So the Olympic Development Association, and the company engaged to build it, Lendlease, has been unable to raise any private money for the olympic villages and venues from private investors, because of the credit crunch. An extra £850m is still yet to be found for the olympic village, and the budget has been cut back, with fears that athletes may have to share rooms (shock horror!)
Which means that the likelihood is that then entire bill will nedd to footed once again by the taxpayers, so that the gov will then own the land and buildings, so they can sell them of afterwards.
No doubt to foot the mp's pensions bills.
Friday, 24 October 2008
Monday, 20 October 2008
A random thought on minimum wage.
Minimum wage is probably a good thing for employees, but not such a great thing for employers.
It is definitely a good thing for gov. It increases the amount an employee is paid, therefore increasing the amount of tax and NI they pay to the gov.
This in turn goes to pay for the repayment of the loans to the banks, and the public employee pensions (for which there is no pot).
As minimum wages increases, so fees for services and products will rise, and so will unemployment as there becomes less and less point in an employer keeping someone employed, at a rate for which there is no competition for jobs.
There will be a larger and larger drain on umemployment services, paid for by the gov, and fewer and fewer poeple to pay the taxes. More and more businesses will go out of business, because of unsustainable work levels, and the feeling that it would be better to be employed, rather than struggle all the hours god sends to keep up with the gov imposed rules, regulations, and health and safetly laws.
Oh, hang on, minimum wage is a bad thing for gov too.
It is definitely a good thing for gov. It increases the amount an employee is paid, therefore increasing the amount of tax and NI they pay to the gov.
This in turn goes to pay for the repayment of the loans to the banks, and the public employee pensions (for which there is no pot).
As minimum wages increases, so fees for services and products will rise, and so will unemployment as there becomes less and less point in an employer keeping someone employed, at a rate for which there is no competition for jobs.
There will be a larger and larger drain on umemployment services, paid for by the gov, and fewer and fewer poeple to pay the taxes. More and more businesses will go out of business, because of unsustainable work levels, and the feeling that it would be better to be employed, rather than struggle all the hours god sends to keep up with the gov imposed rules, regulations, and health and safetly laws.
Oh, hang on, minimum wage is a bad thing for gov too.
Crunch crunches family freindliness
The credit crunch is not good for business (its official, the gov says so). Some suggestions are reducing red tape (by applying for red tape reduction with more forms no doubt), to reducing NI payments for small companies for 6 months (could save them £600 - whoopee, less than a weeks wages for a minimum wage employee), and by pitting on hold the 'family friendly' measures proposed by lilly livered bleeding heart lefty liberals.
Now, far be it for me for the cynic in me to raise its ugly head again, but increasing paid maternity leave, and creating virtually compulsory paid paternity leave, has always seemed like a strain to small businesses to me - whether the government pays for it or not.
But, it raises to questions - doesn't it show that perhaps it wasn't a good idea in the first place, and are the gove realising now that it might actually cost them a teensy weensy bit more than they thought?
Of course, the next thing would be just to make the businesses pay for it.
Now, far be it for me for the cynic in me to raise its ugly head again, but increasing paid maternity leave, and creating virtually compulsory paid paternity leave, has always seemed like a strain to small businesses to me - whether the government pays for it or not.
But, it raises to questions - doesn't it show that perhaps it wasn't a good idea in the first place, and are the gove realising now that it might actually cost them a teensy weensy bit more than they thought?
Of course, the next thing would be just to make the businesses pay for it.
Phone database
Ok, this is getting silly - now we're going to need a passport, or some other form of identity, to purchase a moblie phone, so that our details can be held on yet another database - again supposedly to combat terrorism and crime.
The gove wants the phone companies to foot the bill (or part of it) - in other words, guess who's going to be really footing the bill - or is this just yet another tax?
http://security.itproportal.com/articles/2008/10/20/buying-mobile-phone-you-will-need-passport-yes-another-database-coming/
The gove wants the phone companies to foot the bill (or part of it) - in other words, guess who's going to be really footing the bill - or is this just yet another tax?
http://security.itproportal.com/articles/2008/10/20/buying-mobile-phone-you-will-need-passport-yes-another-database-coming/
Friday, 17 October 2008
Pensions
Falling stocks and shares, and failing banks have wiped out 1/3 to 1/2 of the value of lts of peoples pension plans, and with the companies no longer able to afford final salary pension schemes, or employees having to put a lot more (barely affordable) sums into (even more shakier) pension schemes, it seems like the retired population of this country is heading for some very hard times.
There is of course a section of the country that won't be affected. Listening to radio4 this morning it seems that public employees are pretty much guaranteed there pensions, crash proof, bomb proof, enshrined in law, untouchable. The gov can apparently cut the state pension, but it can't touch public service pensions.
It was argued that, well fair enough, they have a modest salary, and for years of dedication to public service, etc, but it turned out that since 2000, public employee remunuration has sored in comparison with the private sector.
So, not only are public service employees better off now than people in the private sector, but they will also be better off in the future when they retire.
Also it would apear that while private pensions need pots to supply the pensioners with their pensions, public sector employees don't - their pension is paid for by future taxation. This makes the country even more in hock than it is now.
Frankly, this is just plain wrong. Obviously, I'm not a private sector employee, if I was I would be applauding the gov's efforts for rewarding my years of service and dedication to public service. But this is yet another example of the govs complete inability to take the bull by the horns, and tackle the situation now, before it flares into yet another financial crisis.
Why?
Firstly, who's going to pay for this - taxpayers of course. But in order to pay for the very generous pension payouts, taxes will need to be raised from somewhere. Guess where that would be then.
Secondly, in order to pay for it, money will have to be cut from other payouts - first place the gov will look will be the state pension - possibly not by direct cuts, but by meagre increases, leading to further hardships for the old on low pensions.
Thirdly, innovation will be utterly stifled. Why on earth would anyone want to start their own business and develop their own products and services when they are going to be taxed to the hilt, smothered in red tape, and have a retirement smothered by destitution, when the alternative would be an nice cushy job, loaded with benefits, restricted in working times, with a nice pension and retirement at the end of it.
We are going to become a nation of teachers and council workers, unless the government do something about this now.
Not likely though is it.
There is of course a section of the country that won't be affected. Listening to radio4 this morning it seems that public employees are pretty much guaranteed there pensions, crash proof, bomb proof, enshrined in law, untouchable. The gov can apparently cut the state pension, but it can't touch public service pensions.
It was argued that, well fair enough, they have a modest salary, and for years of dedication to public service, etc, but it turned out that since 2000, public employee remunuration has sored in comparison with the private sector.
So, not only are public service employees better off now than people in the private sector, but they will also be better off in the future when they retire.
Also it would apear that while private pensions need pots to supply the pensioners with their pensions, public sector employees don't - their pension is paid for by future taxation. This makes the country even more in hock than it is now.
Frankly, this is just plain wrong. Obviously, I'm not a private sector employee, if I was I would be applauding the gov's efforts for rewarding my years of service and dedication to public service. But this is yet another example of the govs complete inability to take the bull by the horns, and tackle the situation now, before it flares into yet another financial crisis.
Why?
Firstly, who's going to pay for this - taxpayers of course. But in order to pay for the very generous pension payouts, taxes will need to be raised from somewhere. Guess where that would be then.
Secondly, in order to pay for it, money will have to be cut from other payouts - first place the gov will look will be the state pension - possibly not by direct cuts, but by meagre increases, leading to further hardships for the old on low pensions.
Thirdly, innovation will be utterly stifled. Why on earth would anyone want to start their own business and develop their own products and services when they are going to be taxed to the hilt, smothered in red tape, and have a retirement smothered by destitution, when the alternative would be an nice cushy job, loaded with benefits, restricted in working times, with a nice pension and retirement at the end of it.
We are going to become a nation of teachers and council workers, unless the government do something about this now.
Not likely though is it.
Finance storms worsen
Seems Gord's no longer the hero (surprise).
Despite a massive injection of funds (£50bn), stocks continue to plunge.
So once again, Gord's gone from zero to hero, back to zero, in a matter of a few days, almost as quickly as the stocks and shares have changed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3214334/Financial-Crisis-Gordon-Brown-a-failure-David-Cameron-says.html
Despite a massive injection of funds (£50bn), stocks continue to plunge.
So once again, Gord's gone from zero to hero, back to zero, in a matter of a few days, almost as quickly as the stocks and shares have changed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3214334/Financial-Crisis-Gordon-Brown-a-failure-David-Cameron-says.html
Big brother again
So now it seems that gov's got plans to monitor every email, phone call, and everything else we do electronically - not the content apparently, just the location and time.
Yeah right. Hope there monitoring this.
Given gov's past history with data security, why don't we just all have posters on the front of our houses, with all our details?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3965033.ece
Yeah right. Hope there monitoring this.
Given gov's past history with data security, why don't we just all have posters on the front of our houses, with all our details?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3965033.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)