Cameron for Cash

[monkeybarry]

Mate, it's a sham. My family used to employ over 100 people and we gradually worked it down and ditched the business in particular about 3 years ago. Reason being that having staff is a nightmare. All the older generation were marvellous, I loved working with them every day. The young girls though were a nightmare. Not only were they mostly unreliable, they stole stuff, made bogus injury claims it didn't end. The final insult was a girl that we had brought through to management and helped out a lot personally decided to fudge off up the road without a by or leave.

A few months on and she has lost her job and comes knocking. We take her back and a week later she pulls out "I'm pregnant"... Well fudge me sideways, what a nice girl, she'd begged for her job back in order to get maternity leave, ****.

The company was doing OK, but it was brick like that that made us want to close it down and put the money and time into other businesses that didn't employ. We haven't got anyone to speak of now and I'll be keeping it that way.

as with any system, you will always have tacos like that that "play the system"

you have to have been employed by the same emlpoyer for 26 weeks into the 15th week before the baby is due - so she just played the system.
but we shouldnt put the well being of society and family down just because there are a few people like that

sadly we cant change genetics, so women will always have to give birth - but it is not possible for the majority of people to live and bring a baby into the world on one persons wage in this country, so people need to keep income coming in otherwise they become a burden on the state and the cycle of "beneift scroungers" increases, which the public AND BUSINESS has to pay for, but they wont see the it as a big picture like that.

everyone should contribute to society - and that includes business, as without society the business has no field in which to opperate

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

as with any system, you will always have tacos like that that "play the system"

you have to have been employed by the same emlpoyer for 26 weeks into the 15th week before the baby is due - so she just played the system.
but we shouldnt put the well being of society and family down just because there are a few people like that

sadly we cant change genetics, so women will always have to give birth - but it is not possible for the majority of people to live and bring a baby into the world on one persons wage in this country, so people need to keep income coming in otherwise they become a burden on the state and the cycle of "beneift scroungers" increases, which the public AND BUSINESS has to pay for, but they wont see the it as a big picture like that.

everyone should contribute to society - and that includes business, as without society the business has no field in which to opperate

Er.....Corporation Tax, Employers N.I. (what a fudging joke that is), actually employing people. Businesses DO contribute to society. Indeed more than most individuals.

 

[monkeybarry]

Er.....Corporation Tax, Employers N.I. (what a fudging joke that is), actually employing people. Businesses DO contribute to society. Indeed more than most individuals.

indeed they do - i wasnt suggesting they didn't, they pay for the right to operate within the society in which they operate

explain how emlpoyers NI is a joke and what your alternative solution would be?

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

indeed they do - i wasnt suggesting they didn't, they pay for the right to operate within the society in which they operate

explain how emlpoyers NI is a joke and what your alternative solution would be?

No offence, but what a load of tosh.

You need to be encouraging businesses to hire people, not increasing the cost of employment. A company and its employees are performing a business transaction. That is all it is, and all it should be. The employee should have no perks unless the company wants to offer them. Likewise the employee should have no loyalty to the company and should be paid for the work they do.

It's time to say bye bye to PAYE and time to say hello to everyone contracting instead.

 

[monkeybarry]

No offence, but what a load of tosh.

You need to be encouraging businesses to hire people, not increasing the cost of employment. A company and its employees are performing a business transaction. That is all it is, and all it should be. The employee should have no perks unless the company wants to offer them. Likewise the employee should have no loyalty to the company and should be paid for the work they do.

It's time to say bye bye to PAYE and time to say hello to everyone contracting instead.

really? then why dont they all move to africa where there is a larger workforce and cheaper overheads?

business needs empowered, educated, motivated people just as much as people need to good, solid, realsitic employers

work is a part of life - not the be all and end of life.

we certainly need some parts of our workforce to pull their finger out a little more in this country, but it also shouldnt be to the detrement of society as a whole because that will just create a poor workforce in the now and the future

thus, an employer paying someone for 6 months whilst they have a baby is a positive thing

 

[NW5pur]

No offence, but what a load of tosh.

You need to be encouraging businesses to hire people, not increasing the cost of employment. A company and its employees are performing a business transaction. That is all it is, and all it should be. The employee should have no perks unless the company wants to offer them. Likewise the employee should have no loyalty to the company and should be paid for the work they do.

It's time to say bye bye to PAYE and time to say hello to everyone contracting instead.

I'm afraid business, for whom you seem to have assumed the role of spokesman, doesn't agree with you. talking from personal experience, my firm can and has employed contractors to work on specific specialised projects but they tend to favor a stable workforce who understand the culture, processes, systems etc. of the organisation, that's why the vast majority of employees are on permanent PAYE contracts, that's why I have a 3 month notice period rather than 1 month, that's why i can earn up to an extra ?ú5k if i recommend someone my firm takes on (due to the costs associated with staff churn, training, generally getting up to speed), that's why companies offer a range of benefits to compete in the workforce market and attract the best people, that's why companies invest in training etc. to ensure they have the right skills in their workforce for the long term and provide their staff with a sense of empowerment, belonging and progression. the list could go on and on.... this transient contractor model you seem to recommend is simplistic and narrow minded at best

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I'm afraid business, for whom you seem to have assumed the role of spokesman, doesn't agree with you. talking from personal experience, my firm can and has employed contractors to work on specific specialised projects but they tend to favor a stable workforce who understand the culture, processes, systems etc. of the organisation, that's why the vast majority of employees are on permanent PAYE contracts, that's why I have a 3 month notice period rather than 1 month, that's why i can earn up to an extra ?ú5k if i recommend someone my firm takes on (due to the costs associated with staff churn, training, generally getting up to speed), that's why companies offer a range of benefits to compete in the workforce market and attract the best people, that's why companies invest in training etc. to ensure they have the right skills in their workforce for the long term and provide their staff with a sense of empowerment, belonging and progression. the list could go on and on.... this transient contractor model you seem to recommend is simplistic and narrow minded at best

Interesting that you associate contractor with transient. I never said that A contract could be 12 months, 2 years, 10 years with a 1 month notice period, 6 month notice period etc. Why does an individual managing their own finances and taxation have to equate to someone being transient?

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

really? then why dont they all move to africa where there is a larger workforce and cheaper overheads?

business needs empowered, educated, motivated people just as much as people need to good, solid, realsitic employers

work is a part of life - not the be all and end of life.

we certainly need some parts of our workforce to pull their finger out a little more in this country, but it also shouldnt be to the detrement of society as a whole because that will just create a poor workforce in the now and the future

thus, an employer paying someone for 6 months whilst they have a baby is a positive thing

It's an interesting point you raise. With the UK populace becoming dumber by the day, and most of our brilliant minds either having left the country to desperate to leave the country it may not be long before Africa does over take us. We are second world now as far as I am concerned. It's only happened in the last 15 years so there is time to turn it around. But if we don't turn it around in the next 15 years then by 2050 we may drop from second world to third world and I can see no way back from that for generations.

 

[ArcspacE]

It's an interesting point you raise. With the UK populace becoming dumber by the day, and most of our brilliant minds either having left the country to desperate to leave the country it may not be long before Africa does over take us. We are second world now as far as I am concerned. It's only happened in the last 15 years so there is time to turn it around. But if we don't turn it around in the next 15 years then by 2050 we may drop from second world to third world and I can see no way back from that for generations.

In what aspects do you see England as 'second world'?

 

[scaramanga]

I'm afraid business, for whom you seem to have assumed the role of spokesman, doesn't agree with you. talking from personal experience, my firm can and has employed contractors to work on specific specialised projects but they tend to favor a stable workforce who understand the culture, processes, systems etc. of the organisation, that's why the vast majority of employees are on permanent PAYE contracts, that's why I have a 3 month notice period rather than 1 month, that's why i can earn up to an extra ?ú5k if i recommend someone my firm takes on (due to the costs associated with staff churn, training, generally getting up to speed), that's why companies offer a range of benefits to compete in the workforce market and attract the best people, that's why companies invest in training etc. to ensure they have the right skills in their workforce for the long term and provide their staff with a sense of empowerment, belonging and progression. the list could go on and on.... this transient contractor model you seem to recommend is simplistic and narrow minded at best

I think you've misunderstood a part of MK's post there. He said the following:

The employee should have no perks unless the company wants to offer them

Clearly, your company wants to offer those perks as they create a competitive advantage - so does mine and any other well-run company. There's no reason though why this should be laid down in law - it's not only redundant but also creates those very loopholes that people are exploiting to damage businesses.

The EU (and to some extent, the UK government) is completely incapable of understanding that employees are a commodity and are subject to exactly the same market forces as any other. The employers that offer the most job satisfaction, whether by offering benefits, a large salary or simply enjoyable work will always attract the best employees and will always have a competitive advantage because of it.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

In what aspects do you see England as 'second world'?

Health
Welfare
Education
Safety

There are some nice areas of the country still, but generally we live in a cesspool that's only getting worse. I moved to London a couple of years ago, and I can't get over what a complete dump it is. Most of it (along with most of its inhabitants) really could do with being bulldozed off the white cliffs of dover!

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I think you've misunderstood a part of MK's post there. He said the following:


Clearly, your company wants to offer those perks as they create a competitive advantage - so does mine and any other well-run company. There's no reason though why this should be laid down in law - it's not only redundant but also creates those very loopholes that people are exploiting to damage businesses.

The EU (and to some extent, the UK government) is completely incapable of understanding that employees are a commodity and are subject to exactly the same market forces as any other. The employers that offer the most job satisfaction, whether by offering benefits, a large salary or simply enjoyable work will always attract the best employees and will always have a competitive advantage because of it.

Excellent post and summed up better than what I did.

Employees are not slaves, but nor should they expect companies to do them any favours. It's a business transaction between employee and employer. That's all.

 

[monkeybarry]

I think you've misunderstood a part of MK's post there. He said the following:


Clearly, your company wants to offer those perks as they create a competitive advantage - so does mine and any other well-run company. There's no reason though why this should be laid down in law - it's not only redundant but also creates those very loopholes that people are exploiting to damage businesses.

The EU (and to some extent, the UK government) is completely incapable of understanding that employees are a commodity and are subject to exactly the same market forces as any other. The employers that offer the most job satisfaction, whether by offering benefits, a large salary or simply enjoyable work will always attract the best employees and will always have a competitive advantage because of it.

true, but what happens when that commodity becomes poorer quality due to some of the everyday life factors we have discussed? (maternity etc)

if an employer starts looking for "cheaper, better value" foreigners - you have the problem of the existing citizens that are out of work and therefore a burden to the state, thus creating a larger welfare state and need for greater taxation.

perpetuating the cycle isnt positive, getting the best out of what you have is IMHO

a happy, healthy, skilled/educated workforce is a postive, productive workforce

 

[monkeybarry]

Health
Welfare
Education
Safety

There are some nice areas of the country still, but generally we live in a cesspool that's only getting worse. I moved to London a couple of years ago, and I can't get over what a complete dump it is. Most of it (along with most of its inhabitants) really could do with being bulldozed off the white cliffs of dover!

Health - agree we need a big improvement here. Personally i favour a regulated private system that appropriate and fixed scaling (to make it affordable for ALL). ie bottom premium = adequate healthcare, but maybe with longer lead time of something (something similar to NHS), with quality getting better the more you choose to pay. but the bottom line is, it has to be affordable and with access for all - we dont want to get to a situation where 1 in 5 dont have healthcare, like the US

Education - i think we are in appx the right state for a country of our size. Part of the problem with this countries perception is we think we are "great". We are average and need to realign our thinking.

Welfare - we need a culture change in this country IMHO from "benefits" (ie, your a citizen therefore you are entitled to some kind of benefit) to "welfare" (ie when life throws up the upexpected BS that it does, we are all in this society together and society will help you get back on your feet)

 

[scaramanga]

true, but what happens when that commodity becomes poorer quality due to some of the everyday life factors we have discussed? (maternity etc)

if an employer starts looking for "cheaper, better value" foreigners - you have the problem of the existing citizens that are out of work and therefore a burden to the state, thus creating a larger welfare state and need for greater taxation.

perpetuating the cycle isnt positive, getting the best out of what you have is IMHO

a happy, healthy, skilled/educated workforce is a postive, productive workforce

A decent maternity package would be bundled into those things that people consider when choosing an employer. Earlier in my life I would have taken better pay or a better car and no paternity package as that would have suited me - it probably would have suited my employers too. If I were looking for a job at this stage in my life, a decent paternity pay/time off package would be top of my list.

As for getting in cheaper/better foreign staff, I have absolutely no problem with that, we cannot be insular and put up false borders in the modern world. The problem is the distortion in the market created by paying large amounts of benefits to those who are not working. Without the comfortable living provided by the state, people not working would be more inclined to do what those workers coming to the UK have done - find a better life elsewhere. Workforce migration is not a one way street (unless you're talking language semantics), unfortunately in this country we seem to see it that way.

 

[monkeybarry]

good post

 

[NW5pur]

Interesting that you associate contractor with transient. I never said that A contract could be 12 months, 2 years, 10 years with a 1 month notice period, 6 month notice period etc. Why does an individual managing their own finances and taxation have to equate to someone being transient?

i associate contractors with transience because that's what they are. contractors are staff flexibly employed to perform a specific role for a certain period of time or until completion of an objective. if you employ a contractor for 10 years with a 6 month notice period, are they not essentially just the same as an employee on a normal employment contract?

the only difference I can determine from your post is that employees / contractors would now handle their own tax returns, which would open up a new massive can of worms!

PAYE is a far more efficient and effective tax collection method than self assessment, which currently suffers from about ?ú500m of fraud and error per year, and that's organised criminal fraud and processing error, not people doing a bit of cash in hand etc. (which HMRC are unable to put a figure on), you seriously want to multiple that by having the entire workforce go through self assessment? you'd be looking at a massive negative impact on the exchequers coffers, absolute madness!

 

[NW5pur]

I think you've misunderstood a part of MK's post there. He said the following:


Clearly, your company wants to offer those perks as they create a competitive advantage - so does mine and any other well-run company. There's no reason though why this should be laid down in law - it's not only redundant but also creates those very loopholes that people are exploiting to damage businesses.

The EU (and to some extent, the UK government) is completely incapable of understanding that employees are a commodity and are subject to exactly the same market forces as any other. The employers that offer the most job satisfaction, whether by offering benefits, a large salary or simply enjoyable work will always attract the best employees and will always have a competitive advantage because of it.

i fully understood what Moonlit Knight was saying and was responding specifically to this bit really:

"It's time to say bye bye to PAYE and time to say hello to everyone contracting instead."

the examples of the benefits I receive (which aren't enshrined in law) are an example of how business has a different view of their employees, as you correctly point out, successful businesses see costs associated with their employees as an investment in there business rather than some annoying inconvenience holding them back, because after all, what is a business without it's people?

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

i associate contractors with transience because that's what they are. contractors are staff flexibly employed to perform a specific role for a certain period of time or until completion of an objective. if you employ a contractor for 10 years with a 6 month notice period, are they not essentially just the same as an employee on a normal employment contract?

the only difference I can determine from your post is that employees / contractors would now handle their own tax returns, which would open up a new massive can of worms!

PAYE is a far more efficient and effective tax collection method than self assessment, which currently suffers from about ?ú500m of fraud and error per year, and that's organised criminal fraud and processing error, not people doing a bit of cash in hand etc. (which HMRC are unable to put a figure on), you seriously want to multiple that by having the entire workforce go through self assessment? you'd be looking at a massive negative impact on the exchequers coffers, absolute madness!

You're assuming that we'd keep the same system. I wouldn't. The one man service company needs a complete overhaul to make it easier, and to make money easier to collect and track. The problem is there is so much red tape. Make it simple. Make it fair. Make it clear.

For example, they want to scrap N.I. and merge it into income tax (great idea by the way). Add to that by law you have to have a certain type of bank account to trade under, and 25% of all receipts into that bank account instantly get transferred over to a savings account for taxation purposes. That leaves the company 75% which can cover expenses and salary. If at the end of the year it transpires 25% was too much (comparitive to whatever rate is given) then the person is re-imbursed the difference. If it wasn't enough they have to pay more then they can choose to pay more there and then or have their 25% increased the following year to ensure it is covered. If they fail to pay more or file their returns? Then the IR give instruction to the bank to set aside more money. You could even have it so that 25% of all receipts are automatically transferred to HMRC each month.

We aren't an island in isolation anymore (although somtimes I wish we were) so therefore the only way to guarantee that we prosper and everyone has a shot at an above average life? Simple. The country has to bring in more money than it spends. It has to be profitable. Socialism isn't designed to be profitable. It's designed to be the exact opposite. Socialism can work, but for it to work we have to have isolation from the rest o fthe world as much as possible, including trade. We also need to shed about 35m people otherwise we have no chance of living off our own natural resources.....

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

There are some nice areas of the country still, but generally we live in a cesspool that's only getting worse. I moved to London a couple of years ago, and I can't get over what a complete dump it is. Most of it (along with most of its inhabitants) really could do with being bulldozed off the white cliffs of dover!

Where did you move from?

Ive recently been sent up to London for work (sporadically, and not on an ongoing basis - thankfully!) and hated the whole experience.

While it is a city with interest to offer, I would hate to live my daily life there.