Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Stopping the REAL benefit cheats.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 79 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:10:34 BDT
Beloved....gingko can help improve circulation....maybe even debating skills..your line of questioning is irrelevant as the question you ask was answered...in the retail world we use POR....ours is 37%....return on capital is a term I learnt from Gary. It may be wrong.

Back to the topic. You are proposing to reduce the size of supermarkets?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:10:52 BDT
More garbage from you Simon.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:12:34 BDT
Beloved...please direct me to where I wrote that you said "there should be no state, no rules".

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:13:17 BDT
Beloved...are you tired?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:13:18 BDT
More blathering, i never try to catch anyone out

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:14:21 BDT
Check your posts with Tom .....gingko can help with memory to!!!!

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:18:56 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 May 2012 19:21:39 BDT
Beloved..you typed...

"Tom, Oh you do mean 33 a year then and not 33 a week..."

Big ooops!.....reddy faceoes...

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:25:04 BDT
Tired of the crap you write?

Let's see if we can stop being silly:

I wrote <<Sainsbury's made a profit last year of about 3% on turnover which is less than Simon's shop makes>>

Simon replied <<Ceres makes a 37% profit on return or return on capital...>>

Return on capital is NOT the same as return on sales.

You are not comparing like with like.

What is your return on sales?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:27:22 BDT
Beloved....Thirty seven per cent....how many times do you want it written....

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:31:22 BDT
Beloved....we have a turnover of 220.000.....profit 73,000

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:32:07 BDT
Well if it were 33 a week or better still 333 a week then that would be a deal worth talking about. But no he was referring to 33 a year extra (60p a week) if Justin's wages were divided equally between the rest of the staff. I was just checking what his big deal was, not trying to catch him out. I wanted to know just how much better off the checkout staff would be.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:35:51 BDT
Simon, did you take wages out of your 'profit'?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 19:53:25 BDT
Simon, what are you talking about: return on sales, return on capital, both?

ROC = earnings before interest and corporation tax but after all other costs, including wages, are accounted for divided by total assets -current liabilities (what you could sell the shop for tomorrow).

ROS = net income (before interest and corporation tax) but after all costs including wages* are accounted for divided by sales.

* you and your owners, from what you say, are mature, experienced and competent sales staff, accordingly why not pay yourselves the same as Sainsbury's pay their experienced checkout workers - 16,000 a year , plus bonus, staff discount, long service awards, parental leave, childcare vouchers, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 20:58:50 BDT
Beloved Gordon.... I admire your ability to twist away from the debate....anyway.....you are right, I am wrong....I know nothing about business...

Let's get back to the topic...what are your proposals re large corporations paying low wages and getting tax payers to top up their income so they can live?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 21:55:52 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 May 2012 21:58:53 BDT
TomC says:
"What a ludicrous notion...that you should think I was trying to avoid you. "

Gordon, I didn't say you were trying to avoid me; I said you had no intention of answering the question I'd already asked you, several times. Here it is again:

"You, me and every other taxpayer is being made an unwilling benefactor of Sainsbury's and other low-pay companies. Does that sound reasonable to you? "

"This post of yours is a fine rant...and it amused me."

Well, I'm pleased to hear it; that's what we're here for, after all. But Gordon, it wasn't a rant. It was a calm rational description of the "us and them" mentality in the boardrooms of major companies, primarily in response to your insistence on regarding this question purely as an arithmetic one, when it quite clearly is not.

No, Gordon, if I'd wanted to rant - to throw up a lot of dust to distract attention from my inability to address a question I'd been asked, for instance - I'd have got all frothy-mouthed and swivel-eyed about a bloke called Chris Hohn - who I assume is taken from the Bumper Book of Great British Entrepreneurs which you were given for Xmas. I would have described his life and hard times, hoping perhaps that his story would be taken as a typical one, rather than the exception. I would, naturally, have hoped that if I were assertive enough, you might not have noticed that this bloke is a complete irrelevance to the issue being discussed.

Then to throw up a lot more dust I'd have gone back to doing sums, despite the fact that - as I pointed out - this question has nothing to do with arithmetic and everything to do with morality. That's what a rant would have looked like, Gordon - a mass of irrelevancies designed to distract from the fact that I had not addressed the question I was asked. This was - just in case you've forgotten:

"You, me and every other taxpayer is being made an unwilling benefactor of Sainsbury's and other low-pay companies. Does that sound reasonable to you? "

I still await your answer, Gordon.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 23:38:52 BDT
I said that if Justin's wages were divided among the staff they would each have 50p a week which you corrected to 60p, for which I thanked you. I have made no comment on this this thread about the rights or wrongs or morality of low pay, or anything else.

Where is my <<insistence on regarding this question as a purely arithmetic one>>?

It seems to me that you are making up a lot of things that I did not say or even imply.

Sainsbury's did not force the government to introduce tax credits. Did you vote for the government that brought them in? Were you forced? If tax credits DO allow Sainsbury's a taxpayer subsidy, as you say, they should be abolished perhaps. Agreed?

I don't know how many Sainsbury's staff get tax credits. I don't know what number of their staff are on the NMW, or what their ages are, or how long they have worked there, or whether they are part-time, or what other benefits they get. I don't know if Sainsbury's pays better/worse than the NHS, say, pays equivalent staff. I guess they pay about the same (any idea), in which case where is the NHS to get the extra money with which to pay 'living wages'?

I don't know where the money would come from to pay Sainsbury's staff what you say they are due. Taking the managers' wages would not be enough. Are you saying it should come from profits and reduce money for investment in Sainsbury's and cut the incomes of Pension funds? Or do you have other suggestions?

The only point I have made is that dividing Justin's wages between the staff would not have any noticeable effect on their incomes...nothing more.
In which case, why do you claim that I have your question to answer?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2012 23:43:00 BDT
Dear Gordon, If you say so.

I suggest you speak to your MP and say you want tax credits abolished because you believe that you are being forced as a taxpayer to subsidise the low paid who work for big corporations like Sainsbury's and the NHS.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2012 05:13:40 BDT
Beloved Gordon....rest....rest.....deep breaths.....sadly you have avoided the question over and over and over....

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2012 08:40:36 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 May 2012 08:42:55 BDT
Molly Brown says:
You are just generally obstructive and deliberately contentious Gordon. You do not want to see lower classes, or slave labour receive a decent wage, enough to live on to pay for essentials and have some amount left to have some pleasures and dignity in life. Enough that those on minimum wage or less than the national average can afford to save for a pension or savings. I see today yet another new survey polling those who earn above 10,000 PA not are not contributing towards a pension. Well if you are on what is currently the minimum wage, surprise, surprise! I do not see how anyone CAN contribute towards security in their old age on these low earnings.

You still are not answering the question as to why taxpayers generally are subsidising private companies who pay low wages? Do you not understand the question?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2012 10:16:56 BDT
Beloved Gordon...better to write to my MP and say "oi me old cock sparrer...how's about the big companies paying a living wage?..."....

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2012 10:40:43 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 May 2012 11:16:52 BDT
Simon, I'm relaxed. What makes you think I'm not?

It's not a question I can answer because I don't know the 'facts'...do you.

I would like to see:

Less government meddling (because they make things worse not better)
Less gov spending (because we spend the money better)
Less 'entitlement' (because it creates dependency and reduces economic and social well being)
Less tax on low incomes and less VAT (because the poor pay too much tax)
Fewer monopolies like Sainsbury's, Asda, Tesco's, NHS and UNISON..break them up (because they restrict choice, reduce competition, keep prices high, and damage small shops like yours)

Posted on 21 May 2012 10:44:45 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
I remember being sat in a sauna a few years back and a discussion started over wage disparities between bosses and workers,
one chap who owned a chain of shops doing sewing and dry cleaning said 'You have to keep a large segment of the workforce on rubbish wages otherwise the well off wont be well off and no one will work in my shops or Mcdonalds'.
perhaps this is where Gordon is coming from....

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2012 10:50:19 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 May 2012 11:00:30 BDT
<<you are just being obstructive and deliberately contentious Gordon>> How do you make this out?

<<You do not want to see lower classes, or slave labour receive a decent wage...>> Evidence?

Could it be that the last government decided to do it? Was this because Sainsbury's forced them to?

Why don't governments break up monopolies?

I don't favour Sainsbury's, I have no shares and I don't shop there or in any other monopoly supermarket. I buy my stuff in Lidl's, Aldi and the open air market. They pay better wages in Lidl and Aldi...but the shops are basic and the staff have to work harder. Oh, and the stuff is good quality and 20% cheaper.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2012 10:52:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 May 2012 11:20:19 BDT
OK, but better still write to your MP and say you want them broken up, and restructured along the lines of your business.

And ask for them to do the same for the NHS and UNISON too.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 May 2012 10:58:36 BDT
No. I have said nothing about keeping <<a large segment of the workforce on rubbish wages>> because they would not work in McD's or other such places.

I said that I don't see how taking Justin King's wages and dividing them up among the low paid would give them a 'living wage'.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  79
Initial post:  16 May 2012
Latest post:  21 May 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions