the UK population do not own shares
[Link]
How many of the 15% that do have shares who rely on dividends for income is not cited.
Doesn't say how many of the 85% are aged 18 or under either.
You are making a silly point as usual. 15% of the population is a lot and as I have pointed out earlier the majority of those are elderly and more likely to vote in a general election.
Those not holding shares directly will still be affected if they work in the private sector and are members of a pension scheme or have taken out a PPP because this will reduce their scope for investment growth.
I'm going to join Matt and disengage with you on this matter as it is clearly beyond your scope of understanding.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.29am)
Be interesting to see how many of the 15% are very minor investors or were given shares as part of deals - e.g postal workers.
As for the foreign investors. You're a bit UKIP hoof, if you don't mind me saying. Are you happy that much of our infrastructure is owned by foreign concerns? - meaning that dividends and profits actually is moved out of our economy.
I would like to go back to a time where foreigners weren't here individually or corporately but it has happened and all I can do is try and exploit what I can from this development.
My share/investment portfolio over the last few years has included the BRIC countries and Japan but more recently I have limited this to India whilst the oil price shenanigans continue. I suspect pension funds have done the same.
I'm very much in favour of us leaving the EU obviously as a UKIP supporter.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.56am)
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 16 Jan 16 12.02pm |
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.55am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.44am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.28am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.16am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.07am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
85% of the UK population do not own shares
[Link]
How many of the 15% that do have shares who rely on dividends for income is not cited.
Doesn't say how many of the 85% are aged 18 or under either.
You are making a silly point as usual. 15% of the population is a lot and as I have pointed out earlier the majority of those are elderly and more likely to vote in a general election.
Those not holding shares directly will still be affected if they work in the private sector and are members of a pension scheme or have taken out a PPP because this will reduce their scope for investment growth.
I'm going to join Matt and disengage with you on this matter as it is clearly beyond your scope of understanding.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.29am)
Be interesting to see how many of the 15% are very minor investors or were given shares as part of deals - e.g postal workers.
As for the foreign investors. You're a bit UKIP hoof, if you don't mind me saying. Are you happy that much of our infrastructure is owned by foreign concerns? - meaning that dividends and profits actually is moved out of our economy.
I would like to go back to a time where foreigners weren't here individually or corporately but it has happened and all I can do is try and exploit what I can from this development.
My share/investment portfolio over the last few years has included the BRIC countries and Japan but more recently I have limited this to India whilst the oil price shenanigans continue. I suspect pension funds have done the same.
I'm very much in favour of us leaving the EU obviously as a UKIP supporter.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.56am)
By the same token, we are being exploited.
|
| Hoof Hearted 16 Jan 16 12.08pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 12.02pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.55am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.44am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.28am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.16am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.07am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
85% of the UK population do not own shares
[Link]
How many of the 15% that do have shares who rely on dividends for income is not cited.
Doesn't say how many of the 85% are aged 18 or under either.
You are making a silly point as usual. 15% of the population is a lot and as I have pointed out earlier the majority of those are elderly and more likely to vote in a general election.
Those not holding shares directly will still be affected if they work in the private sector and are members of a pension scheme or have taken out a PPP because this will reduce their scope for investment growth.
I'm going to join Matt and disengage with you on this matter as it is clearly beyond your scope of understanding.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.29am)
Be interesting to see how many of the 15% are very minor investors or were given shares as part of deals - e.g postal workers.
As for the foreign investors. You're a bit UKIP hoof, if you don't mind me saying. Are you happy that much of our infrastructure is owned by foreign concerns? - meaning that dividends and profits actually is moved out of our economy.
I would like to go back to a time where foreigners weren't here individually or corporately but it has happened and all I can do is try and exploit what I can from this development.
My share/investment portfolio over the last few years has included the BRIC countries and Japan but more recently I have limited this to India whilst the oil price shenanigans continue. I suspect pension funds have done the same.
I'm very much in favour of us leaving the EU obviously as a UKIP supporter.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.56am)
By the same token, we are being exploited.
I wonder how many people truly believe that the UK is now a better place than it was in the 50's before immigration began?
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 16 Jan 16 12.15pm |
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 12.08pm
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 12.02pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.55am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.44am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.28am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.16am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.07am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
85% of the UK population do not own shares
[Link]
How many of the 15% that do have shares who rely on dividends for income is not cited.
Doesn't say how many of the 85% are aged 18 or under either.
You are making a silly point as usual. 15% of the population is a lot and as I have pointed out earlier the majority of those are elderly and more likely to vote in a general election.
Those not holding shares directly will still be affected if they work in the private sector and are members of a pension scheme or have taken out a PPP because this will reduce their scope for investment growth.
I'm going to join Matt and disengage with you on this matter as it is clearly beyond your scope of understanding.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.29am)
Be interesting to see how many of the 15% are very minor investors or were given shares as part of deals - e.g postal workers.
As for the foreign investors. You're a bit UKIP hoof, if you don't mind me saying. Are you happy that much of our infrastructure is owned by foreign concerns? - meaning that dividends and profits actually is moved out of our economy.
I would like to go back to a time where foreigners weren't here individually or corporately but it has happened and all I can do is try and exploit what I can from this development.
My share/investment portfolio over the last few years has included the BRIC countries and Japan but more recently I have limited this to India whilst the oil price shenanigans continue. I suspect pension funds have done the same.
I'm very much in favour of us leaving the EU obviously as a UKIP supporter.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.56am)
By the same token, we are being exploited.
I wonder how many people truly believe that the UK is now a better place than it was in the 50's before immigration began?
Always back to immigration innit !
Back to the topic de jour:
Do you disagree with Corbyn when he says he wants a fairer deal for workers and an end to the growing disparity between execs and the workforce?
Back in the 70's it used to be that execs earned about 20% more than ordinary workers, now it's around 187 x more.
|
| chris123 hove actually 16 Jan 16 12.35pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 12.15pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 12.08pm
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 12.02pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.55am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.44am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.28am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.16am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.07am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
85% of the UK population do not own shares
[Link]
How many of the 15% that do have shares who rely on dividends for income is not cited.
Doesn't say how many of the 85% are aged 18 or under either.
You are making a silly point as usual. 15% of the population is a lot and as I have pointed out earlier the majority of those are elderly and more likely to vote in a general election.
Those not holding shares directly will still be affected if they work in the private sector and are members of a pension scheme or have taken out a PPP because this will reduce their scope for investment growth.
I'm going to join Matt and disengage with you on this matter as it is clearly beyond your scope of understanding.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.29am)
Be interesting to see how many of the 15% are very minor investors or were given shares as part of deals - e.g postal workers.
As for the foreign investors. You're a bit UKIP hoof, if you don't mind me saying. Are you happy that much of our infrastructure is owned by foreign concerns? - meaning that dividends and profits actually is moved out of our economy.
I would like to go back to a time where foreigners weren't here individually or corporately but it has happened and all I can do is try and exploit what I can from this development.
My share/investment portfolio over the last few years has included the BRIC countries and Japan but more recently I have limited this to India whilst the oil price shenanigans continue. I suspect pension funds have done the same.
I'm very much in favour of us leaving the EU obviously as a UKIP supporter.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.56am)
By the same token, we are being exploited.
I wonder how many people truly believe that the UK is now a better place than it was in the 50's before immigration began?
Always back to immigration innit !
Back to the topic de jour:
Do you disagree with Corbyn when he says he wants a fairer deal for workers and an end to the growing disparity between execs and the workforce?
Back in the 70's it used to be that execs earned about 20% more than ordinary workers, now it's around 187 x more.
Do you mean 20% more?
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 16 Jan 16 12.41pm |
|
Quote chris123 at 16 Jan 2016 12.35pm
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 12.15pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 12.08pm
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 12.02pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.55am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.44am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.28am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 11.16am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 11.07am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Jan 2016 10.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Jan 2016 10.43am
Matt is absolutely bang on the money about Corbyn's latest hair brained scheme to threaten dividend payments.
Of course it appeals to those fortunate enough to have gold plated public sector pensions like teachers as it doesn't affect them.... I'm alright Jack mindset.
But for the rest of us it would be a disaster both individually and corporately.
From my own perspective I rely partly on dividends for my income.
Yet another tick against Corbyn for a large slice of the population.
You imply that a large slice of the population rely on dividends for income. Really. I'd imagine that more rely on a decent wage.
Yes invest in the country, but not to the detriment of pay for those that are actually doing the work that generates the profits.
A large slice do rely on dividends for their income - as I said, myself included and we're the sort that have never looked to the State for handouts - always in work and making provisions for our own retirement!
We all know why there is low pay... immigration has created more workers prepared to do jobs for less and so the spiral of low pay began.
As Matt quite rightly points out, all of our larger corporate pension schemes arrange their investments to include shares that pay regular dividends so that they can pay the pensions to their retired employees.
Corbyn needs to wake up and realise what is causing the majority of the UK's problems is mass immigration and the effects of it like housing shortage, lower wages, hospital waiting times, schools overcrowded... the list goes on.
85% of the UK population do not own shares
[Link]
How many of the 15% that do have shares who rely on dividends for income is not cited.
Doesn't say how many of the 85% are aged 18 or under either.
You are making a silly point as usual. 15% of the population is a lot and as I have pointed out earlier the majority of those are elderly and more likely to vote in a general election.
Those not holding shares directly will still be affected if they work in the private sector and are members of a pension scheme or have taken out a PPP because this will reduce their scope for investment growth.
I'm going to join Matt and disengage with you on this matter as it is clearly beyond your scope of understanding.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.29am)
Be interesting to see how many of the 15% are very minor investors or were given shares as part of deals - e.g postal workers.
As for the foreign investors. You're a bit UKIP hoof, if you don't mind me saying. Are you happy that much of our infrastructure is owned by foreign concerns? - meaning that dividends and profits actually is moved out of our economy.
I would like to go back to a time where foreigners weren't here individually or corporately but it has happened and all I can do is try and exploit what I can from this development.
My share/investment portfolio over the last few years has included the BRIC countries and Japan but more recently I have limited this to India whilst the oil price shenanigans continue. I suspect pension funds have done the same.
I'm very much in favour of us leaving the EU obviously as a UKIP supporter.
Edited by Hoof Hearted (16 Jan 2016 11.56am)
By the same token, we are being exploited.
I wonder how many people truly believe that the UK is now a better place than it was in the 50's before immigration began?
Always back to immigration innit !
Back to the topic de jour:
Do you disagree with Corbyn when he says he wants a fairer deal for workers and an end to the growing disparity between execs and the workforce?
Back in the 70's it used to be that execs earned about 20% more than ordinary workers, now it's around 187 x more.
Do you mean 20% more?
Oops 20x more
|
| Hoof Hearted 17 Jan 16 10.37am |
|
|
Corbyn is not alone or revolutionary (in the normal sense) in asking for this nick.
Miliband and many before him have campaigned for it.
Trying to find an effective strategy to bring execs pay more into line is the difficult bit.... talking about it is easy.
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 17 Jan 16 2.32pm |
|
|
All the fuss about trident. Even Hitchen's thinks its a big mistake to renew!
[Link]
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 17 Jan 16 2.37pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 17 Jan 2016 2.32pm
All the fuss about trident. Even Hitchen's thinks its a big mistake to renew!
[Link]
what about secondary picketing and the Falklands Nick?
the dignified don't even enter in the game
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 17 Jan 16 2.52pm |
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 17 Jan 2016 2.37pm
Quote nickgusset at 17 Jan 2016 2.32pm
All the fuss about trident. Even Hitchen's thinks its a big mistake to renew!
[Link]
what about secondary picketing and the Falklands Nick?
Secondary picketing. Shows solidarity doesn't it. I'm all for a general strike!! 
The Falklands? Not sure. If the islanders want to remain part of our empire then let them.
|
| Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 17 Jan 16 4.35pm |
|
Quote nickgusset at 17 Jan 2016 2.52pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 17 Jan 2016 2.37pm
Quote nickgusset at 17 Jan 2016 2.32pm
All the fuss about trident. Even Hitchen's thinks its a big mistake to renew!
[Link]
what about secondary picketing and the Falklands Nick?
Secondary picketing. Shows solidarity doesn't it. I'm all for a general strike!!
The Falklands? Not sure. If the islanders want to remain part of our empire then let them.
I see systems like Trident as a necessary evil. I can understand why some people might want rid but don't think it's really an option.
I certainly don't see the point of getting rid of the missiles and keeping the subs. What are we going to do, shout bang?
the dignified don't even enter in the game
|
-TUX-  Alphabettispaghetti 17 Jan 16 5.26pm |
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 17 Jan 2016 4.35pm
Quote nickgusset at 17 Jan 2016 2.52pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 17 Jan 2016 2.37pm
Quote nickgusset at 17 Jan 2016 2.32pm
All the fuss about trident. Even Hitchen's thinks its a big mistake to renew!
[Link]
what about secondary picketing and the Falklands Nick?
Secondary picketing. Shows solidarity doesn't it. I'm all for a general strike!!
The Falklands? Not sure. If the islanders want to remain part of our empire then let them.
I see systems like Trident as a necessary evil. I can understand why some people might want rid but don't think it's really an option.
I certainly don't see the point of getting rid of the missiles and keeping the subs. What are we going to do, shout bang?
Far cheaper and just as effective in a world that will never EVER see a nuclear war.
EDIT: Why would the powers that rule want to live somewhere where they can't go out without a suit and a mask? They don't.
The nuclear war threat is just that, a threat to scare a blinkered population, and nothing more.
It's just a shame that so many fall for the same old propaganda.
Edited by -TUX- (17 Jan 2016 6.18pm)
Time to move forward together.
|
| Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 17 Jan 16 10.43pm |
|
|
I do feel sorry for myself sometimes. Completely unable to make my own mind up on any decision unless I am told by the politicians and media what to think.
Thank god there's a group of people, many of whom frequent this forum, that can save people like me from ourselves.
Anyway, back to nuclear weapons. The point of having them is so that they're never used. Do you think Kruschev would have pulled back in 62 if America couldn't match the russkies?
Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (17 Jan 2016 10.44pm)
the dignified don't even enter in the game
|