'Bye then.

Well done for catching the quote before it was edited



Tells you everything you need to know about the persona behind the log-in, absolutely no need to try and engage it in any sensible dialogue from now on.

What level?? You obviously don't know anything. You told me I was driving around in a flash 30k car that I just wanted to show off - you were wrong and other posters on here put you right. You didn't even have the decency to apologise to me or admit you were wrong.

You know nothing of my circumstances only what I have told you. No chip on my shoulder, but I'm laughing at yours.

If you'd ever read any of the drivel he spouts over on the Wigan board during his frequent rants about the Salary Cap you wouldn't have bothered in the first place. Oddly enough he gets his backside handed to him regularly on there as well.

I told YOU that you were driving around in a flash car? I said that YOU wanted to show off?

Check my posts, find where I said that you PERSONALLY did and you will get a full apology.

Now I really must go back to work, in order to earn money to pay taxes and [ukeep you and your husband in benefits/salary[/u.

Sadly this is what happens in Conservative Britain.

I expect you are paying 50% on your earnings as well because thats what George Osborne wants. The hard working pay tax so that we can afford the bill of social failure.

As for where your money is being spent under the Tory government keep a close eye on the social welfare bill because thats on an upward trajectory compared to what it was under Labour.

But don't worry because the police and the armed forces are being cut so the taxpayer gets a break there. Law and order isn't a priority any more and who needs defence when we can enter joint security initiatives with La France.

What sort of people would that be then?



Again who's the "you" you are referring to, would that be me or all disabled people?



Again "a nicer car"??


Need I continue? No wonder you shut up after everyone including me corrected you. Not just me you owe an apology to but all the other disabled people on the motability scheme you've offended and accused them of being fraudulent.

Yes, of course I am.
The vast majority of the debt is the result of propping up the banks. (We don't know what Osborne would have done , he poo-poohed it at the time but has remaind silent ever since on what he would have done instead).
The debt before the banking crisis was at a level that the Major administration was fairly sanguine about, so they (i.e. the Conservatives) and you can't, with any credibility, criticise that level of debt.
Cameron likens it to a maxed-out credit card, which shows how much he knows about economics ... it's more like a mortgage, and his predecessors have been pretty keen for everyone to have a mortgage (selling off council houses etc).
UK 30 year sovereign debt is currently selling at just over 3% yield, now is the exact time to borrow more (yes, more) for capital projects, which get people into work and consequently release spending into GDP, which in turn creates more employment.
i.e. Growth is the way out of the crisis, austerity isn't working, not here, not anywhere.

As for the deficit, some cutting was required to balance it, but cutting so deep and so fast (as I have been saying on this board since before the last election) will strangle growth in its cot ... and it is doing so.

And so to the bottom line ... i.e. Why are the tories doing this?
They are using the crisis (that was created by their friends in the City) as a smokescreen whilst they set about the completion of their unfinished business that was begun by the madwoman herself ... viz. the wholesale destruction of the post-war settlement (look it up). They can't fully destroy it, the electorate won't let them, but the tories won't be truly happy while there is a benefit or social service remaining.

Your use of the word "forced" is incorrect.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.htmlTories vow to match Labour spending.[/url

If what you say is true, shouldn't the Tories have been decrying Labour's spending plans and urging them to put money aside for a rainy day?

... and because of the recession caused by the financial crisis, leaving lower tax revenues and higher spending on benefits that were needed because of increasing unemployment.

Do they say 'ha ha' a lot on the 'proper debating forums'?

That was from 2007 as well.

In 2007 the Conservatives approved of Labour's spending so much they wanted to match it.

Why did Osborne not say in 2007 that Labour were spending too much and leading the country into oblivion?

{{s}} I know I shouldn't, but

My point entirely. It's easy for them to sit there and blame Labour for the mess we're in, but if they'd been in power just before the global crash we'd have been in exactly the same position.

[url=http://images.wikia.com/simpsons/images/4/40/Picture0003.jpgWell indeed.[/url

It starts getting a less justifiable rule: that the pay given to someone who comes in for a couple of hours a day to empty the bins, or deliver sarnies, dictates what can be paid to the top of the organisition.

No less justifiable than offshoring or contracting out to avoid simple transparency.

As for bonuses, all business should follow the John Lewis model, an agreed percentage of salary. So if they want to pay the CEO 150% of his salary as a bonus, let them pay the cleaner 150% of his salary too

Well it now seems in his rush to blame the Labour government for everything that Nick Clegg is telling outright lies. Either that or he is incompetent. From here [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/27/anger-grows-rbs-chiefs-bonushere[/url

Clegg put the blame for the government's inability to stop the payout on the previous Labour administration.

He said: "The chancellor and the Treasury have explained the frustrating realities about all of this – which is that if we ripped up the contracts which the Labour government had signed with them, or changed the arrangements of these arms-length taxpayers bodies that manage our stake in the banks, we probably, as taxpayers, would have ended up paying even more money."

No 10 has said its hands were tied on the bonus because of previous contractual arrangements drawn up under the Labour government.

However, this argument appeared to be undermined by the intervention of Lord Myners, the former financial services minister, who negotiated the RBS deal.

Earlier on Friday, he said: "There is nothing in the employment contract of Stephen Hester or any director of Royal Bank of Scotland which binds the company or its remuneration committee to pay a mandatory bonus.

"All matters relating to bonuses are at the full discretion of the board of directors and the shareholders, including UKFI, who have elected them."

Precisely as reported in The Independent, quoted on the very first post on this thread.

I wonder if Clegg's related to XBrettKennyX?

Not really. Offshoring and outsourcing have much more justification than the idea of tying an exec compensation plan to the pay of a subcontracted bin collector.



Would the cleaner be prepared to put (e.g.) 80% of their compensation package at risk, taking home only 20% of it through the year and having the rest depend on how well they did their job over the year?

Different roles need compensating in different ways. For me, around half of my compensation is at risk and entirely dependant on the results I bring in. For someone higher, perhaps more should be at risk. For someone doing something pretty basic where excelling or screwing it up isn't going to affect the business much, then it makes sense to guarantee a greater proportion of payment and risk less of it.

I'm firmly of the opinion that people should be paid a good salary, whatever that may be, and any bonuses/commission etc should be exactly that. A thank you for doing a job well, not an encouragement to play the system.

Fair enough. Personally I'm firmly of the opinion that people should be compensated through a plan that allows significant variance according to the results they deliver.

I had a similar conversation with my boss in the US a couple of years ago regarding salary. Not surprisingly at the end of 2008 we started to have trouble hitting the quarterly sales target ("we" mean the team outside the US), that had a severe impact on what I was being paid. When that happens you suddenly start to wonder why you haven't had any pay rise in 3+ years.
Basically the guy who owns the company wants to incentivise people by making a significant amount of what we earn commission based. If we all had regular pay rises and increased salaries then the bonus scheme would be less generous.

I guess in summary our "bonus" scheme is realtively fictional at the moment and depends on what sales targets the management set and how our industry is affected locally (Pfizer this year closing for example cost one guy all his bonus as it was close to a million dollars worth of his quota). On the other hand I don't have too many issues with the way our pay is set up, it does make things interesting and in a lot of ways it's more fun that way. I wouldn't change it, I've had a flat salary and I wouldn't go back to that (unless it was a really, really big one).
The one main issue that I have with varying salary too much based on performance is that if you apply that too widely you have a lot of people who simply don't know how much money is coming in at the end of every month. That makes it near impossible to manage a monthly budget, mortgage etc. for those who don't earn quite so much.

Jeezus

Next time I am on here remind me to use "one" instead of the more widely used "you"

ONE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO GET A 30K CAR ON MOBILITY.

What sort of people would that be? FRAUDS that's the type of people. Which bit don't you get?

They do actually.