OV9

I just saw the second part of the corp tax rise, tax deductions for investment in tech and new machinery.

Seems like they're trying to use a carrot to get the rail and utility companies to invest in infrastructure.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:28 am I just saw the second part of the corp tax rise, tax deductions for investment in tech and new machinery.

Seems like they're trying to use a carrot to get the rail and utility companies to invest in infrastructure.

Again, fuck all use to many SMEs. i.e. my co.

Spend more on computer power to replace the people with AI. Brilliant.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:18 am

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:28 am I just saw the second part of the corp tax rise, tax deductions for investment in tech and new machinery.

Seems like they're trying to use a carrot to get the rail and utility companies to invest in infrastructure.

Again, fuck all use to many SMEs. i.e. my co.

Yes, I don't think this is going to go down well politically. It looks like a big tax giveaway to already wealthy people who are near retirement while not supporting the squeezed middle, yet again.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:55 am It’s more short term thinking though. New nuclear will help them hit their 2030 targets but long term it’s as big an environmental problem as fossil fuels.

There won't be any new plants built by 2030

Jobbo wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:33 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:18 am

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:28 am I just saw the second part of the corp tax rise, tax deductions for investment in tech and new machinery.

Seems like they're trying to use a carrot to get the rail and utility companies to invest in infrastructure.

Again, fuck all use to many SMEs. i.e. my co.

Yes, I don't think this is going to go down well politically. It looks like a big tax giveaway to already wealthy people who are near retirement while not supporting the squeezed middle, yet again.

Although it's reassuring to know that if we wanted to buy a digger to play with in the car park, it would be 100% tax deductable

Beany wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:38 am

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:55 am It’s more short term thinking though. New nuclear will help them hit their 2030 targets but long term it’s as big an environmental problem as fossil fuels.

There won't be any new plants built by 2030

This. I can’t see it actually happening. They can’t build a train line in this country so good luck with a nuclear power station. Everything takes too long now, and by the time something starts to happen you’re onto the next cabinet with their own agenda and the next pipedream.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 1:56 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 12:14 pm Their other "genius" idea regarding childcare (and I don't know if they're going to sign this off) is to reduce the number of staff required per X children, so that the costs are reduced.

Fucing right-o. So now Melody in the baby group has 8 screaming babies to look after all at once eh? Bullshit dreamt up by fuckwits that have probably never had any direct involvement in actual child care or parenting.

So it is a thing. Childcare ratios for 2 year olds to change from 1:4 to 1:5. So a classic "let's make things better by relaxing the standards" approach.

You really don’t need that many minders for 2 year olds.

Ours had them all in a room together, it’s not like they are left to wander aimlessly while adults frantically try to round them up.

Dave!

Mito Man wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:57 am

Beany wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:38 am

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:55 am It’s more short term thinking though. New nuclear will help them hit their 2030 targets but long term it’s as big an environmental problem as fossil fuels.

There won't be any new plants built by 2030

This. I can’t see it actually happening. They can’t build a train line in this country so good luck with a nuclear power station. Everything takes too long now, and by the time something starts to happen you’re onto the next cabinet with their own agenda and the next pipedream.

The date was just plucked out of my head . It's a general grumble I have with nuclear as a stop gap "green" energy source. It doesn't make sense.

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:55 am It’s more short term thinking though. New nuclear will help them hit their 2030 targets but long term it’s as big an environmental problem as fossil fuels.

It really isn’t, they used to transport it on a train coming from Crewe and was something like a years waste product fitted into a very special 20 foot container sized thing. A colleague looked into working on it as obviously if it breaks down people get squiffy.



We definitely have space to safely store this for a squillion years.

Huge power, modern fail safe designs so you can literally unplug everything and it turns off itself, it’s what we should have been using for the last 20 years.

You’d have more waste a month from gas turbine gas filters producing 1% of the power.

Dave!

Mito Man wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:57 am

Beany wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:38 am

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:55 am It’s more short term thinking though. New nuclear will help them hit their 2030 targets but long term it’s as big an environmental problem as fossil fuels.

There won't be any new plants built by 2030

This. I can’t see it actually happening. They can’t build a train line in this country so good luck with a nuclear power station. Everything takes too long now, and by the time something starts to happen you’re onto the next cabinet with their own agenda and the next pipedream.

If Sir John Rose was still at RR they would have them operational
Before the next FA Cup.

Dave!

V8Granite wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:23 am

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:55 am It’s more short term thinking though. New nuclear will help them hit their 2030 targets but long term it’s as big an environmental problem as fossil fuels.

It really isn’t, they used to transport it on a train coming from Crewe and was something like a years waste product fitted into a very special 20 foot container sized thing. A colleague looked into working on it as obviously if it breaks down people get squiffy.



We definitely have space to safely store this for a squillion years.

Huge power, modern fail safe designs so you can literally unplug everything and it turns off itself, it’s what we should have been using for the last 20 years.

You’d have more waste a month from gas turbine gas filters producing 1% of the power.

Dave!

That's fine but the waste then has to just sit somewhere sealed for long time. It just seems to me that it's another can that we'll kick down the road until it breaks.

V8Granite wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:15 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 1:56 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 12:14 pm Their other "genius" idea regarding childcare (and I don't know if they're going to sign this off) is to reduce the number of staff required per X children, so that the costs are reduced.

Fucing right-o. So now Melody in the baby group has 8 screaming babies to look after all at once eh? Bullshit dreamt up by fuckwits that have probably never had any direct involvement in actual child care or parenting.

So it is a thing. Childcare ratios for 2 year olds to change from 1:4 to 1:5. So a classic "let's make things better by relaxing the standards" approach.

You really don’t need that many minders for 2 year olds.

Ours had them all in a room together, it’s not like they are left to wander aimlessly while adults frantically try to round them up.

Dave!

You need that many to cover when one of them needs urgent attention because they've just been whacked over the head with an alphabet block Wife was telling me last night that there is evidence to suggest that the requirements, as they were, were actually a real bottom line minimum ration and that ideally the ratio should be higher for safety's sake, not lower.

Besides which, rarely is a relaxation in standards the best course of action to fix other problems, in any walk of life. It won't make childcare any cheaper, and it won't stop nurseries going to the wall. If anything it might mean more nursery staff choosing to pursue alternative career paths.

Yeah it’s not hard to imagine a scenarios where one kid needs a change of diaper whilst another needs medical care and then you’ve got 3 more little terrorists left unattended

What I find astonishing is the expectancy of people with kids to carry on as before.

A decent private school is 15 to 20 a year and unless you live in a nice place you will be sending them there.

Yep, those with the audacity to have kids should only do so if they can afford £20k a year for private schools, and their women should not be working or contributing in any financial way to society. We don't need any more children in this world.

Rich B wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:48 pm Yep, those with the audacity to have kids should only do so if they can afford £20k a year for private schools, and their women should not be working or contributing in any financial way to society. We don't need any more children in this world.

Wow we agree. Someone mark this day down in history.

Or get real with your expectations when granny daycare isn't near by - how about moving and compromising on life?

You can't help yourself can you broccers?

You start a thread that actually has decent discussion for once and you try and scupper it by acting like a cunt

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:04 pm You can't help yourself can you broccers?

You start a thread that actually has decent discussion for once and you try and scupper it by acting like a cunt

Ignored.

How much was the private school you went to Broccers?