Well done to the 50000 that applied for fruit picking jobs

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...tune-109bn-coronavirus?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

That was always going to happen - especially as town planners weren't trying to attract people into town centres. With the reduced use of offices, it will accelerate the decline of the highstreet.

 

I don't know where you get that assumption from - I'm just talking facts. That with a higher than average income (both key workers) we're finding the current situation leaves us considerably better off - yet you appear to be boasting about how well off you are and still claim to be worse off.

A bit weird. But as usual - I'm assuming there's quite a bit of BS involved.

 

I signed up to the land army a month ago but have never heard a word from them since. If there are any harvesting jobs going round here (South Derbyshire), I'd have a go.

 

Putting to one side your personal grievance, ask yourself who is taking more from society? The scroungers, or the billionaires syphoning off trillions to shore bank accounts to avoid paying tax. A small example:

I guarantee you could round up all the lazy fops on the planet and they'd still not scratch the surface of the money lost to those billionaires avoiding tax.

And just to stress the point about how much money we're talking about here, here's a previous example I gave:

If you earned a dollar every second of the day you'd have $86,400 after one day. It that rate, without paying any tax, it would take you:

- 12 days to earn $1m
- 32 years to earn $1bn (note the difference in time between a million and a billion!)
- 3200 years to earn $100bn.

Going back in time you'd have to have started earning $1 a second in 1180BC (back to the the fall of Troy) to have $100bn by 2020. Now realise it's taken Jeff Bezos just 35 years to amass $150bn.

You need a reality check.

 

Meanwhile....

 

He's the kind of chap who if he found himself in debt would go after the window cleaner who owed him 50p in change rather than the garage who hadn't paid him £10k for his car.

Well I'm sure he's not, but he seems to have a funny way of squaring his priorities.

 

He’ll have taken a lot more, obviously. Does one make the other any more acceptable just because the figures are different ? Does it mean I don’t have an issue with the super rich avoiding paying their dues ?

 

Where did I say we were struggling ? Just said we’d tighten our belts, and as you don’t have access to our finances you can’t possibly know what that means can you.

 

I understand, the man and his family wind me off the clock. Especially when he asks me if I’ve been busy at work whilst smiling and waving his pint mockingly. Never worked and brought his kids up the same.

 

Off course we’re worse off, with the furlough capped at 2.5k she’s 40% down. Simple maths.

 

But she has no travel to work costs and you can’t spend it on entertainment.

Maybe you don’t understand the difference between ‘worse off’ and ‘reduced income’.

I do training courses in Excel if it’ll help

 

could you point me in the direction of where you’ve been angry at the super rich on this forum....

3 billion or 30 billion. I think I know whose stealing from your pocket.

 

I

doubt there’s much you could ever teach me sunshine, so furloughed at 80 % a family who usually has say £100 at the end of the week disposable income now only has £80 but are no worse off cos they can’t spend it anyway. Abbott school of economics right there live and in person. Off home now, bye.

 

Except we’re not talking about £80 are we?

unless you’re making a really poor job of managing your finances (in which case I do recommend you take up my offer of an Excel course)

are you seriously trying to tell us all that as a higher rate taxpayer you’re not regularly saving for holidays, your daughters uni fund, never going to the pictures, the pub, restaurants, the theatre, football?

if you’re really hanging onto the hope we will believe that, I’ve got some magic beans to sell you.

each day I don’t leave the house to go to work I save anything from £12 - £18 (depending on lunch arrangements). At least 1 Barnsley game a month is another £40 - £80 if it’s 2. A couple of pub evenings and maybe an Indian; and I’ve just racked up hundreds in savings due to the lockdown.

That’s without sundry meals for the kids, constant prezzies for the grandkids visiting etc.

and if my memory of teenage daughters is anything to go by, your daughters social life disappearing is saving you a packet too.

 

You’re right of course. What will you do for your next trick, turn my wine into water but tell me I’m no worse off cos I cant drink it anyway ?!

 

You’re so confident, despite it being ‘cocksure’ rather than because of merit.
You couldn’t even do the simple maths that could have made your point (stretched but at least it makes sense)

if you’ve normally got £100 disposable income, it’s not going to have reduced by £20.

Let’s assume an income of £2500, that normally leaves £100 ‘disposable income’.

80% of £2500 is only £2000 so the £100 disposable income would become a £400 deficit.

like you say - it’s simple maths.

(all the above obviously supposed that all your income is accounted for)

but as above, it’s all BS anyway, you wouldn’t recognise a fact if it bit you in the arse.

 

In

I neither know nor care. I know that my missis could stop work and we wouldn’t really feel it so I’d suggest living within your means old boy. No one is impressed by the snide boasting. All fur coat and no knickers as my nan might say.

 

Some reight tatty picking goin on here.

 

point me to your many posts bashing the rich to match your immature attacks on poorer people. I can’t seem to find any though from your post above there must be many.