Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

A NURSE.

Energy bills
True, but can be minimised by wearing a(nother) sweater ..... we never have our heating at home above 18

TV
assume you mean the licence .... how much is that?

Insurance
For what?

Ground rent
Would not apply

Leases
?????? are you bonkers?

Telephone
Minimal on pay-as-you-go so long as you ensure people call you rather than the reverse

Transport
to where?
can generally be done on foot or bus or similar

Stationary
standing still costs nothing

Medical bills
NHS

Care bills
not applicable


seems to me that most of the costs you mention do not apply, though you did forget the cost of the month in the caribbean

The ones who do the most good are the business people who generate enough wealth to pay for nurses and certainly NOT an individual nurse.

Stop being silly cynic.

Why dont you do it then??????????????????????????????????????????.

You said you could do it for less then £53 so come on then show us you can manage for a year on £53 or are you all mouth and no action??????????????????????

We already know id Smith hasnt the balls to even try out a week.

AND.......

Three days until 13,000 Millionaires get a tax cut of, on average, £100,000. Please RT pic.twitter.com/DNihTy33sn

By the way you need transport costs and staionery and a tele to find a job these days and sign on.

Ground rent and leases insrance if your unemployed living in your own home.

Prescription charges and care costs for the disabled and sick, these arent all paid by the state these days.............. it appears you and your right wing freinds are totaly out of touch.

now you are muddying waters ......
you are talking about me as a singleton, so without dependants etc etc, so care and prescriptions are (as i said) totally irrelevant
actually, i don't think i have to pay for my prescriptions now i'm over 65 .... is that not correct?

why do you need stationery?
if it's a few bits of plain paper, then the cost is effectively zero and most stuff can be done and submitted on line

ground rent?????
insurance??????
that's rubbish

if you like, i'll certainly work out a menu for you at £20 a week including bread and milk etc.
i'll need to find the time to do it, and i'll have to make 1 or 2 (reasonable) assumptions, but i bet i'm not far off the mark

gold finger is quoting the Labour/socialist mantra about tax cuts for millionaires. The reality is that the 50p tax was introduced by Labour on April 6 2010 and the election was on 6 May. Labour made no attempt to have a 50p tax all those years they were in power. They introduced the tax to prove their anti wealth credentials to the electorate and create a rod for the Conservatives if they won the election.

You can apply for jobs at the Job Centre at no cost, removing the need for internet. They have free standing terminals to use.

Hays,

You being obtuse,

Of course there "needs" to be a market to enable "businesses" to raise money, float and "escape" from investments.

But trading in the market does not produce one iota for the growth of a company after it is floated.

Trading is gambling in a sophisticated form and for the benefit the gambler and the bookmaker.

Not ignoring the fact, to be successful there is a necessary level of skill, but I would think 90% of those "playing" the “game” are doing it out of self interest at its crudest level.

As can be seen "derivatives" in the various forms were partially responsible for the economic crash.

-------------------------

You mentioned the NHS,

The reason for partial satisfaction with the health service is due to the amount of money ploughed into the capital investments and replacement of outer date dilapidated hospitals and facilities, left as a legacy of the Thatcher period.

The service was improved by Targets and whereas some patients were waiting up to 2-3 years for some treatments, i.e. hip and knee replacements, cataracts and other “cold” surgical operations etc.

Waiting times for specialist evaluation were reduced for patients with cancer, heart disease and other conditions.

There were failings in primary care, but much of those concerns were being address.

Sure there was a misuse of targets, but improvements in the health services during the labour administration lifted from a squalid standard to a reasonably acceptable standard for what many would describe for a modern caring society. (i.e. a society not based entirely on self-interest.)

Were mistakes made by clinical staff and administrators? Yes of course there were.

Was there waste? Yes of course there was.

The same applies to Education, Welfare and Social services.

Should these problems be addressed? Yes but not by whole scale destruction, demoralisation of those service and those working in those service areas.

In all “businesses” there is a need for evolution of systems and addressing of problems, but this is not accomplished by the “revolution” and the hypocrisy this present government is preaching.

The present crew appears drunk with power and although it has got it hands on the driving wheel and the engine started hasn’t a clue what it is doing or where it is going.

I am not sure whether the Labour leadership realises the problems it will inherits from the “coalition government”, but Miliband for all his weaknesses does seem be thinking of the long term problems and ways to address. There is no reason for him to rush his fences as the tory hunt seems to be persistently doing.


==========

Good night Manuel wherever you are!

i thought that might be so, but did not want to bet on it!

with regard to the 50p tax level, it could be argued that it has just been reduced to where it was for many years ..... a bit of semantics i know, but even so ....

fred - your diatribe is contradictory in places ...... "outer (sic) date dilapidated hospitals and facilities, left as a legacy of the Thatcher period" does not sit at all comfortably with "during the labour administration lifted from a squalid standard to a reasonably acceptable standard" - i.e. let's give the next administration (labour) all the credit for what you allege they improved over their 10(?) years in power, but blame any bad stuff remaining on the previous lot .... the parish council might be impressed by your nonsense, but certainly not paxman or a more intelligent interrogator, let alone robin day

Hays and Cynic.

With your obvious qualifications, why not take trip down to the Job Centre and tell them you are redundant and need a job.

Then as it is so easy, apply for some of the positions offered and live on the weekly wage for a week.

-------------------------

Living on £57 a week.

If excluding rent and normal living expenses as stated by GF, I could, but that is based on knowledge which unfortunately some in society don't have.

(A reasonable education may provide some of that knowledge.)


But, I wouldn't like to do it.

cynic
It is still at 45p. Labour lifted it from 40p. So there is still scope to drop it a bit more.

Fred
You mention targets. Those targets set by Labour are now regarded as the cause of the scandals revealed in care at many hospitals recently.

Took two children to the pictures this afternoon:-

2 childs tickets £11.30
1 Senior citizen £ 5.65
2 pop corns- bought out and taken in £ 3.00
2 small sticks of rock £ 1.00
3 fish and chips eaten in car £15.00

Total- £35.95

No drinks included or petrol for a round 32 mile trip so how one can live without even a small luxury on a pittance of £53 per week I haven't got a clue cynic. One could perhaps eat off £20 per week but I would not like to try it these days. If anybody was honest neither would they. We had all struggled and no how to struggle, our days are hopefully over on that one. I would like to say I don't envy anybody who had to do it these days.

Your paying the share holders 3m. :-))

Money is like water 3m. You need £50 to take the family out. I should think a lot of folk simply don't go out . They need the money to heat the house and eat.

I for one dc do not go out at all very much these days in fact I can count on one hand how many times since Oct. 30th last year. I was amazed that the picture house was absolutely full, not one spare seat. There must be money but people must be doing out without so much to be able to have a small treat. My neice and her husband hardly ever go out as they have 3 boys - the boys are good and don't ask or expect much so today was my treat to two of them. They won't let me buy them a drink when we go out so we always take our own and they have their special drinks bottles. They spend their time on their Dads day off going on bike rides etc. Their Mum has had to learn to be a good economic cook which many these days are not prepared to do. 2 of them have got paper rounds, the youngest is old enough to start one next year, sometimes he shares his brothers and he gives him £3 half of what he gets, bless.

3m & dreamcatcher,

With respect, why should the taxpayer be paying for benefit claimants to be going out to the cinema or down the pub? Welfare benefits are intended to do just that - provide welfare by way of food and heat. They aren't intended to provide luxuries.

Goldfinger,

Not that you'll be able to read this of course, but for a taxpayer to be better off to the tune of £100k as a result of a 5% cut in the uppermost tax rate, I calculate they'd need to be earning £2.15m pa. As a multi-millionaire accountant yourself, I would have thought you'd have realised that?