Author Topic: The Butchers' Budget  (Read 13808 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 612
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2010, 06:21:19 pm »
And then think on how we spend so much being a member of the EU - how mcuh we loaned to Ireland.  If the definition of 'broke' is we have nothing then we ain't broke YET!

Offline Spectre

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Hello !
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2010, 07:08:05 pm »
And then think on how we spend so much being a member of the EU - how mcuh we loaned to Ireland.  If the definition of 'broke' is we have nothing then we ain't broke YET!


We never were. So why cut so hard and fast? :knuppel2:

Offline Mart

  • Charter Member
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3169
  • Never fight an inanimate object.
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2010, 07:54:51 pm »
That loan to Ireland is a nice little deal, we borrow at 1.5% and lend it to them at 5.8%, course that's how they got into trouble in the first place and our margin does rather depend on their ability to pay. I heard the Greeks are 'only' paying 5.2%

Then:

Spanish 10-year government bond yields – the rate of return demanded by investors – rose by 19 basis points to 5.63%, while Italian 10-year bonds were up 13bp to 4.77%. The difference between the Spanish, Italian and Belgian 10-year bonds and their German equivalents all rose to their highest since the launch of the euro.

The cost of Spanish and Italian government debt remains much lower than that of worse-hit economies however. Irish 10-year bond yields stand at more than 9%, while yields on Greek 10-year bonds are almost 12%
.

and:

The Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the EU accounts for yet another year, making this the 16th year in a row that the EU accounts have failed to receive a clean bill of health, writes Natalie Hamill. This year’s report found discrepancies in 90% of last year’s EU budget, and yet the European Parliament is currently demanding a 2011 budget increase of 6%, which has, unsurprisingly, gone down like a lead balloon with cash-strapped and budget-slashing national governments.


I singularly fail to understand why we have anything to with the soddin thing. Personally I'd favour closer ties with the Commonwealth and let relations with Europe revert to their natural course.
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.

Offline kohima

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 649
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2010, 08:56:25 pm »
no I didnt, my wife took it and has put it in the bank for when the bills come in after christmas, I will be a OAP in a few days time so I also dont feel any guilt in doing so, just ask those who can afford not to do so if they did or not.. and I include all walks of life in that, things like that should be restricted on a pay basis and only those who really need it should get it,  If I was in full time work then I would have no qualms on refusing it, but I am now 'over the op' as Royal Mail put it, even though I am fitter than a few of my fellow workers but they deserve all they get,  I took it and again have no qualms on that point.  As I am at that age, its only right also that some one of a lower age should get my job.. I am at present paying tax at the 40% rate, because of my army pension and my post office pension and my po pay, and when I retire in two weeks time, Il still be on 40% as my pensions alone take me over the limit I can have, so even though Im not working Ill still be taxed up to the hilt. :santa_rolleyes:

Offline Mart

  • Charter Member
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3169
  • Never fight an inanimate object.
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #64 on: December 05, 2010, 09:05:09 pm »
Kept that quiet.

When I want stuff at B&Q will you get it for me at discount? Course you'll have to carry ID cos you don't look old enough.

Cough.
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.

Offline kohima

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 649
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #65 on: December 05, 2010, 09:08:35 pm »
you say that, when I went along to get my 60s card, the girl on the till said you look over age so you must be ok for one !!. :2funny:

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2860
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #66 on: December 06, 2010, 08:19:50 am »
We've had a brilliant time at B&Q since we've been retired!

Not is it cheaper for us on a Wednesday, but it's a jolly good exercise walking around it too.

We could have an over 60's TSr's cuppa meet in their cafe.
Lifes not always fair. Sometimes you can get a splinter even sliding down a rainbow. - Cherralea Morgen

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1796
  • Gender: Female
We could have an over 60's TSr's cuppa meet in their cafe.

The garden centre at Jnc 16 is better for that and over 60s get a good deal off there as well join the club.

Enjoy it while you can as you approach the back end of your 70s the cuts being made in your name now by Cllr Mallison and his we are rated an excellent social care provider will really bite into your life style as it is likely you will have to pay nearly all your money out for your own care.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/8717404.Adult_social_care_improves/
To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2860
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #68 on: December 06, 2010, 06:09:20 pm »
Luckily we have way to go to the back end of the 70's and the horse might die before then! 

As it is those with any assets are having to pay out and in some cases sell up and this has been going on for some years.

If Mr Muggins goes before me I'll get myself a toy boy, in fact I might get one anyway.
Lifes not always fair. Sometimes you can get a splinter even sliding down a rainbow. - Cherralea Morgen

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 612
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #69 on: December 06, 2010, 06:10:59 pm »
Quote
I'll get myself a toy boy, in fact I might get one anyway

I'm free

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2860
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #70 on: December 06, 2010, 06:15:44 pm »
Mmmmm   :santa_cheesy:
Lifes not always fair. Sometimes you can get a splinter even sliding down a rainbow. - Cherralea Morgen

Offline Mart

  • Charter Member
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3169
  • Never fight an inanimate object.
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #71 on: December 06, 2010, 07:27:49 pm »
I'm free

And still over priced!

Kerching..........

My mum and dad endlessly wind me up with their bloody jollity since retirement, and the chap next door encourages me on my way to work with cries of 'Get out there, keep my pension coming!'

I've been watering his drive every morning since the cold snap started.

Bloody pensioners, drain on the state the lot of you, should be forced to work in poorly maintained factories doing weaving or something, or put up chimneys.

Not envious at all, ooh no.
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.

Offline Mart

  • Charter Member
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3169
  • Never fight an inanimate object.
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #72 on: December 06, 2010, 08:03:39 pm »
Just ambled across this:

The Major is constantly telling us (eg see here) that the welfare state has produced far too many children at the bottom of the heap. He reckons that by paying the poor and feckless to have children we've given ourselves a monstrous problem. Generation upon generation of feckless no-hopers, reproducing like Fibonacci's rabbits, and threatening to undermine a billion years of Darwinian progress.

And while the Major does tend to put things somewhat bluntly, round our way that is a very widely shared view.

The trouble is - as we saw here - actual facts are very thin on the ground.

But we've now taken a closer look at the latest Office for National Statistics data on income distribution across households of different types (see here). And we've extracted the number of children in households according to their income level.

Across the whole country there are 12.9 million dependent children spread across 19.1m non-retired households, an average of 0.67 children per household. But when you look at the distribution of children across each household income level, you find that households in the bottom 20% of incomes have an average of 1.03 children, while those in the top 20% have an average of 0.34.

What that means is that the poorest 20% of (non-retired) households have over 30% of Britain's children. Whereas the richest 20% only have 10% of the children. That is a pretty striking contrast - our economically least successful households have nearly one-third of our children.

Here's the complete picture (note - 20% income bands are known as quintiles):


Not entirely palatable, but compelling stuff.
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.

Offline Tea Boy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 653
  • Gender: Male
  • Tea's up!, Kettle's on
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #73 on: December 06, 2010, 09:50:03 pm »
Just ambled across this:

The Major is constantly telling us (eg see here) that the welfare state has produced far too many children at the bottom of the heap. He reckons that by paying the poor and feckless to have children we've given ourselves a monstrous problem. Generation upon generation of feckless no-hopers, reproducing like Fibonacci's rabbits, and threatening to undermine a billion years of Darwinian progress.

And while the Major does tend to put things somewhat bluntly, round our way that is a very widely shared view.

The trouble is - as we saw here - actual facts are very thin on the ground.

But we've now taken a closer look at the latest Office for National Statistics data on income distribution across households of different types (see here). And we've extracted the number of children in households according to their income level.

Across the whole country there are 12.9 million dependent children spread across 19.1m non-retired households, an average of 0.67 children per household. But when you look at the distribution of children across each household income level, you find that households in the bottom 20% of incomes have an average of 1.03 children, while those in the top 20% have an average of 0.34.

What that means is that the poorest 20% of (non-retired) households have over 30% of Britain's children. Whereas the richest 20% only have 10% of the children. That is a pretty striking contrast - our economically least successful households have nearly one-third of our children.

Not entirely palatable, but compelling stuff.

But surely given that 5% of the population own 95% of the wealth that sort of means that the figures are bunkum. in other words 95% of the population have the most children? so whats new there? 50% of the population are secretly women, and the other half are men? its a non-statistic
Gardening tips: Always remember its brown side down, green side up.  If its knocking now it'll only go bang later

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 612
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #74 on: December 06, 2010, 10:19:30 pm »
Quote
But surely given that 5% of the population own 95% of the wealth that sort of means that the figures are bunkum. in other words 95% of the population have the most children? so whats new there? 50% of the population are secretly women, and the other half are men? its a non-statistic

It's actually a very pertinent statistic.  Dare i suggest the error in your argument is simply that you are attempting to introduce another factor - that of 'wealth' which is significantly different from 'income'.

The graph only seeks to highlight the number of children by household income and not by whoever has the greatest level of assets.

Of course any attempt to suggest a statistical relevance related to wealth would result in the suggestion that 95% of the population have the most children is bound to be correct but that's not the purpose of the exercise that has been undertaken and dare i further suggest the issue isn't even worth debating

Offline moley

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 453
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #75 on: December 06, 2010, 10:29:18 pm »
I'm a little surprised the graph looks as linear as it does...

I'm less surprised that the highest income households have fewest children (as there are a significant number of very career-minded people who aren't interested in having kids who would probably all fit into that grouping).

Moley

Offline Tea Boy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 653
  • Gender: Male
  • Tea's up!, Kettle's on
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #76 on: December 06, 2010, 10:55:15 pm »
Quote
But surely given that 5% of the population own 95% of the wealth that sort of means that the figures are bunkum. in other words 95% of the population have the most children? so whats new there? 50% of the population are secretly women, and the other half are men? its a non-statistic

It's actually a very pertinent statistic and very accurate.  Dare i suggest the error in your argument is simply that you are attempting to introduce another factor - that of 'wealth' which is significantly different from 'income'.

The graph only seeks to highlight the number of children by household income and not by whoever has the greatest level of assets.

Of course any attempt to suggest a statistical relevance related to wealth would result in the suggestion that 95% of the population have the most children is bound to be correct but that's not the purpose of the exercise that has been undertaken and dare i further suggest the issue isn't even worth debating

Indeed income and wealth are not the same, but it is also true that there are fewer well paid jobs and more low paid jobs, few high earners and many low earners

With those on less 'income' generally being 'less gifted' in some way. either way the lower earners (less wealthy) will dominate in terms of numbers and will tend to be those who are educated to a lower level. and as such less aware of the of the impending socio - economic -climate impact of uncontrolled birth rates.

So what does the graph mean? low earning families are overpopulating the planet? good or bad?

Doug says it best (not for the easily offended)
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/YkgDhDa4HHo?fs=1&amp;amp;hl=en_GB" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/YkgDhDa4HHo?fs=1&amp;amp;hl=en_GB</a>
Gardening tips: Always remember its brown side down, green side up.  If its knocking now it'll only go bang later

Offline bobwright

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #77 on: December 06, 2010, 11:46:20 pm »
Statistics or lies and more lies. I thought I would check out Vic Reeves quote on statistics only to fine that according to many websites that either 67%, 80%, 84.3%, 88.2%, 96.2% or 98% are made up. So here's a question statistically speaking how many quotes are accurate?

By the way I use the 5 to 10% of the population having 90 to 95% of the wealth quite reguarly. I came across the statistics on an Open Universtiy course. The figure includes land and property wealth and the Royal Families wealth. It does not refer to liquidity alone.

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2860
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #78 on: December 07, 2010, 08:45:11 am »
OVERPOPULATION: "Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics"

The way I see it, the poor don't mind sharing nothing and have the time and the rich don't want to stretch their wealth too far and don't have time. (too busy in their counting houses!)   :santa_rolleyes:
Lifes not always fair. Sometimes you can get a splinter even sliding down a rainbow. - Cherralea Morgen

Offline 20Eyes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1632
  • Too fast, too deep, blah blah blah
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #79 on: December 07, 2010, 08:53:15 am »
Why anyone would find the results of that graph even remotely surprising, or attempt to deny their validity, is beyond me.

Some of you with the rose(red?) tinted glasses should do a stint in the local Social Services Department and have those glasses well and truly cleaned.
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." ~ Potter Stewart

 

Sorry, the copyright must be in the template.
Please notify this forum's administrator that this site is missing the copyright message for SMF so they can rectify the situation. Display of copyright is a legal requirement. For more information on this please visit the Simple Machines website.