Marcus Rashford

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Marcus Rashford

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 8 of 23 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Mapletree Croydon 23 Oct 20 2.19pm
Originally posted by jeeagles £80k if f*** all compared to the responsibilities, job security, and exposure MP's have. The reason MP's were paid in the first place was to make it more accessible for people who have the means to do the job for free. I think it should be doubled. The Labour Party stand to benefit the most as it will attract better candidates. Corbyn, Blair, Cameron, and Johnson all come from wealthy families (although 3 of them had successful careers before entering politics). If you want decent talent, you have to pay for it. £25 is the standard allowance for any lunch claimed on expenses. It's set by HMRC. More populist nonsense. You are terribly confused MPs' pay and Ministers pay are not the same Those in positions to make decisions are paid £104k minimum plus generous expenses provisions. Secretaries of State are paid £149,437. The Prime Minister £154,908. In addition having been in Government, people almost always earn hugely once they leave their roles. For some reason the experience is regarded as valuable. £25 is not the standard lunch allowance. It happens to be the maximum you can claim for subsistence without paying tax on a BIK if you are travelling for more than 15 hours. If it is just lunch, the maximum rate is £10.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 23 Oct 20 2.19pm

Originally posted by jeeagles

£80k if f*** all compared to the responsibilities, job security, and exposure MP's have.

The reason MP's were paid in the first place was to make it more accessible for people who have the means to do the job for free.

I think it should be doubled. The Labour Party stand to benefit the most as it will attract better candidates.

Corbyn, Blair, Cameron, and Johnson all come from wealthy families (although 3 of them had successful careers before entering politics).

If you want decent talent, you have to pay for it.

£25 is the standard allowance for any lunch claimed on expenses. It's set by HMRC.

More populist nonsense.

You are terribly confused

MPs' pay and Ministers pay are not the same

Those in positions to make decisions are paid £104k minimum plus generous expenses provisions. Secretaries of State are paid £149,437.
The Prime Minister £154,908.

In addition having been in Government, people almost always earn hugely once they leave their roles. For some reason the experience is regarded as valuable.

£25 is not the standard lunch allowance. It happens to be the maximum you can claim for subsistence without paying tax on a BIK if you are travelling for more than 15 hours. If it is just lunch, the maximum rate is £10.

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 23 Oct 20 2.33pm
Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle I have the answer to solve all these problems and it’s really quite simple. If you can’t afford to bring up kids, don’t have them! At least until you can afford to. Why people have kids when they don’t even have work is beyond me. So you're meant to guarantee a steady job and income for all 18 years of a child's life before you have one? What about people who have lost their job or having to live off a % of their wages through no fault of their own during the pandemic?
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 23 Oct 20 2.33pm

Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle

I have the answer to solve all these problems and it’s really quite simple.

If you can’t afford to bring up kids, don’t have them!

At least until you can afford to.

Why people have kids when they don’t even have work is beyond me.

So you're meant to guarantee a steady job and income for all 18 years of a child's life before you have one?

What about people who have lost their job or having to live off a % of their wages through no fault of their own during the pandemic?

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 23 Oct 20 2.33pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 It seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing. As every good cynic should.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 23 Oct 20 2.33pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

It seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

As every good cynic should.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 23 Oct 20 2.35pm
Originally posted by DanH So you're meant to guarantee a steady job and income for all 18 years of a child's life before you have one? What about people who have lost their job or having to live off a % of their wages through no fault of their own during the pandemic? According to the CPAG, the cost of raising a child (excluding housing, childcare and council tax) from birth to 18 is now: £75,436 for a couple family. £102,627 for a single parent/guardian. So it's very simple really, once the money is in the bank account you can unlock. Edited by Mapletree (23 Oct 2020 2.37pm) Attachment: Cage.jpg (15.80Kb)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 23 Oct 20 2.35pm

Originally posted by DanH

So you're meant to guarantee a steady job and income for all 18 years of a child's life before you have one?

What about people who have lost their job or having to live off a % of their wages through no fault of their own during the pandemic?

According to the CPAG, the cost of raising a child (excluding housing, childcare and council tax) from birth to 18 is now: £75,436 for a couple family. £102,627 for a single parent/guardian.

So it's very simple really, once the money is in the bank account you can unlock.

Edited by Mapletree (23 Oct 2020 2.37pm)

Attachment: Cage.jpg (15.80Kb)

Alert a moderator to this post

jeeagles 23 Oct 20 2.55pm
Originally posted by Mapletree You are terribly confused MPs' pay and Ministers pay are not the same Those in positions to make decisions are paid £104k minimum plus generous expenses provisions. Secretaries of State are paid £149,437. The Prime Minister £154,908. In addition having been in Government, people almost always earn hugely once they leave their roles. For some reason the experience is regarded as valuable. £25 is not the standard lunch allowance. It happens to be the maximum you can claim for subsistence without paying tax on a BIK if you are travelling for more than 15 hours. If it is just lunch, the maximum rate is £10. Thanks for the clarification but splitting hairs I feel. The point is that it's the same old argument shouting MP's get paid to much, when the Chartist campaigned for MP's to get paid to reduce barriers to entry. Compared to their private sector counterparts its peanuts. Hence, why government and civil service is full of so many duds. Same with the PM's earnings after standing down, it's the barrier to entry that's the problem. If it were to be doubled it might de-risk the job for more talented applicants (and make them exempt from tax on to remove the conflict of interest when it comes to raising tax for high earners). Can't wait till tomorrows game so I can get back to concentrating about important issues.
Alert a moderator to this post

jeeagles

23 Oct 20 2.55pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

You are terribly confused

MPs' pay and Ministers pay are not the same

Those in positions to make decisions are paid £104k minimum plus generous expenses provisions. Secretaries of State are paid £149,437.
The Prime Minister £154,908.

In addition having been in Government, people almost always earn hugely once they leave their roles. For some reason the experience is regarded as valuable.

Thanks for the clarification but splitting hairs I feel.

The point is that it's the same old argument shouting MP's get paid to much, when the Chartist campaigned for MP's to get paid to reduce barriers to entry.

Compared to their private sector counterparts its peanuts. Hence, why government and civil service is full of so many duds.

Same with the PM's earnings after standing down, it's the barrier to entry that's the problem.

If it were to be doubled it might de-risk the job for more talented applicants (and make them exempt from tax on to remove the conflict of interest when it comes to raising tax for high earners).

Can't wait till tomorrows game so I can get back to concentrating about important issues.

Alert a moderator to this post

jeeagles 23 Oct 20 3.08pm
Originally posted by Mapletree According to the CPAG, the cost of raising a child (excluding housing, childcare and council tax) from birth to 18 is now: £75,436 for a couple family. £102,627 for a single parent/guardian. So it's very simple really, once the money is in the bank account you can unlock. Edited by Mapletree (23 Oct 2020 2.37pm) A stick and carrot approach that's likely to motivate the masses and create huge increases in productivity to record levels. Although, I wouldn't like to see your search history Also, much more likely to make teenagers work hard in school thus stopping people falling into poverty. Seems like a harsh system, but we used to tell people who had children outside of wedlock that they would face eternal damnation.... so rather progressive in context. One could also ask, if this is cruel, isn't it crueller to bring a child into the world that you can't afford. You wouldn't be allowed a puppy you can't afford. Would you be willing to settle for a mortgage based system with affordability checks based on a credit rating?
Alert a moderator to this post

jeeagles

23 Oct 20 3.08pm

Originally posted by Mapletree
According to the CPAG, the cost of raising a child (excluding housing, childcare and council tax) from birth to 18 is now: £75,436 for a couple family. £102,627 for a single parent/guardian.

So it's very simple really, once the money is in the bank account you can unlock.

Edited by Mapletree (23 Oct 2020 2.37pm)

A stick and carrot approach that's likely to motivate the masses and create huge increases in productivity to record levels. Although, I wouldn't like to see your search history

Also, much more likely to make teenagers work hard in school thus stopping people falling into poverty.

Seems like a harsh system, but we used to tell people who had children outside of wedlock that they would face eternal damnation.... so rather progressive in context.

One could also ask, if this is cruel, isn't it crueller to bring a child into the world that you can't afford. You wouldn't be allowed a puppy you can't afford.

Would you be willing to settle for a mortgage based system with affordability checks based on a credit rating?

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 23 Oct 20 3.30pm
Originally posted by jeeagles Thanks for the clarification but splitting hairs I feel. The point is that it's the same old argument shouting MP's get paid to much, when the Chartist campaigned for MP's to get paid to reduce barriers to entry. Compared to their private sector counterparts its peanuts. Hence, why government and civil service is full of so many duds. Same with the PM's earnings after standing down, it's the barrier to entry that's the problem. If it were to be doubled it might de-risk the job for more talented applicants (and make them exempt from tax on to remove the conflict of interest when it comes to raising tax for high earners). Can't wait till tomorrows game so I can get back to concentrating about important issues. I didn't say I think they are overpaid. But I don't think they are underpaid. Effectively they work in the Not for Profit sector. And I repeat, if you are successful you will get a big pay-day later. Many MPs are only worth £82k on the other hand. Plus of course a final salary pension scheme, gold dust in this day and age.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 23 Oct 20 3.30pm

Originally posted by jeeagles

Thanks for the clarification but splitting hairs I feel.

The point is that it's the same old argument shouting MP's get paid to much, when the Chartist campaigned for MP's to get paid to reduce barriers to entry.

Compared to their private sector counterparts its peanuts. Hence, why government and civil service is full of so many duds.

Same with the PM's earnings after standing down, it's the barrier to entry that's the problem.

If it were to be doubled it might de-risk the job for more talented applicants (and make them exempt from tax on to remove the conflict of interest when it comes to raising tax for high earners).

Can't wait till tomorrows game so I can get back to concentrating about important issues.

I didn't say I think they are overpaid. But I don't think they are underpaid. Effectively they work in the Not for Profit sector. And I repeat, if you are successful you will get a big pay-day later. Many MPs are only worth £82k on the other hand. Plus of course a final salary pension scheme, gold dust in this day and age.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 23 Oct 20 3.32pm
Originally posted by jeeagles A stick and carrot approach that's likely to motivate the masses and create huge increases in productivity to record levels. Although, I wouldn't like to see your search history Also, much more likely to make teenagers work hard in school thus stopping people falling into poverty. Seems like a harsh system, but we used to tell people who had children outside of wedlock that they would face eternal damnation.... so rather progressive in context. One could also ask, if this is cruel, isn't it crueller to bring a child into the world that you can't afford. You wouldn't be allowed a puppy you can't afford. Would you be willing to settle for a mortgage based system with affordability checks based on a credit rating? I really like the idea that if you can't afford your children they get repossessed and sold on. Alternatively you could pay into some form of income protection scheme like with a mortgage so you don't lose them if you lose your job. We could call it, I don't know, how about 'National Insurance'?
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 23 Oct 20 3.32pm

Originally posted by jeeagles

A stick and carrot approach that's likely to motivate the masses and create huge increases in productivity to record levels. Although, I wouldn't like to see your search history

Also, much more likely to make teenagers work hard in school thus stopping people falling into poverty.

Seems like a harsh system, but we used to tell people who had children outside of wedlock that they would face eternal damnation.... so rather progressive in context.

One could also ask, if this is cruel, isn't it crueller to bring a child into the world that you can't afford. You wouldn't be allowed a puppy you can't afford.

Would you be willing to settle for a mortgage based system with affordability checks based on a credit rating?

I really like the idea that if you can't afford your children they get repossessed and sold on.

Alternatively you could pay into some form of income protection scheme like with a mortgage so you don't lose them if you lose your job. We could call it, I don't know, how about 'National Insurance'?

Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 23 Oct 20 4.22pm
Originally posted by DanH So you're meant to guarantee a steady job and income for all 18 years of a child's life before you have one? What about people who have lost their job or having to live off a % of their wages through no fault of their own during the pandemic? Nope, that’s not what I said at all, is it. If you lose your job etc that is entirely different. But why have kids if you don’t work? Some girls I know have gone on to have many kids and yet they have literally never done a days paid work in their life! All these kids have to be paid for. Parents need to take responsibility for their own children. One day Dan you and your boyfriend may wish to adopt, I just hope you will be responsible daddies. "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 23 Oct 20 4.22pm

Originally posted by DanH

So you're meant to guarantee a steady job and income for all 18 years of a child's life before you have one?

What about people who have lost their job or having to live off a % of their wages through no fault of their own during the pandemic?

Nope, that’s not what I said at all, is it.

If you lose your job etc that is entirely different. But why have kids if you don’t work? Some girls I know have gone on to have many kids and yet they have literally never done a days paid work in their life!

All these kids have to be paid for. Parents need to take responsibility for their own children.

One day Dan you and your boyfriend may wish to adopt, I just hope you will be responsible daddies.

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert a moderator to this post

jeeagles 23 Oct 20 4.38pm
Originally posted by Mapletree I really like the idea that if you can't afford your children they get repossessed and sold on. Alternatively you could pay into some form of income protection scheme like with a mortgage so you don't lose them if you lose your job. We could call it, I don't know, how about 'National Insurance'? Excellent plan. Effectively, social services can repossess a child at the moment but the powers they have aren't strong enough. We just need better regulation of the parenting. Like what happened to the banks in 2008. Problem solved through hard work and creativity you'd expect from Palace. Up yours Marcus Rashford. Stop trying to cover up crap performances with stupid ideas. School's should concentrate on teaching. You should concentrate on football. 3-1 Edited by jeeagles (23 Oct 2020 4.45pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

jeeagles

23 Oct 20 4.38pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

I really like the idea that if you can't afford your children they get repossessed and sold on.

Excellent plan. Effectively, social services can repossess a child at the moment but the powers they have aren't strong enough. We just need better regulation of the parenting. Like what happened to the banks in 2008.

Problem solved through hard work and creativity you'd expect from Palace. Up yours Marcus Rashford. Stop trying to cover up crap performances with stupid ideas. School's should concentrate on teaching. You should concentrate on football. 3-1

Edited by jeeagles (23 Oct 2020 4.45pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 23 Oct 20 4.46pm
You can buy a medium sized chicken for £2.95 from Tesco.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 23 Oct 20 4.46pm

You can buy a medium sized chicken for £2.95 from Tesco.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 23 Oct 20 4.48pm
Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle Nope, that’s not what I said at all, is it. If you lose your job etc that is entirely different. But why have kids if you don’t work? Some girls I know have gone on to have many kids and yet they have literally never done a days paid work in their life! All these kids have to be paid for. Parents need to take responsibility for their own children. One day Dan you and your boyfriend may wish to adopt, I just hope you will be responsible daddies. Didn't Dan say a while ago he was married? Strange that you make an assumption he has a boyfriend. It's almost as though you are trying to use homosexuality as a weapon against someone you disagree with. Returning to the point, I think this says it all really: [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 23 Oct 20 4.48pm

Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle

Nope, that’s not what I said at all, is it.

All these kids have to be paid for. Parents need to take responsibility for their own children.

One day Dan you and your boyfriend may wish to adopt, I just hope you will be responsible daddies.

Didn't Dan say a while ago he was married? Strange that you make an assumption he has a boyfriend. It's almost as though you are trying to use homosexuality as a weapon against someone you disagree with.

Returning to the point, I think this says it all really:

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 23 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Marcus Rashford

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors