Johnny Bognor

There was only one elected MP (John Redwood) on Question Time last night. In the week of the Queen's speech where the coalition's legislative programme was put forward, Labour did not have the bottle to place an MP on the panel. Instead we got a spin doctor (Alis-dire ****bell) who even had the cheek to rib the Lib Dems about the fact that their man didn't turn up. ****ing yellow bellied bottlers

I can see where you're coming from and why you are pointing this out. As the statement stands, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments, but this isn't the whole picture. Often the calculation of wealth is based on the shareholdings of their companies. Bill Gates was reputed to be worth 80 billion, however it does not mean he earns this. As it happens in 2006, he earned $900,000 which in todays money comes to £600,000 per year, so the richest billionaire in the world earned the magic £600k quoted in your post. Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple earns $1 per year in salary, yet his wealth is estimated to be $5.5 billion. Billionaires are less likely to pay income tax as they are less likely to earn their money through salary unlike the rest of us mere mortals. Most of their 'income' will be in the form of dividends, disposal of assets (selling shares) and the like. Richard Branson used to borrow money from people to buy a cup of tea as he never had any cash on him and he was worth £4 billion back then. Therefore you have to look at their total tax contribution, such as capital gains tax and corporation tax on their companies (the values of which are used to calculate their wealth) to get a clearer picture. As I've suggested before, I think as big an issue is where this wealth is locked up. I would like to see their wealth put to use to benefit us all. The billionaires should be encouraged to invest this wealth in UK business and industry which would do much more for everyone as a whole. It would create more jobs, more wealth for the country and potentially more wealth for them too. It is a win win situation for me and would be more preferable to taxing them until the pips squeek. Estimated number of jobs created by benefits cheats = 0 Estimated number of jobs created by billionaires = 100,000's According to Forbes who analyse the Grant Thornton figures, the 'loss' in income tax from the 'tax cheats' is £1bn..... http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/07/britain-billionaires-mittal-ent_cx_pm_1207ukbillies.html

Assets weren't bought with the £200bn, it was just pumped into the economy via the banks. I guess if this stimulates profits at the banks and their customers (assuming they chose to lend it on), then the govt would get some of it via taxation. I guess if any of it was pumped into NR, RBS etc, then this would make these assets more valuable.

No most of it is done by issuing Gilts/bonds. They sell you a bond and promise to pay you back with interest. With regards to the £200bn for providing liquidity to the banks, they simply created the money and injected it into the banks (which is akin to printing more bank notes).

I agree. A two week Carribean Cruise should do the trick (paid for by the taxpayer of course) where she can learn how to use a bottle of Ambre Solaire.

I think it would be quite funny watching you say to your class: "Today's lesson on WWII is brought to you by The History Channel". Blah, blah, blah, blah "Right kids, get yourself off to the McDonalds canteen, where todays lunch is sponsored by Dairylea"

If I was you, I would try to drag the conversation off topic on to hospital car park charges or ward cleaning contracts, hoping that no-one would notice But I'm not you. I am also not Dave, so I can't help I'm afraid.

It can be done. Gordon managed to pump a cool £200,000,000,000 into the banks without raising it. He needed some dosh, so cranked up the printing presses. I guess there was a low yield on the socialist magic money tree.

... and Tony Woodley is very Hayling Utd FC (being further down in the leagues than Bognor )

No, your analogy is too simplistic. With £200bn of quantative easing (that's printing new money to you and me) which was provided in liquidity support, there is another £200bn that didn't really get spent....it was created out of thin air and given to the banks. No, it doesn't work like that, because the actual spending figure was quite small. The actual figures are as follows: £76bn To purchase shares in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group (Money spent) £200bn Indemnify Bank of England against losses incurred in providing over £200bn of liquidity support (money 'created' out of thin air) £250bn Guarantee wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity in the banking system (Just a guarantee) £40bn Provide loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Scheme (Loans will be paid back) £280bn Agree in principle to provide insurance for selection of bank assets (An agreement in principle, not even a guarantee). How much of this was actually spent and added to National debt? About £76bn, of which the asset value is far greater. You could argue that the net effect of the bail out was that no money was spent at all. A simple analogy would be like me saying that I'll agree in principle to lend you £500,000 next year and then complaining that I've spent £500k on Fuengirola and he hasn't even said thank you.... ungrateful bastard. They had no choice. The tories "opposed" it, but in power they would have had no choice. At the end of the day, trying to reverse engineer money that wasn't spent off of the National debt does not disguise or hide the fact that we were up to our necks to the tune of £500bn before the credit crunch. We are now approaching £1000bn (some of this down to Labour, some the bailout and some the recession), so new Labour ARE just as culpable as the bankers for the mess we are in. IMO it was both Labour and the Bankers fault...tossers the lot of em. To believe it was just the bankers is either naive or idiotic.

Most normal rational people do not have a problem with paying tax. However, most normal rational people do not want to see their taxes wasted and want to see that the money is well spent. Since Brown adopted Ken Clarke's spending plans for the first two years of his reign as chancellor, he can take some of the credit. As you say, any new government can do what it wants and the new Labour government copied Ken.

The total government bailout was £850 billion of which £250 billion was in bank guarantees - money not actually spent, just guaranteed. £87 billion was in acquiring shares, in which the assets are now worth far more than the amount paid for the shares. Large chunks were also loans, which have to be repaid, so the headline figure is much less than you are quoting. Say I guarantee your mortgage for you, although it is a commitment, I only have to pay out if you default. Therefore the spending 'claim' is inaccurate. If those banks who have been lent money do not default, then it won't be spent.

When did I call you scum? OK, ICT, Science and Modern Languages can be added in (I typed my original response in haste). Home Economics, photography and sports science can be kicked into touch. It's all about priorities and educating people properly, rather than brain washing them, will offer them better prospects, which will ultimately lead to better cohesion in society. Bingo! You're learning TLS. Any course that can add value to UK PLC gets subsidised otherwise it is penalised. We need to create an economy of engineers, inventors and entrepreneurs, not a nation of unemployed media studies and sports science graduates. Perhaps the corporates can be offered tax breaks if they fund key/core courses. At the end of the day, to make this country great we need people educated in the right areas, otherwise it is education for education's sake (Great in principle, but doesn't get us out of the ****).

Well considering national debt was £500 billion before the credit crunch and it is now £900 billion, less is down to the credit crunch than it is down to G Brown. Does that answer your question?

... as long as English and Maths are protected, the future of our economy will be secure. If it means that leftie-multicultural-brainwashing activities like school visits to mosques are axed, so be it. As for higher education, there is massive imbalance where the higher education system needs to re-focus on the needs of the economy rather than the pipe dreams of the student. Someone with a degree in outer mongolian jazz in the 12 century is no good to anyone. I've dealt with that already. See a few posts above. I don't have a problem with the public sector in that a good public sector is good for everyone. However, an affordable Public sector is also desirable. A growing private sector will be essential to maintain good public services. My mother was a nurse of 40 years, having to work hard for **** pay, so don't get high and mighty with me. Just take off your green-eyed spectacles / blinkers and acknowledge that I'm right.

It's laughable really. They throw their toys out of the pram over 2x £250 that the children of the future will not get in 18 years time, but are quite happy to saddle these same children of the future with a debt per head of £16,000....... I did not say that the Private sector was better than the Public sector. Just because it creates the wealth to fund the public sector, does not make it better, just necessary. There are certain services that are better provided by the Public sector and I don't have a problem with that, but at the end of the day it all has to be paid for. ....and this is where I have an issue with the views of the left. They are so entrenched in a glut of envy, that they can't see the bigger picture.

Indeed, but they are still funded by the private sector. He who pays the piper and all that..... Nope. I'm not devaluing the public sector, but at the end of the day, the better the private sector, the more we have to spend on public services. Anyone who is 'for' the public sector should also be 'for' the private sector as it is in their interests. However, many on the left don't subscribe to this theory, which in my mind is total lunacy.

Two can play that game... ....... where do you think public sector pay or public sector budgets come from? (This is like the word association thread, where it goes on and on, however with the exception that there will only be one winner)

Jeff Left Taxi, start a thread on it rather than banging on about a cheap bribe. No, repeat ad nauseum... Private sector creates wealth (for redistribution), the Public sector doesn't. Have a strong private sector and the benefits to the poor will be far greater than 2 x £250 vouchers. Simples.

I would suggest a good education and a thriving private sector economy offering job/career opportunities would be far better than £500.

.... and Virgin crew get less than £300 for the same trip / length of stay.

If that is the Union's position, then they are on more dodgy ground than I first thought. One of the big issues seems to be surrounding the reduction in crew. The assumption is that there would be less crew to serve the same number of passengers. This is total ******** as passenger yields have plummeted in the last few years. The crew are actually doing less work now when compared to 3 years ago. Reducing the number of crew, whilst passenger numbers are lower is exactly what is needed. Many flights are only half full at the moment. As for the savings offered by the Union, they have offered savings of £58m...... this is 'pitched' as the total solution, but it does not even make a dent in BA's losses. As for comparative pay, its closest rival (Virgin) pays significantly less than BA do......so what is their point? There isn't much in that document that justifies the strike.

They won't be replaced....one way of cutting the deficit without sacking people.

Like you were concentrating on the letters. Anyway, there's a space after job!!!

Blow Job Do I win a prize???