On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 15:44:17 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 12 Oct 2022 at 14:51:13 BST, zall wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 20:07:51 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 Oct 2022 at 04:44:04 BST, zall wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:35:47 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12 Oct 2022 at 03:52:56 BST, zall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:40:20 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11 Oct 2022 at 16:35:35 BST, zall wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 01:08:21 +1100, Dave Plowman (News)
>>>>>>>> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <ti3fqo$1351c$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It's ironic that most those who whinge about the unemployed are
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> ones
>>>>>>>>>> sitting cosy with their state benefit (state pension).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't 'sit cosy' with the state pension.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those with a fully owned house can do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So wrong
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>
>>>>> I somehow doubt that you will. But let's give it a go.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - owner occupier no mortgage state pensioners some of the poorest
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> British society, living in the worst conditions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only those that are grossly incompetent.
>>>>
>>>>> So, that's why, in your view, 2m pensioners don't 'sit cosy' in the
>>>>> UK?
>>>>
>>>> Easy to claim.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, agreed.
>>>
>>>>> Do you
>>>>> know who told you that?
>>>>
>>>> No one told me that, its trivial to calculate what the state pension
>>>> can
>>>> pay for.
>>
>>> Care to set out the outline of your calculations?
>>
>> Care to set out the outline of your calculations?

> As I say, I find it quite difficult - it'd take me a day or two to
> compile.

Your problem.

> And I don't have access to the resources I used to. I last did it about
> 20
> years ago, but (obviously) things have changed quite recently. I might
> do it
> when I get the time.
>
> What I could do is point you to recent peer reviewed and governemnt
> research
> to prove my overall point - would that help?

Nope.

> In the meantime your 'sit cosy' figures for state pensioner owner
> occupiers?
> If trivial is too much just say and we can drop it - I'll just have to
> trust
> your word that you've done the calculations, they fit your assertions,
> and you
> found the exercise trivial.

Yes you do.

On 13 Oct 2022 at 06:15:23 BST, zall wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 15:44:17 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12 Oct 2022 at 14:51:13 BST, zall wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 20:07:51 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12 Oct 2022 at 04:44:04 BST, zall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:35:47 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12 Oct 2022 at 03:52:56 BST, zall wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:40:20 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11 Oct 2022 at 16:35:35 BST, zall wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 01:08:21 +1100, Dave Plowman (News)
>>>>>>>>> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article <ti3fqo$1351c$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It's ironic that most those who whinge about the unemployed are
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> ones
>>>>>>>>>>> sitting cosy with their state benefit (state pension).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't 'sit cosy' with the state pension.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those with a fully owned house can do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So wrong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I somehow doubt that you will. But let's give it a go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - owner occupier no mortgage state pensioners some of the poorest
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> British society, living in the worst conditions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only those that are grossly incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, that's why, in your view, 2m pensioners don't 'sit cosy' in the
>>>>>> UK?
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy to claim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, agreed.
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you
>>>>>> know who told you that?
>>>>>
>>>>> No one told me that, its trivial to calculate what the state pension
>>>>> can
>>>>> pay for.
>>>
>>>> Care to set out the outline of your calculations?
>>>
>>> Care to set out the outline of your calculations?
>
>> As I say, I find it quite difficult - it'd take me a day or two to
>> compile.
>
> Your problem.
>
>> And I don't have access to the resources I used to. I last did it about
>> 20
>> years ago, but (obviously) things have changed quite recently. I might
>> do it
>> when I get the time.
>>
>> What I could do is point you to recent peer reviewed and governemnt
>> research
>> to prove my overall point - would that help?
>
> Nope.
>
>> In the meantime your 'sit cosy' figures for state pensioner owner
>> occupiers?
>> If trivial is too much just say and we can drop it - I'll just have to
>> trust
>> your word that you've done the calculations, they fit your assertions,
>> and you
>> found the exercise trivial.
>
> Yes you do.

QED :-)
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 12/10/2022 15:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ti69gs$1g92q$1@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>
>> While you might blame the government, there is some culpability in those
>> voting it in. It's a shame that Labour sat so indecisively on the fence
>> when it came to Brexit. Things may be very different, hell even Corbyn
>> could now have been PM!
>
> Brexit was unusual in that support and opposition to it did not follow the
> normal party lines. Which, of course, the 'red wall' proved.

Labour voters supporting leave was far more than just the red wall:
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/labour-voters-and-the-brexit-conundrum/

"68% of 2017 Labour voters had voted Leave in the referendum".

If only Corbyn and Labour MPs had listened.

On 12/10/2022 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ti46b5$14vka$1@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>> There is also a shortage of those willing to do some types of job.
>>> Things like hospitality and care homes. Many NHS jobs. Previously done
>>> by those horrid sponging EU workers who came here to live off the fat
>>> of the land. In Farage speak.
>
>> Yes, normally at minimum wage, something you would no doubt endorse.
>
>> Most capitalists like a low wage economy, I never took you for one, but
>> hey.
>
> So legislate for a decent minimum wage.

There already is one.

> Or even bring unions back into
> favour. But neither of those suits a decent Tory.

If you like a 3 day week then I can see why you might suggest this.

> Most would consider Henry Ford a capitalist. Remember what he thought
> about wages for his employees?

Yes, he had to pay in excess of the market rate to retain them, such
demonstrates how boring the job was and the awful conditions they worked in.

Minor factoid, in 1913 Henry Ford hired more than 52,000 men to maintain
a workforce of only 14,000.

On 12/10/2022 15:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ti46rp$14vka$4@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>> Hence why I favour a national income, for those resident in the UK for
>>>> say 10-20 years.
>>>
>>> That's a bit left wing for you, Fred?
>
>> I don't see how it is left-wing.
>
>> I despise means testing and prefer simplification of taxes. I see no
>> reason why someone, specifically through laziness, gets something I
>> don't, claims benefits and then still feels they can call me and others
>> like me 'lazy'.
>
> You think if there was a national income for all, the lazy would suddenly
> become hard working?

Most people do work hard. They work a lot harder if they retain the cash
they earn.

I suppose that concept is a bit far right wing for you?

On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 04:29:23 +1100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 12/10/2022 15:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <ti46rp$14vka$4@dont-email.me>,
>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Hence why I favour a national income, for those resident in the UK
>>>>> for
>>>>> say 10-20 years.
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit left wing for you, Fred?
>>
>>> I don't see how it is left-wing.
>>
>>> I despise means testing and prefer simplification of taxes. I see no
>>> reason why someone, specifically through laziness, gets something I
>>> don't, claims benefits and then still feels they can call me and others
>>> like me 'lazy'.
>> You think if there was a national income for all, the lazy would
>> suddenly
>> become hard working?

> Most people do work hard.

Easy to claim.

> They work a lot harder if they retain the cash they earn.

Easy to claim.

> I suppose that concept is a bit far right wing for you?

Buy 7 Gram Golden Teacher Shroom Chocolate BarGolden Teacher Vegan Shroom BarsStrain: Golden TeacherStrength: 7 GramsDark Chocolate | Myco Mocha | Hazelnut Crunch
https://psychedelicshome.live/product/golden-teacher-shroom-chocolate/#gsc.tab=0

Our delicious, rare 7 gram Golden Teacher magic mushroom chocolate bars will make you feel as spacy as they look!

The main product photo is of our delicious Hazelnut Crunch bars.

These 7 gram Golden Teacher shroom bars are made in small batches to ensure freshness and are made of high quality Golden Teacher magic mushrooms before being packaged and shipped discreetly to all of Canada.

We grow our own mushrooms, make our own bars & pack and ship them ourselves, with love and well intentions.

https://psychedelicshome.live/product/golden-teacher-shroom-chocolate/#gsc.tab=0

These bars are possibly the biggest shroom bars you can buy anywhere and are not meant for one person, at least not in a single sitting (unless you are very experienced).

These big shroom bars are perfect for splitting with a friend.

Since our edibles contain dried mushrooms that are busted up, they hit you quicker than eating regular dried mushrooms. We recommend testing the waters before using our dosing chart and working your way up to a high dose.

https://psychedelicshome.live/product/groovy-dancing-bear-blotter/#gsc.tab=0

Our vegan chocolate shroom bars are a great way to enjoy the effects of mushrooms without the dry mushroom taste, which is one of the reasons they are so popular.

Our edibles are best served cold (in our opinion) so throw them in the fridge for a bit before you eat em!

Where Can You Buy Golden Teacher Shroom Chocolate Bar
https://psychedelicshome.live/product/pure-dimethyltryptamine/
https://psychedelicshome.live/product/genius-brain-shroom/
https://psychedelicshome.live/product/thc-vape-cartridge/
https://psychedelicshome.live/product/lsd-edible-100ug-fuzzy-peach/
https://psychedelicshome.live/product/zen-anxiety-shroom-microdose/

https://psychedelicshome.live/product/cbd-shroom-microdose/
https://psychedelicshome.live/product/gummy-bear/
https://psychedelicshome.live/product/lsd-edible-100ug-sour-mint-gummy/
https://psychedelicshome.live/product/limitless-shroom-microdose/

In message <4sidnWSEEJybLNv-nZ2dnZeNn_fNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Colin
Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes

>
>For all the effect my votes have ever had on the party in power, I
>might as well have been voting for The Official Monster Raving Loony
>Party.
>
I would have thought that the Let's Have A Party Party would be a better
choice.
>
>

--
Ian

In article <ti9hb1$1r616$2@dont-email.me>,
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 15:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <ti69gs$1g92q$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> While you might blame the government, there is some culpability in those
> >> voting it in. It's a shame that Labour sat so indecisively on the fence
> >> when it came to Brexit. Things may be very different, hell even Corbyn
> >> could now have been PM!
> >
> > Brexit was unusual in that support and opposition to it did not follow the
> > normal party lines. Which, of course, the 'red wall' proved.

> Labour voters supporting leave was far more than just the red wall:
> https://ukandeu.ac.uk/labour-voters-and-the-brexit-conundrum/

> "68% of 2017 Labour voters had voted Leave in the referendum".

It wasn't just the Tories who were conned by the media.

> If only Corbyn and Labour MPs had listened.

Corbyn was no lover of the EU.

--
*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <ti9hl6$1r616$3@dont-email.me>,
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <ti46b5$14vka$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
> >>> There is also a shortage of those willing to do some types of job.
> >>> Things like hospitality and care homes. Many NHS jobs. Previously done
> >>> by those horrid sponging EU workers who came here to live off the fat
> >>> of the land. In Farage speak.
> >
> >> Yes, normally at minimum wage, something you would no doubt endorse.
> >
> >> Most capitalists like a low wage economy, I never took you for one, but
> >> hey.
> >
> > So legislate for a decent minimum wage.

> There already is one.

I'll ask you, then. Could you live happily on it?

> > Or even bring unions back into
> > favour. But neither of those suits a decent Tory.

> If you like a 3 day week then I can see why you might suggest this.

> > Most would consider Henry Ford a capitalist. Remember what he thought
> > about wages for his employees?

> Yes, he had to pay in excess of the market rate to retain them, such
> demonstrates how boring the job was and the awful conditions they worked
> in.

> Minor factoid, in 1913 Henry Ford hired more than 52,000 men to maintain
> a workforce of only 14,000.

He basically worked out he could sell more product if the workers he
employed could afford it.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <ti9htj$1r616$4@dont-email.me>,
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 15:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <ti46rp$14vka$4@dont-email.me>,
> > Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Hence why I favour a national income, for those resident in the UK for
> >>>> say 10-20 years.
> >>>
> >>> That's a bit left wing for you, Fred?
> >
> >> I don't see how it is left-wing.
> >
> >> I despise means testing and prefer simplification of taxes. I see no
> >> reason why someone, specifically through laziness, gets something I
> >> don't, claims benefits and then still feels they can call me and others
> >> like me 'lazy'.
> >
> > You think if there was a national income for all, the lazy would suddenly
> > become hard working?

> Most people do work hard. They work a lot harder if they retain the cash
> they earn.

It has been a long time since earning more didn't result in more take home
pay. With the possible exemption of some benefits.

But good to know you like the Truss approach. Cut taxes and borrow to pay
for that. Arfur Daly economics to all but a good Tory.

> I suppose that concept is a bit far right wing for you?

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/10/2022 16:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ti9hb1$1r616$2@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 15:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <ti69gs$1g92q$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While you might blame the government, there is some culpability in those
>>>> voting it in. It's a shame that Labour sat so indecisively on the fence
>>>> when it came to Brexit. Things may be very different, hell even Corbyn
>>>> could now have been PM!
>>>
>>> Brexit was unusual in that support and opposition to it did not follow the
>>> normal party lines. Which, of course, the 'red wall' proved.
>
>> Labour voters supporting leave was far more than just the red wall:
>> https://ukandeu.ac.uk/labour-voters-and-the-brexit-conundrum/
>
>> "68% of 2017 Labour voters had voted Leave in the referendum".
>
> It wasn't just the Tories who were conned by the media.

There was no con. Every time you say 'we' were conned you come across as
a fanatic. BTW I was not conned, there is no need to suggest I was, or
indeed anyone else who voted 'Yes'.

>> If only Corbyn and Labour MPs had listened.
>
> Corbyn was no lover of the EU.

Quite, just about the only candidate with the right credentials.

On 14/10/2022 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ti9hl6$1r616$3@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <ti46b5$14vka$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>> There is also a shortage of those willing to do some types of job.
>>>>> Things like hospitality and care homes. Many NHS jobs. Previously done
>>>>> by those horrid sponging EU workers who came here to live off the fat
>>>>> of the land. In Farage speak.
>>>
>>>> Yes, normally at minimum wage, something you would no doubt endorse.
>>>
>>>> Most capitalists like a low wage economy, I never took you for one, but
>>>> hey.
>>>
>>> So legislate for a decent minimum wage.
>
>> There already is one.
>
> I'll ask you, then. Could you live happily on it?

For a few years I lived on far less. I can't think of anyone who would
rather less money.

>>> Or even bring unions back into
>>> favour. But neither of those suits a decent Tory.
>
>> If you like a 3 day week then I can see why you might suggest this.
>
>>> Most would consider Henry Ford a capitalist. Remember what he thought
>>> about wages for his employees?
>
>> Yes, he had to pay in excess of the market rate to retain them, such
>> demonstrates how boring the job was and the awful conditions they worked
>> in.
>
>> Minor factoid, in 1913 Henry Ford hired more than 52,000 men to maintain
>> a workforce of only 14,000.
>
> He basically worked out he could sell more product if the workers he
> employed could afford it.

A myth spread by socialists.

On 14/10/2022 16:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ti9htj$1r616$4@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 15:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <ti46rp$14vka$4@dont-email.me>,
>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Hence why I favour a national income, for those resident in the UK for
>>>>>> say 10-20 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a bit left wing for you, Fred?
>>>
>>>> I don't see how it is left-wing.
>>>
>>>> I despise means testing and prefer simplification of taxes. I see no
>>>> reason why someone, specifically through laziness, gets something I
>>>> don't, claims benefits and then still feels they can call me and others
>>>> like me 'lazy'.
>>>
>>> You think if there was a national income for all, the lazy would suddenly
>>> become hard working?
>
>> Most people do work hard. They work a lot harder if they retain the cash
>> they earn.
>
> It has been a long time since earning more didn't result in more take home
> pay. With the possible exemption of some benefits.

You've been told independently that there benefits that add up to make
an effective tax close to or in excess of 90%. Have you forgotten those
posts or continue to feign ignorance, or are simply ignorant. Let us
know which you choose.

> But good to know you like the Truss approach. Cut taxes and borrow to pay
> for that. Arfur Daly economics to all but a good Tory.

In true fanatical remoaner style, you believe you know how everyone else
thinks. Once again you show your stupidity and utter ignorance of the
simple fact I don't support Liz Truss and her policies.

>> I suppose that concept is a bit far right wing for you?

Quite.

On 14/10/2022 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ti9hl6$1r616$3@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <ti46b5$14vka$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>> There is also a shortage of those willing to do some types of job.
>>>>> Things like hospitality and care homes. Many NHS jobs. Previously done
>>>>> by those horrid sponging EU workers who came here to live off the fat
>>>>> of the land. In Farage speak.
>>>
>>>> Yes, normally at minimum wage, something you would no doubt endorse.
>>>
>>>> Most capitalists like a low wage economy, I never took you for one, but
>>>> hey.
>>>
>>> So legislate for a decent minimum wage.
>
>> There already is one.
>
> I'll ask you, then. Could you live happily on it?

It's quite feasible if you can work a 40 hour week (FSVO "happily"). Not
if you are on a zero hours contract and your employer only wants you for
30 hours a week.

--
Max Demian

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 02:07:24 +1100, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <ti9hl6$1r616$3@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 15:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> > In article <ti46b5$14vka$1@dont-email.me>,
>> > Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> >>> There is also a shortage of those willing to do some types of job.
>> >>> Things like hospitality and care homes. Many NHS jobs. Previously
>> done
>> >>> by those horrid sponging EU workers who came here to live off the
>> fat
>> >>> of the land. In Farage speak.
>> >
>> >> Yes, normally at minimum wage, something you would no doubt endorse.
>> >
>> >> Most capitalists like a low wage economy, I never took you for one,
>> but
>> >> hey.
>> >
>> > So legislate for a decent minimum wage.
>
>> There already is one.
>
> I'll ask you, then. Could you live happily on it?
>
>> > Or even bring unions back into
>> > favour. But neither of those suits a decent Tory.
>
>> If you like a 3 day week then I can see why you might suggest this.
>
>> > Most would consider Henry Ford a capitalist. Remember what he thought
>> > about wages for his employees?
>
>> Yes, he had to pay in excess of the market rate to retain them, such
>> demonstrates how boring the job was and the awful conditions they worked
>> in.
>
>> Minor factoid, in 1913 Henry Ford hired more than 52,000 men to maintain
>> a workforce of only 14,000.
>
> He basically worked out he could sell more product if the workers he
> employed could afford it.

But the number of his employees was always tiny subset of the entire
country
and it is far from clear how many of his employees could afford one of his
cars
even when being paid his higher than usual wages.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 02:12:16 +1100, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <ti9htj$1r616$4@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2022 15:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> > In article <ti46rp$14vka$4@dont-email.me>,
>> > Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> >>>> Hence why I favour a national income, for those resident in the UK
>> for
>> >>>> say 10-20 years.
>> >>>
>> >>> That's a bit left wing for you, Fred?
>> >
>> >> I don't see how it is left-wing.
>> >
>> >> I despise means testing and prefer simplification of taxes. I see no
>> >> reason why someone, specifically through laziness, gets something I
>> >> don't, claims benefits and then still feels they can call me and
>> others
>> >> like me 'lazy'.
>> >
>> > You think if there was a national income for all, the lazy would
>> suddenly
>> > become hard working?
>
>> Most people do work hard. They work a lot harder if they retain the cash
>> they earn.
>
> It has been a long time since earning more didn't result in more take
> home
> pay. With the possible exemption of some benefits.
>
> But good to know you like the Truss approach. Cut taxes and borrow to pay
> for that. Arfur Daly economics to all but a good Tory.

That's not what it is about. The claim is that reducing taxes would
boost the economy and so end with more tax collected at the lower
tax rate. That claim is certainly arguable, but it is nothing like your
claim.

>> I suppose that concept is a bit far right wing for you?

In article <tibus6$25p0l$2@dont-email.me>,
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
> There was no con. Every time you say 'we' were conned you come across as
> a fanatic. BTW I was not conned, there is no need to suggest I was, or
> indeed anyone else who voted 'Yes'.

Perhaps you tell us of all the brexit benefits we were promised that came
true, then?

All the extra money for the NHS?

The marvellous trade deals we'd get with the US, etc?

That the EU would give in to us as they needed us more than we needed them
and give us a perfect (for us) trade only deal?

That removing EU restrictions would allow our economy to flourish?

Oddly, that nice Mr Rees-Mogg - given the job of informing us of just how
wonderful it was - seems only to have come up with things like sign posts
in tunnels.

But at least you've got your sovereignty back. And can now elect just who
you want to run the country. Given enough time.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <tibv3t$25p0l$3@dont-email.me>,
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
> >>> So legislate for a decent minimum wage.
> >
> >> There already is one.
> >
> > I'll ask you, then. Could you live happily on it?

> For a few years I lived on far less.

You lived on less than the minimum wage in force at that time?

I take it you were a paper boy while at school? ;-)

> I can't think of anyone who would
> rather less money.

--
*I have never hated a man enough to give his diamonds back.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 01:29:23 +1100, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <tibus6$25p0l$2@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> There was no con. Every time you say 'we' were conned you come across as
>> a fanatic. BTW I was not conned, there is no need to suggest I was, or
>> indeed anyone else who voted 'Yes'.

> Perhaps you tell us of all the brexit benefits we were promised that came
> true, then?

No one who was ever in any position to deliver anything ever promised
anything.

On 15/10/2022 in message <5a37cde24fdave@davenoise.co.uk> Dave Plowman
(News) wrote:

>>There was no con. Every time you say 'we' were conned you come across as
>>a fanatic. BTW I was not conned, there is no need to suggest I was, or
>>indeed anyone else who voted 'Yes'.
>
>Perhaps you tell us of all the brexit benefits we were promised that came
>true, then?

Only a moron believes promises made by politicians. People who voted to
leave aren't sheep, they made their own decisions as they were perfectly
entitled to do.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

On 15/10/2022 15:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <tibus6$25p0l$2@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> There was no con. Every time you say 'we' were conned you come across as
>> a fanatic. BTW I was not conned, there is no need to suggest I was, or
>> indeed anyone else who voted 'Yes'.
>
> Perhaps you tell us of all the brexit benefits we were promised that came
> true, then?

If you were working, you might have found your skill in greater demand
and seen an uplift in pay like I have.
>
> All the extra money for the NHS?

The extra money going to the NHS is now well in excess of £350million a
week.

> The marvellous trade deals we'd get with the US, etc?

That was never going to happen, in much the same way were weren't going
to see Armageddon or economic meltdown, well at least until Liz came
onto the scene.

> That the EU would give in to us as they needed us more than we needed them
> and give us a perfect (for us) trade only deal?

Ha ha, you believed that? What a fool. It was anticipated that the EU
would punish us for leaving, so I have no idea where you get that from.
Farage himself, no doubt.

> That removing EU restrictions would allow our economy to flourish?

Given the trade was to the EU's advantage I don't see the issue. And
since the GBP dropped by 10% Cor so, it did see exporting to the ROTW
increase.

> Oddly, that nice Mr Rees-Mogg - given the job of informing us of just how
> wonderful it was - seems only to have come up with things like sign posts
> in tunnels.

It is, you should get out more. Perhaps try working?

> But at least you've got your sovereignty back. And can now elect just who
> you want to run the country. Given enough time.

You've hit the nail on the head, well done.

On 15/10/2022 15:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <tibv3t$25p0l$3@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>> So legislate for a decent minimum wage.
>>>
>>>> There already is one.
>>>
>>> I'll ask you, then. Could you live happily on it?
>
>> For a few years I lived on far less.
>
> You lived on less than the minimum wage in force at that time?

Yes, I was looking after family.

> I take it you were a paper boy while at school? ;-)

I was thank you, but that really has nothing to do with living off
benefits, does it?

>> I can't think of anyone who would
>> rather less money.
>

In message <5a37cde24fdave@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <tibus6$25p0l$2@dont-email.me>,
> Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>> There was no con. Every time you say 'we' were conned you come across as
>> a fanatic. BTW I was not conned, there is no need to suggest I was, or
>> indeed anyone else who voted 'Yes'.
>
>Perhaps you tell us of all the brexit benefits we were promised that came
>true, then?
>
>All the extra money for the NHS?
>
>The marvellous trade deals we'd get with the US, etc?

Well.......
We've actually just got a deal to sell lamb to the US. From what this
morning's Radio 4 farming programme said, they haven't bought any from
us for 20 years. This will go some way to compensate for the drop of
exports to the EU (15%?). [It appears that Americans don't like lamb
very much - especially after their experiences with our tinned mutton
during WW2.]

But of course, while we're exporting lamb to the USA, we'll be replacing
that which we've lost by import lamb from New Zealand. It all sounds
like an essentially manufactured trade, and some UK farmers are not
amused.
>
>That the EU would give in to us as they needed us more than we needed them
>and give us a perfect (for us) trade only deal?
>
>That removing EU restrictions would allow our economy to flourish?
>
>Oddly, that nice Mr Rees-Mogg - given the job of informing us of just how
>wonderful it was - seems only to have come up with things like sign posts
>in tunnels.
>
>But at least you've got your sovereignty back. And can now elect just who
>you want to run the country. Given enough time.
>
Rule Britannia and God Save the King!
--
Ian

On 11/10/2022 08:40, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> For the whining moaners in here who keep whingeing about Brexit, BBC
> article confirming unemployment is at its lowest rate for 50 years:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63204333
>
> We need to start reducing benefits now, there is no need for them except
> for the sick.
>

Yup, lets start with public service final salary pensions,
including armed forces ones.