HabboxWiki needs you!
Are you a Habbo buff? Or maybe a rare trader with a bunch of LTDs? Get involved with HabboxWiki to share your knowledge!
Join our team!
Whether you're raving for rares, excited for events or happy helping, there's something for you! Click here to apply
Need a helping hand?
Check out our guides for all things to help you make friends, make rooms, and make money!


Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 81 to 85 of 85
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,366
    Tokens
    325

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    i would not be an MP for £40k a year without expenses claims. it's simply not financially viable.
    goodbye.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    23,585
    Tokens
    9,258

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexxxxx View Post
    i would not be an MP for £40k a year without expenses claims. it's simply not financially viable.
    40k seems about right for a glorified civil servant, although I do agree that expenses should probably be included with that, and by expenses I mean covering the necessary cost of your duties e.g. travel. Being an MP doesn't mean you're meant to live the life of luxury - it's to serve, not be served, after all :/

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,951
    Tokens
    429
    Habbo
    Ajthedragon

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    How do they do more then the average worker? They don't really and 60k seems a bit extravagent, I don't actually see what my local MP does, I met her once and she done little to help my situation.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interac...e-mps-salaries

    We still have some of the cheapest in Europe amongst the richer countries.

    Although a little outdated in places: http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/L...king_Hours.pdf.

    Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. We're far too harsh on government, both nationally, European and locally. And an MP is supposed to take on board your opinions when voting on matters within the commons, or suggesting something with some consideration of your problem. They don't actually directly provide any help.
    One for the road. :rolleyes:

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,366
    Tokens
    325

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GommeInc View Post
    40k seems about right for a glorified civil servant, although I do agree that expenses should probably be included with that, and by expenses I mean covering the necessary cost of your duties e.g. travel. Being an MP doesn't mean you're meant to live the life of luxury - it's to serve, not be served, after all :/
    Civil Servants aren't constantly quoted in the media, asked for interviews all the time, under public scrutiny, work huge hours etc. £40k isn't an awful lot of money. If you can have another job that pays £50k or £60k, then you'd obviously take that instead.
    goodbye.

  5. #85
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexxxxx View Post
    No, no, no they don't. that is such a simplistic way of thinking things. the company i work for (a very large one) is incredibly inefficient. they could cut a third of the workforce in my area and cut management and be fine. It's the fact that it is a monopoly that allows it to continue.
    But it still makes money, so while it could cutback and become more efficent - it still makes money and aslong as it makes a profit, it does not need to (at the loss of the shareholders/owners though). You mention monopolies, does your company take orders from the government? - that is most likely the reason it maintains a monopoly or because of over-regulation in that industry as that would stop any rival being able to undercut the company you work for.

    See NHS.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexxxxx
    All regulation is seen as stupid by some, if it wasn't then it'd be common practice. Regulation isn't done for fun.
    Most regulation is ridiculous yes, and the examples I gave show this - I don't think they find it 'fun', although being in the EU and its mickey mouse parliament most of the power nuts within most likely do find it fun.

    Afterall, hardly any of them have ever had real, private sector jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexxxx
    Steel making companies, brickmakers, engineering firms, paper suppliers, IT services are not 'nationalised-in-all-but-name' companies, yet they rely on some of their trade from government contracts. Cut government spending and they won't go bust but they'll cut their workforce moving them onto welfare.
    In doing so, you give more money back to the real economy and real private sector jobs which do not rely on government subsidy will grow as they have more money in their backpocket to expand - the same goes for people in general, let them keep more of their own money and they then have more capitol to setup business.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexxxxx
    It's not about nationalisation though is it?
    That is what you are suggesting just above.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexxxxx
    But you understand that a lot of private sector businesses (which rely at least in part on state employees to function at their current output level). If you then extend these businesses as not being in the 'real economy' then i think you're too blinded by ideology.
    Only because it sets up 'fake demand' - that demand in the real economy is not there. Look at the real unemployment figures for the Thatcher years, as she cut subsidies unemployment rose (as you said about welfare) - however, because more money was circulating within the real economy, the real economy (the private sector) grew and unemployment came right down.

    Compare that with the growth of the state to such a large extent in the past decade (higher taxation) along with the excess regulation coming out of Whitehall and Brussels since she left office, unemployment rose again.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexxxxx
    This is surprising that this is your view actually as i'm undecided about public private partnerships. My initial thoughts were that they are a waste of money as i don't buy into the ideology that private companies are totally efficient and would try to run their services as efficiently as possible - yet these partnerships often have bonuses that less money has to come from the government up front.
    Not all genuinely private companies are efficent, nobody is arguing that - because they go bust if they are.

    A good example of this would be the banks.

    Quote Originally Posted by alexxxxx
    But i don't think your example of the NHS is a good one, in the USA where most of the 'medical industry' (not that it should be seen an industry in my eyes) is private, costs escalate and service is as good/bad as here. Profit is at a cost to the consumer.
    Only because its such a heavily regulated industry, we saw with the NHS how drug companies are charging the NHS more (along with everyother supplier) because theres no competition allowed with the NHS, and as its government run it doesn't have to worry about keeping the balance sheets whereas private sector companies do *unless they are being subsidised by the government, meaning they are not really private at all*

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingJesus View Post
    Yes because more expenditure helps the economy overall whereas obviously personal finances it's better for you to save if you're in trouble. I'm still not bothered by the cuts but thought I'd point that out
    Keynesian economics doesn't work - true spending does help, but only when in the private sector. I remember Gordon Brown saying we shouldn't cut spending and that the Tories 'wanted to take £6bn out of the economy' - not that they did, but many people don't realise that Brown was the one taking money out of the economy via taxation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ayd View Post
    Then I stand corrected, although most of them do a lot more than the average worker too. I believe the PM and his cabinet took a pay cut when they took office of around £5,000 each. And their pay is frozen. May I also remind you it's a minority that took advantage of the expenses; most of which are now out of office.
    A great majority of them are in it for their ego, not to mention when they leave they make a great deal of money hence why many in Labour I suspect wanted to loose the election, as they could then secure top corporate jobs/go on expensive speaking tours like dear old Tony.



Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •