Comments by "Steve Parker" (@steveparker8065) on "Striking union member breaks down cost of living crisis" video.

At least in medieval Britain you could forage for food or collect firewood to keep warm. Now we have malnutrition and hypothermia instead...
124
'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse; The Dad hung from the chimney; the result of despair, Because the Tories had made his life impossible to bear. The children were malnourished, asleep in their beds; While dreams of free school dinners danced in their heads...
57
@lmy2366 You're confusing inflation with progress and misrepresenting stats. In the 70s one working wage could feed a family, and support a mortgage and holidays. Now you can barely run a household or get a mortgage with 2 decent incomes. 40% of the working population is in working poverty. Anyone who has lived for the past 5 decades will tell you the working wage barely covers the basics these days...
3
@lmy2366 I've put 30 years of work and taxation into this country and I actually said pensions were returns on investments from contributions paid throughout your working life. It seems you failed to attain basic comprehension...
3
@lmy2366 PS I never used the phrase "Supplements to wages" so why are you quoting it? considering, I've already corrected you on that point once. It seems your lack of ability makes debate impossible. Please take a course in basic comprehension and logic before replying again...
3
@lmy2366 Have you heard of technology? Technology has moved on which provides access to transportation and social mobility. As far as I'm aware cars, trains and powered boats didn't exist back then so talking about people dying in the town they were born is lazy logic. We are talking about the fact that despite almost 1,000 years of advancement we can't collect firewood to heat our homes, tens of thousands die of hypothermia every winter, millions of children go hungry and don't have the option to even eat berries and nuts from the local trees, because there are none, they've been replaced by aesthetically pleasing but not edible vegetation.
2
@lmy2366 Only those with money can invest and provide themselves other sources of income. The vast majority of people rely on wages alone. Andy is 100% correct and you seem to be delusional and talking nonsense. Pensions are paid for by contributions out of your wages. They are not wages, but returns on investments you made during your employment...
2
@lmy2366 What a bizarre irrelevant question. My comment has nothing to do with the density of invention but the fact that over 1,000 years we've learned a lot about diseases, nutrition, physics, education, thermal dynamics, flight etc Which makes life easier and should extend the lives of all...
2
@lmy2366 lol I can't argue with illogical nonsense. Using inflation-adjusted figures just shows the fiscal values between the different times. It doesn't cover the cost of living, how rents have doubled in real terms, how food and clothing has increased in price independently of fiscal value. The point being that your analysis is deeply flawed. The reason I know this, is because I lived through it and I'm currently living and so experienced both conditions and so can specifically tell you that one wage could afford the same things that 2 wages now afford a household. As for the technological advancement, the point was to show how our lives have improved regarding disease treatment, nutritional knowledge, building materials and construction tools, basically, we've moved on from being superstitious peasants who knew next to nothing about maths, physics, geography, biology and so on. With all those advancements, we still can't look after children and the elderly? The point is obviously the differences between those two specific periods of history. The rate of technological change is irrelevant as any logical person would have realised...
2
@lmy2366 Listen carefully as this is very simple, for clarification I'm providing you with examples of the majority of working people's lives between two timeframes, talkign about exceptions to the rule is pointless as we are generalizing: One wage in the 70s was the norm and could run a household, provide for a family and pay the mortgage. That simply isn't possible these days as many people who apply for a mortgage will tell you. Two full-time wages are required for the same family in modern times to have the same living standards. That is a fact that 50% of the population can attest to as they lived through it and experienced both conditions. Irrespective of how inflation and wages are estimated to show differences, the real-world experiences of families who lived through both times prove the most reliable guide and most experts would agree. Trying to define living standards by estimates of inflation is pointless as it's only one factor in a plethora of factors that affect the two scenarios. It is the difference between theory and practice! Technology has moved on in the past 1,000 years making our lives better and more productive. Comparisons between a point in history 1,000 years ago and the modern day do not require any estimate of the technological speed of advancement as it is simply the difference between two points in time. The point is that despite 1,000 years of technological and information evolution, we still can't provide for ourselves in the way one could in feudal society. Tens of thousands of pensioners die of hypothermia every winter, when once they would have been able to heat their homes by collecting dead wood for a fire. I'm not getting drawn into your failure to understand basic points of fact...
2
@alexbetts8291 I don't care how big their genitalia was. Stealing twigs and eating songbirds? How did the wealthy nobles enforce that nationwide? Did they have security cameras on trees?
1
@lmy2366 lol seriously. Stop trying to use logic, it's like watching a whale trying to fly... You've misquoted me, misinterpreted me, misunderstood me and provided nothing but petty illogical nonsense in return for my time. If you want to pedantically sealion someone, first you'll need intellect and knowledge. Trying to argue that one wage in the 70s is not the fiscal equivalent of two wages in our current fiscal climate is pointless. Anyone 50 or over will tell you that's nonsense because we've lived through it. Stop trying to manufacture arguments based on your misinterpretation or misunderstanding. It's a pathetic waste of your life and mine. If you have further questions, reread my comments with a dictionary to hand and ask a friend with intellect to interpret the meaning and implications...
1
@lmy2366 Opinionated? it's factual. "Over the last ten years a shocking quarter of a million older people have died from the cold –1 older person every 7 minutes and at the root of this problem are cold, poorly insulated homes." That makes it a financial decision by a government that gives over £100 billion to corporations in subsidies every year... Wages haven't gone up. Rises have been lower than the rate of inflation for decades and the cost of living has increased dramatically. I'm not interested in your opinions, I base my comments on proven facts... Now if you want me to use facts to defeat your opinions again, feel free to find another way to repeat the same lies...
1
@lmy2366 The trade-off is between morality and greed. Corporations dodge taxes and hide profits more and more, recent legislation allows them to do this and the tax burden for the infrastructure those corporations exploit for profits and the lost taxes falls on the taxpayer... US corporation tax was over 30% a few years ago with State and Federal tax, the UK was at 28% 12 years ago before the Tories reduced it to 19%. Who picked up the tax burden for that lost 9%? the taxpayer and therefore it is no coincidence that the cost of living rose as a result as their wages could no longer buy the same amount of goods. Your argument is that we should sacrifice 25,000 pensioners annually so high-wage earners have more incentives? Pathetic...
1
@lmy2366 lol you are beyond logic and reason and I'm sick of swapping facts for opinionated nonsense. Have a nice life with your factless circular debates. I've better things to do than try and talk you into sentience...
1
@lmy2366 Can you show where you've provided any facts? You've provided contradictions of your own posts which are all opinions. You're apparently not in favour of shifting tax burdens onto some other group yet that was your response to a loss of 9% of corporations tax which got shifted from the private sector to the public sector. So what you really mean is you're not in favour of moving the tax burden back onto those who exploit it most. Infrastructure is roads, industrial parks, Hospitals, Car Parks, Shopping centres, housing estates, the national grid, sewage and water pipes, telecoms, energy, transport etc... All of which are used so the question of which infrastructure is irrelevant, all infrastructure is paid for from GDP if you have a loss of 9% corporation tax that has to be redeemed from another group. Common myths you perpetuate: Corporations would have to increase prices, no they'd have to reduce excessive profiteering. Corporation tax will cost us a loss of trade. You think Nike or Mcdonald's will stop selling in the UK if we put the corporation tax back to a reasonable amount? The same amount or less than they are paying in other countries? Cur their profits out of spite? not likely m8... Privatisation of Energy is the reason we pay them subsidies and the reason we are now blackmailed by energy companies making bumper profits. Who tops up low wages from corporations? The taxpayer via tax credits. Who pays for subsidies? The taxpayer. Who paid for the infrastructure for the national grid? The taxpayer. Who now profits from that infrastructure and fail to maintain it? Corporations. Who covers the annual tax gap from corporate tax losses of £40-120 billion per annum? the taxpayer. Who pays for the energy bill support grants? The taxpayer - While shell makes bumper profits. Why are tax credits and energy grants necessary? corporate greed... I'm not repeatedly going around in circles, I've been patient and kind enough to offer facts to support every comment I've made. Take care, that was my last reply!
1
@lmy2366 lol you aren't even able to follow an argument. National income? has increased in real terms? only 49% of household income is from wages? Can't find those stats when I search for them individually so I assume they aren't real. How were they calculated? by what formula have they produced these absurd figures? what organisation? Those questions are rhetorical as a circular debate is pointless! You said you don't agree with shifting the tax burden onto different groups, I pointed out that the loss of 9% corporation tax would have to be picked up by the taxpayer, and then I stated that was moving the burden from the private sector to the public sector. Hence it was a retort to your own statement. It has nothing to do with whether you agree with every choice of government, I never suggested that and it's not relevant I simply pointed out the contradiction in your statement. Your personal observations of purchased products are irrelevant that's anecdotal and we are talking about average wages for working people in general. Your taxes regardless of what you purchase, pay for all the infrastructure as does every taxpayer... Those taxes pay for schools, hospitals, roads, telecoms, energy etc that are used by corporations and their employees. Naive? Shell made record profits in the first two quarters and paid zero windfall tax because of loopholes provided by the Tories. Yet energy prices have increased by multiple factors in the past 2 years alone. "Corporate tax will cost us a loss of trade" never did say that. It's implied in several of your comments. Tax credits are paid to people who are on low wages to top their money up to something they can live on, barely. That money is paid by the government and therefore comes out of our taxes, it's surprising you don't understand that basic fact. Subsidies are paid out of our taxes to Privatised industries like the energy companies, stop taking everything personally, we are talking about corporate greed affecting the cost of living in general for working people. Hence why it is wholly relevant. It seems you're unable to discuss things in general without referencing yourself. I use stats not anecdotal stories... "Whom isn't greedy?" we are talking about the deaths of 25,000 pensioners because of excessive energy prices and you try an inane comment like that? How is that a rebuttal of my comment? it's nonsense. What Eutopia? you think corporations paying their fair share of the tax burden is Eutopia? wow such low standards... You seem unable to follow a debate as I've just proven. Your so-called stats don't exist on any website I can find. But are obviously a misrepresentation of reality as we have the highest cost of living and lowest wages for a decade. Those are facts that you can freely search. I've comprehensively defeated every single point in your last reply as I've done with the others. Your misunderstanding and inability to comprehend a continuous debate over several replies make debate impossible as I've previously stated. Anyways take care and please don't reply again I've spent hours trying to explain things to you and painstakingly rebutted every point several times over.
1
@lmy2366 lol you haven't a clue... Don't ever post to me again...
1
@martynblackburn9632 I'm sorry to hear about your illness, I hope it's nothing superficial... People can only claim free school meals if they get any of the following: Income Support. income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. income-related Employment and Support Allowance. Even then it's an application and there are no guarantees... So please wake up, smell the coffee and stop repeating Tory lies... PS don't let your mind wander, it's far too little to be let out on its own...
1