I prefer not to engage with idiots as I find they bring you down to their level and they beat you with experience.Imploding Turtle wrote:When the right-wing promises to pander to right-wing voters it's "listening to the will of the people". When the left-wing do it for left-wing voters it's "bribery".
RingoMcCartney wrote:So the old career communist, Corbyn, believes 16 year olds are mature enough to vote by the age of 16.
Yet he doesn't believe their responsible to pay for their own bus fare at 24!?
This shows a basic misunderstanding of how politics works, and life in general works. Why would you bribe a group of people to vote for you, when - by and large - this group already do / will?RingoMcCartney wrote:Expect the next proposal from the Labour "bribery" Party, to be a fully funded programme for under 25s, who use social media, that feel they're offended, to receive free, tax payer, counselling.
How many 16 year olds do you know that earn enough to pay income tax?Inchy wrote:And the Tories think you’re an adult at 16 when it comes to paying taxes, but when it comes to the minimum wage it’s 25
In general I'd agree with you Nil.nil_desperandum wrote:This shows a basic misunderstanding of how politics works, and life in general works. Why would you bribe a group of people to vote for you, when - by and large - this group already do / will?
If it was just about harvesting votes then surely they would be targeting the groups of society who they are trying to attract and need in order to secure a majority at the ballot box?
There would be no benefit to Burnley FC (e.g.) offering me incentives to attend home matches as I already do. Better to target other sections of the community.
It isn't a bad idea, but there's an assumption that is because it came from Corbyn.Lancasterclaret wrote:Its not a bad idea though is it?
I mean, putting aside the lunatic answers to the thread, its a chance for people in the cities to maybe risk changing jobs in another part of that city to better themselves without having to worry about travel costs?
Thats good yeah?
That's because they're not being paid the full minimum wage.ClaretMoffitt wrote:How many 16 year olds do you know that earn enough to pay income tax?
Nor should they be.UpTheBeehole wrote:That's because they're not being paid the full minimum wage.
Well employers wont exactly be clamouring to employ someone like that either. Whats your point?ClaretAndJew wrote:What about a 25 year old who's never worked a day in his life?
I'm all about humanity, but I draw the line at stupidity.Lancasterclaret wrote:Not even to go "Do you want fries with that?"
Where is your humanity CM?
Well, people are employed like that, no experience, just straight into a manual/unskilled job, straight at the minimum wage that is expected.ClaretMoffitt wrote:Well employers wont exactly be clamouring to employ someone like that either. Whats your point?
Yeah but they are few and far between.ClaretAndJew wrote:Well, people are employed like that, no experience, just straight into a manual/unskilled job, straight at the minimum wage that is expected.
I don't disagree with that notion, however, a 16 year old working the same job as a 25 year old should yield the same pay, if the job is unskilled, should it not? Providing their experience is the same (which indeed would be few and far between).ClaretMoffitt wrote:Yeah but they are few and far between.
The chances of someone being 25 years old with 0 work/education getting a 40 hour a week job in this economy is virtually nill, that's because their value and skills aren't matched by the price they command to employ. So they will struggle to find work unless an employer is absolutely desperate.
Same exact thing with the 16 year olds. They need to be on a low wage to incentivse employers to take them on and train them up.
The life experience argument is garbage when you're talking about menial work. I worked at Morrisons from being 16-18 on the butchery dept, not actually doing much butchery but cleaning and packing products etc. I got paid quite a bit less than the 18 year old (and often older) employees doing the same thing on the other departments, why? I have no idea.ClaretAndJew wrote:I don't disagree with that notion, however, a 16 year old working the same job as a 25 year old should yield the same pay, if the job is unskilled, should it not? Providing their experience is the same (which indeed would be few and far between).
I worked at Phoenix Pharmaceuticals when I was 16/17 and was always baffled how little I got paid compared to someone at 18, even though we'd been there similar time and did the same basic picking/packing job.
I was having this debate with my brother the other day on the way to work.ClaretAndJew wrote:I don't disagree with that notion, however, a 16 year old working the same job as a 25 year old should yield the same pay, if the job is unskilled, should it not? Providing their experience is the same (which indeed would be few and far between).
I worked at Phoenix Pharmaceuticals when I was 16/17 and was always baffled how little I got paid compared to someone at 18, even though we'd been there similar time and did the same basic picking/packing job.
No you're right, what you say has merit in those circumstances because yes, fresh out of school at 15/16 you are going to be judged as just being a little **** with no worth so most employers would pass, and of course, depending on what job I was hiring for I'd of course go with experience.ClaretMoffitt wrote:I was having this debate with my brother the other day on the way to work.
He got paid 1.50 an hour as an apprentice for working a 44 hour week. Something like 65 a week he said he came out with. I said that was ridiculous and bordering on slave labour, this was only 20 odd years ago too so we're not talking like in the 60's or something here.
A 16 year old should receive a fair wage for a fair days work, sure. The minimum wage for a 16 year old right now is 4.20 an hour, right? So that means on a 40 hour week that 16 year old is looking at £168 a week. At 16, you are just not likely to be as productive or as valuable to a company as a 25 year old, even if you do the same job. The 25 year old will have additional life skills, time served value and people experience. So that in itself will be worth more to the employer. How mature we're you at 16? I know I wasn't, I was a little *******.
In reality it should be assessed on a case by case basis, one exceptional 16 year old may well be worth that of a 25 year old, and in that situation, I suppose it would be unfair, however the vast majority of the time that is not going to be the case so you can't force employers to pay upwards of £315 a week to 16 year olds just because they have the same job.
If you we're an employer, be honest now. Would you really want to take a chance on a 16 year old when you knew it would cost you 1.2k a month?
Lancasterclaret wrote:I shouldn't have laughed at ITs post Ringo, but I did.
You've got to be careful about posting stuff on here without thinking about it first.
Imploding Turtle wrote:
What this post tells me, given you feel Turtles Heads posts are "priceless". Is that you should be less concerned about me and and the focus should be a little closer to home.hampsteadclaret wrote:If this page of this thread tells me anything Ringo, it is that you should post less.
That stuff above that IT has posted is priceless - you must be very embarrassed..and cringing every time you look at it?
What a strange fellow you are.
Imploding Turtle wrote:
nil_desperandum wrote:This shows a basic misunderstanding of how politics works, and life in general works.
Bet you haven't got your own personal obsessive have you my, Last of the international playboys, friend have You!?Bordeauxclaret wrote:
We need more Ringo. More.RingoMcCartney wrote:Bet you haven't got your own personal obsessive have you my, Last of the international playboys, friend have You!?
I mean, could you really be bothered!
The weekends started early in McCartney Manor!!
we f*cking don'tBordeauxclaret wrote:We need more Ringo. More.
Ash here he comes running to defend his friend! Oh hang on a minute ( in an Eminem style Stan moment ) it's not your friend, is it.UpTheBeehole wrote:It's the search function at the top, not keeping obsessive records.
Come to think about it, his username was... it was you. Damn.RingoMcCartney wrote:Ash here he comes running to defend his friend! Oh hang on a minute ( in an Eminem style Stan moment ) it's not your friend, is it.
It's you !!!!
Are you kidding. He needs his own TV show.UpTheBeehole wrote:we f*cking don't
Sorry my , so so many stamps in the passport, friend, I'm a busy man today.Bordeauxclaret wrote:We need more Ringo. More.
More like a cross over of Nick Ross and Peter GriffinBordeauxclaret wrote:Are you kidding. He needs his own TV shoe.
A perfect cross over of Partridge and Peter Griffins ‘What grinds my gears’
The guy is priceless comedy gold.
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?randomclaret2 wrote:I dont find keeping obsessive records of what another poster has said funny in the slightest. I find it worrying and extremely odd.
Was it different under Labour? If it was, fair enough. If it wasn't. There wouldn't be a lot of point in your post.Inchy wrote:And the Tories think you’re an adult at 16 when it comes to paying taxes, but when it comes to the minimum wage it’s 25
