Posts by LucreLout

Man becomes a homeless drug addict, steals from shop, gets arrested and it's covered in the news.

Should he have the right to be forgotten or should his past affect his life forever?

In my opinion, no. Victims don't choose to be victims and they don't stop being victims just because the offender has had a small slap on the wrist and now wants to move on with their life.

However, in the hypothetical case you give, I'd probably seriously consider hiring the guy. He's obviously had some tough times, and gone on to fight and win some very tough battles. He clearly has a drive to improve himself and will probably reward anyone giving him a chance with dedication and hard work. If he screws up worse than anyone else, you can always fire him - we're talking 4 weeks notice here, not a job for life.

I'll be honest though, I wouldn't hire a rapist or a nonce. There are some lines when crossed that you can't simply step back over, no matter what the Rehab Act may say.

Re: If this goes against Google

a convicted fraudster almost by definition is one of the worst types of sociopath and very few of them feel they deserve whatever punishment was handed out

My experience of criminals indicates they mostly feel like somehow they're the victim; and irony too rich for them to contemplate.

Re: Going back in time to modify history

Can a society really rehabilitate people if in practice, thanks to search engines, they will forever be shunned by employers?

Probably not, but I'm not sure its Google the ex-cons really need worry about. Most large employers consult with verious companies that have their own databases of things there are to know about a job applicant. I've been vetted by a couple of such agencies in the past, though where they obtain their data and what constitutes their dataset I do not know - I do know court records form part of it though, as a case I won against a utility provider cropped up.

Re: surprise!

Do you really ? because its hardly objectification to the same level , and its probably not the same "feminists" you saw previously.

And whats a body shot?

Am I the only poster thinking you should have determines the answer to that question BEFORE deciding its not objectification to the same level?

I happen to agree that it isn't, but that's because I know what a body shot is.

Re: Skills are a limited resource

people who suggest that we should just educate more PHD's probably think the way out of poverty is just to generate some more gold

My main reason for not doing a PhD as part of my career is that the tax system has actively incentivised me to reduce my hours and take benefits other than pay; and I've reached the realistic limits of such finesse. Any significant increase in earnings will go mostly to the tax man rather than me, so what's my incentive?

I'll probably do a PhD when I retire as a hobby, but I can't see the point of doing one while I'm working. I'll have more time to enjoy the process in retirement and there seems limited economic upside in this country.

I'm not suggesting we don't need more PhDs than we have, but we absolutely CAN educate more with simple changes to legislation.

Re: The Jacob Rees Moggs of this worlds wet dream

Just when I think you can't come out with a more idiotic comment than your last one, you surprise me.

really? I'm never suprised at the stupidity and irrationale of your posts. I know the lunacy is coming as soon as I see the poster.

The EU has given us the ECHR in 1953 and the ECtHR in 1959. UK citizens have had to resort to the ECtHR many, many times over the years to force their own government to respect their rights.

So human rights oinly began in 1953? Before that people had no right to life - you could just kill them? Seriously STOP TALKING BOLLOCKS. EU legislation applies only in the EU, so Americans have no human rights? Hows about the Kiwi's or Aussies?

I expect a low quality post from you, nbut now I can't tell if you're trolling, or just genuinely incapable of fact based reasoning.

Re: RE: They predate the EU and will outlive it.

Where news of Theresa Mays repeated attempts to remove the UK from the ECHR are legendary.

FFS. Human rights predate the act of which you speak: They predate the whole EU. Or do you consider that they only exist in Europe and nowhere lese in the world and that they began with that act?

Seriously, get a grip on yourself man. You're letting your fear drive you into paranoia. Its time ot start thinking through your views before posting.

Re: happy Brexiteers, surely ?

Only the UK won't be signing trade deals, it'll be signing its own death warrant.

Are you always so terrified? Do you really go through life bowing and scraping to others because you're driven more by fear than rationale? Wow.

Re: shortage

A nurse at the bottom of band 6 will be a couple of years off paying 9.3% towards their pension. That will get them 1/54th of that years salary, adjusted for inflation. A good pension, but cut the bullshit.

And the open market cost of paying out that 1/54th is 50% of their base, not 9.3% of it. You need to factor in the spousal payouts and inflation protection then go work out how much your pension in payment would cost to aquire in a defined benefit scheme. Then calculate how much of your salary you'd need to pay in to be able to afford that total. You will find it is 50% of base. If you can't follow basic financial calculations then STFU and listen to those of us who do so for a living.

Re: The Jacob Rees Moggs of this worlds wet dream

is a land where you can ship in the expertise you want, treat it like shit because you've stripped human rights away

Yes, because the EU invented human rights when we joined in 1973..... no, wait, you're talking utter utter bollocks. Sorry.

There are a great many legitimate arguments in favour of remaining in the EU, but human rights isn't one of them. They predate the EU and will outlive it.

Would you employ my brother, who left school on the Isle of Sheppey with no qualifications other than how to drink and fight, or a woman from Kyrgyzstan with two MSc degrees in both mathematics and psychology?

That depends mostly on whether I'm looking for a bouncer, or a shrink? Each is useful in their own field and similarly out of depth in eachothers.

Re: happy Brexiteers, surely ?

Then you are even more of an idiot than we first thought! :) Well, your lass does like 'em dumb. Say hi when you see her.

Re: shortage

posting it wasl blatent shock tactics similar to a tabloid newspaper to mention a band 9 nurse salary.

Its an inconsequential amount of nursesl. Yes , i know you hinted at that , but dosent excuse posting it.

If you're going to make things up and clutch at straws while I tear down your argument, please can you clutch at the truth rather than a pack of lies?

I specifically called out that fact most nurses earn no where near the headline figure. I didn't hint at it, I didn't beat about the bush, I outright stated it in the very next sentence after giving the figures.

That you don't like facts only shows you to be incapable of understanding how arguments are supposed to be constructed, and thus the application of reason over emotion. First gather facts, then analyse them, and form an argument based upon them. You can't just ignore facts because they don't say what you want them to say - you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own alternative facts.

Re: shortage

Stop talking bollocks. Who considers a future pension to be a salary? They're two different things.

Not in the real world they aren't. You have to take a portion of your base and pay that over into your pension or you'll have nothing when you retire. The Average nurse will have a pension worth north of £10k per year in payment after a full working career, which would require a pot of more than £250,000 to buy. It's not nothing: that public sector workers pretend that it is doesn't make it so.

Re: happy Brexiteers, surely ?

Since we were told that they weren't in the slightest bit racist, no siree-not us

FFS give this shit a rest already. You ever wonder why grownups think millennials are whinny?

I voted for Brexit and it has nothing to do with immigration or race. My wife is a foreigner, and my ex-girlfriends I will bet pound to a penny are significantly more diverse than yours.

I voted for Brexit because I want the UK to be free to sign its own trade deals - 7 years to do a deal with Canada. Canada FFS. Its not like they're unreasonable people!!

The other reason being that the EU elite are far far too arrogant - the worlds 5th largest economy sends its elected PM to you to negotiate what were, frankly, trivial changes, and you send him home empty handed likee a naughty school boy? No, sorry, that is not acceptable behaviour. There's not one single change on that list the EU wouldn't grant tomorrow if we'd can Brexit as a result - which only further reinforces how shortsighted and inept the EU has become.

rEU needs urgent reform. Brexit will be the trigger for that, then hopefully we can consider joining a saner club with realistic limits on its political ambitions. I'd rather celebrate the differences between the English and the French than try to force homogeny upon them.

Re: shortage

That link only says that someone on pay band 9 would earn over £100k. It doesn't say how many nurses (if any) are actually earning that pay band.

A fact my post made clear in itself.

Re: shortage

Average salary for an NHS nurse is £23k, so the amount of nurses earning £100k is so small as to be inconsequential.

Firstly, which average? Because the average person has less than two legs.

Secondly, £23k plus the pension is really £34.5k, which is a hell of a lot more than the average salary. Then you need to make some economic allowance for the fact that it is a job for life.

The net effect of totalling the benefits works out at substantially more than the national average salary, almost 50% more in fact. Yes, on average nurses work hard, but on average, so does everyone else.

Re: shortage

Your shift is over and its time to go home, but oh, someones suddenly dying. Do you let them or stay on for another few hours to make sure they live knowing you won't get those hours or money back but still need to be in early for your next shift.

That description, bar the dying part, applies equally to a great many professions and employments. In 20+ years of work I have NEVER had a job where I could leave because "its clocking off time". I applaud the professionalism of nurses working late in much the same way as they applaud my working late.

Re: shortage

How much does a nurse earn in the NHS? Peanuts.

Up to a little over £100,000 according to the RCN, and that is basic pay - there's another 50% worth of pension being accrued behind the scenes there too.

Obviously, before anyone replies, the vast majority of nurses earn nothing like that, however, the vast majority earn rather more than peanuts, especially when the cost of the pension gets added into the mix.

Yes, most nurses work hard - most people in most occupations work hard. Lets stop the lionising, before we have to compare what a nurse in a hospital earns to a soldier on the battlefield.

Look at the link provided before assuming what I just said is wrong because it doesn't fit your world view:

https://www.rcn.org.uk/employment-and-pay/nhs-pay-scales-2017-18

You need only to look at the salaries of most STEM workers to know: there is no skills shortage, not enough to trigger supply-and-demand driving up wages.

Which is why the pigs are squealing so loudly, because we're right on the verge of that trigger being pulled in a number of occupations. That in itself is not an actual problem - employers have simply got to get used to the idea that a highly qualified software engineer is worth more to their business than that engineers manager, and rework their payscales.

We shouldn't be entertaining this nonsense unless everyone with a PhD or MSc in their field is already earning a 6 figure salary, then you might be able to demonstrate a shortage. Until then, the shortage is illusory and being pumped up in an attempt to lower the salaries of skilled workers.

Re: Can we have them

That will enable testing of driverless car in only situation they are wanted - saving someone from the dread designated driver role.

I agree, that is the primary use case, however... there are others.

Disabled people who cannot currently drive might enjoy the greater independence self driving cars can bring.

My personal most frequent use case would be to take me to work while napping in the morning, and bring me home again in the evening while I get in a bit of gaming time, or study something, or maybe nap again if it was a 'long lunch'.

Re: I feel you are vindicated as well

In looking back at the email trail, that kind of behaviour screams avoidance for the purposes of not leaving a trail and should strengthen your case.

I too took the approach you suggest, leading to her disputing every point raised and trying to reword everything to have a negative tone where the meeting had none. Continuing to dispute every meeting may have shown disparity of views and a communication problem, but it wasn't nearly enough to be sure of winning at court.

Meanwhile she was poisoning the well, for example querying HR to find out what she could do to stop me "disappearing and working from home for two hours every lunch". The best part is that I could not physically get from the office to my home and back in 2 hours using any currently available mode of transport absent a helicopter. The manager was so delusional that to this day I'm not sure if she genuinely believed what she'd said, or if she was just making trouble behind my back.

Re: I feel you are vindicated as well

So he didn't answer her emails. That in itself is not proof of discrimination.

It's not, but having been discriminated against to the point of choosing to resign, I can well understand why her emails may have gone unanswered. My nightmare boss routinely ducked emails because she didn't want to leave a paper trail, and I couldn't prove whatever she said to me in a mtg room as her response.

There's no paper trail that would show her trying to contructively dismiss me, but the team were in absolutely no doubt that was her game plan. A post employment DPA request was does somewhat back up my assertion, but its far from the smoking gun I would have needed. Rather than subject myself to the misery of HR followed by legal action, I took the easy route and found another job with a better employer. The rest of the team followed suit within 6 weeks.

I regret letting her get away with it, but the damage it would have done to my career and employment prospects simply weren't worth the battle. In situations like this I always remember the advice my dad gave me on my first day at work - don't ever sue or steal from your employer unless you can guarantee to get so much money you never need to work again, because you'll probably never work again.

Re: Conflicted as usual.

I think there might be a reason why housing in Omagh and Luton is inexpensive. If you think carefully, you might be able to work it out for yourself.

Ok, if young first time buyers don't start at the lowest wrung of the property ladder, whom exactly is it you think should live there? It's not a case of "I deserve better than that just for being me" is it?

My first (current) house was in Luton, because that was where I could afford to buy. When I move in a couple of years, my next house won't need to be. Sitting about moaning that life fair isn't help anyone, and it isn't particularly going to make you feel much better either.

While some have sat about moaning for a decade, I've paid off a 6 figure chunk of the mortgage, making better mortgage rates available to me, which has reduced the cost of borrowing, and further increased how much of the mortgage I can clear each month. I'd have preferred to stay in Clapham, but I couldn't afford it. Another house move or two and I possibly could.... but I probably won't want to by then.

Do people really imagine baby boomers just moved into 3 bedroom family homes with all mod cons, or do you think most of them had to buy where they could afford and work their way up to the family home Gen X / Millennials grew up in?

The expectation gap between your parents last house and what should be your first house is where the problem is, rather than with the affordability of the latter.

Re: Conflicted as usual.

I, too, am a Gen X'r. It's our generation the Baby Boomers stole from

And yet, financially, I have done a great deal better than my Baby Boomer parents. Granted, my boomer parents didn't do very well financially....

I have had opportunities that were simply never open to my parents - university twice (yes, debt included), travel, freedom to work in a whole raft of countries, the internet (its never been easier to start a small business to supplement wages). Fortunately I stumbled onto the core ideas of how capitalism works and have been able to play the game marginally more effectively than my folks.

If Millennials are not to blame for their flakey, overly emotional, special snowflake, I want it all on a plate NOW attitudes, then who is? I'm not. My kids are only primary school age but already understand the concept that money comes from going to work and that they can't spend that money twice. Some other countries millennials aren't nearly so emotive and hapless as ours, so what went wrong? Indulging their behaviour and empty headed views about sequestering the wealth of those that produced it will not rectify the problem: indluging spoilt children does not produce beneficial outcomes.

One, only one, of the millennials I work with has managed, by 25, to save for a deposit and buy his first flat. The only thing special about his generation is he has a bit more get up and go about him. His views on the rest of his generation make mine seem all cupcakes and rainbows.

Re: Conflicted as usual.

...and buy a semi-detached house with a garden at 4 times your salary. Oh, wait...

At 12.5% base rates. Its no good looking at the principle and not the interest. The TCO in terms of proportion of household income is largely unchanged - its just that now typically women work too, which is why singles are priced out.

You can buy and run a 3 bed family home in Omagh for less per month than it costs to buy a new iPhone. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/08/cost-of-running-a-home-in-the-uk-now-almost-half-of-all-househol/

Sorry, but I've demonstrated time and again on this forum why housing is affordable even to a minimum wage couple. A family home in Westminster may not be, but a starter home in Luton absolutely is.

Re: Who pays the tax?

due to their current legal, but unethical tax payments

Unethical according to whose ethics? Yours, or mine?

Some people have strong ethical concerns about paying tax because it gets spent on the military. Some people have strong ethical concerns about paying tax because it gets spent on welfare. Some people have strong ethical concerns about paying tax because it gets spent inefficiently.

Sorry, but you simply cannot bring ethics into law without first understanding whose ethical judgement will be given primacy. Your ethical framework is no more valuable to me than mine is to you. Hopefully you see the problem?

Re: Conflicted as usual.

When we get in power, you'd better pray.

Thus neatly illustrating why we urgently need another conventional world war, to reduce the excess of Millenilals.

I'm not a boomer. I'm Gen X. Nobody gave me anything and I took nothing from your generation - my generation has never had and will never have any political power. Yet I have this deep seated fear that I'll get caught up in this Millennial wealth theft that you say will be targetted at the boomers (whether or not such thing could ever be justifiable).

If you want the trappings of success, then firts you need to succeed. If you want the rewards of a lifetimes hard work, then work hard for a lifetime first.

Millennials. Trully a waste of oxygen, generationally speaking.

Re: Conflicted as usual.

There's no choice but to grab old people's wealth, because they are the only ones with any.

Sure there is. You can do what they did to acquire it - work hard over a whole working lifetime, spending less than you earn, and investing the difference in property, shares, or some other such thing.

Simply voting to award yourself what they earned may not feel to you as though it is theft, but that is only because you're receiving the stolen wealth.

Re: Base taxation on inputs and outputs

What we are looking for is not only the elimination of tax avoidance

Then reduce taxes, because there is literally no other way in which you will ever eliminate tax avoidance. Sorry if that fact doesn't fit your world view, but it is your world view that must change, because that fact won't.

Re: EUSSR

Starbucks paid £8.6m on £3bn in sales in the years up to 2015. Now either that's one deeply unprofitable company, or they were lying.

Its the former, not the latter. Now, you may think they are intentionally unprofitable, but as taxes are paid upon profits, it doesn't matter why they are unprofitable.

There should be nothing wrong with a business owner choosing to reinvest all the profits of his enterprise back into the business in order to achieve business growth and thus greater profits. Eventually all such businesses reach a nadir and start making profits - Microsoft, for instance, once reinvested everything in the business but now pays out dividends and taxes on profit.

While I consider the personal abuse directed at you as unsporting, uncivilised, and unneccessary, I would politely and with respect point out that Starbucks undoubtedly have a great many expensive lawyers and your calling them out as liars could have adverse consequences. I hate lawyers, so please adhere to your own sage counsel you provided the other poster.

Re: EUSSR

Taxing *turnover*? Let's remember that many companies have high turnovers and are, as yet, not profitable.

I do wonder what such ideas will do for our tech startup industry, much of which is not remotely profitable for many years, then suddenly very profitable.

Global scale companies like amazon will simply avoid the tax by breaking down their onshore presence into smaller legal entities such that they don't hold a dominant positionin any one market. Amazon-UK-Cd-Sales Ltd, for example. They can also afford to burn through those entities at will, such that legislation targetting them will be moot because they'll have moved on to Amazon-UK-Cd-Sales-2 Ltd, for example.

You can't force a global player to give your country whatever it wants - whatever your personal thoughts on it, global entities have transcended national boundaries and act as such. What you can do, however, is entice them. Less can be more. Reducing corporation tax to a level that makes avoiding it more potential hassle than its worth will see a flood of companies paying their CT here; its a strategy that has worked for decades for every single low tax environment in the world.

Re: You can laugh all you want

or decide on something now that will have an effect on the four largest tax evaders of the planet (and see billions come in immediately as a result).

They can set up new legal entities vastly quicker than politicians can legislate against them. Your premise is flawed, which is why you think it'll raise billions rather than nothing.

Re: I'm not sure that targeting specific companies is the way forward.

given the competitive advantage these companies have over conventional companies that pay full corporation tax

As unpopular as it is, these companies HAVE paid the full corporation tax. CT is due upon profits, not turnover. Yes, they use carefully considered strategies to ensure they make most of their profits in lower tax jurisdictions rather than higher ones, but there's nothing illegal about that.

My local Costa coffee franchise does the same - the entity that makes most of the profit is offshore, while the cafe that does the trading is onshore, buying products and services from the offshore entity.

Re: I'm not sure that targeting specific companies is the way forward.

My take on it is that revenue taxes should be deliberately punitive and painful and applied individually to companies that have taken the piss for a multi year period, following which they can decide if they'd like to pay normal taxes on profits without playing games or if they'd like to keep revenue taxes.

That's the problem though - the companies haven't legally taken the piss, they've quite literally played by the rules and obeyed the law. You may feel it morally wrong that in doing so they have paid so little tax, but that not withstanding, they have paid what was legally due. If the law is to be set based upon moral judgements then we need to first determine who's moral judgements they will be - everyones idea of ethics and morals are different and personal to them.

I'd say tax them at 15% of revenue (or higher) until Her Majesties Revenue & Customs have collected around 120% of what they think was been evaded by that company and then we could start talking about returning to a percentage tax on profits if they promise to be good.

You don't seem to understand the difference between evasion and avoidance. Tax evasion is the process of breaking the law in order to minimise the tax paid, rather than the tax due. Tax avoidance is following the law in order to minimise the tax due and thus the tax paid. It's completely legal.

My concern is not how legislators propose to change the system to catch a few companies that are avoiding more tax than the legislators would like, but of the unintended consequences of passing such law. Today they target Google, Amazon etc, but tomorrow they WILL be targetting your local pub, bacon serving cafe etc with the same taxes. Income tax was brought about to fund the war with France. It just never went away. VAT was never intended to apply to all goods - it was supposed to be a luxury goods tax.

That said, if a business pays tax on turnover and makes a loss, does that imply that they can defray 2% of that loss onto the EU? Currently losses one year are deductible the next, so we need careful thought several steps ahead of where we are now, before launching such a tax. The problem with most tax legislation is the people writing it up assume it will be interpreted the way they wish and they assume companies and individuals will not seek to minimise payments due; neither of which has ever been true.