+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 95
General Chat Thread, Public sector employees to get ripped off, again in General; Originally Posted by sparkeh I am sick of this country. Reckless bankers who screwed this country over so we have ...
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    154
    Thank Post
    25
    Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkeh View Post
    I am sick of this country. Reckless bankers who screwed this country over so we have pump billions of public money into the banks wrecking the public finances are still being paid bonuses in vast excess of what most people earn whilst the lowest paid workers who toil away doing jobs that are important for the common good but not recognised are shafted again.

    Great, aren't we clever
    Seriously thinking about leaving.
    Let me know when your headed out coz we might get a discount if we buy more than one airline ticket, coz i for one will be right behind you.

    I was talking to a friend the other day and we were saying that being PM and running this country is p*ss easy. all you have to do is follow these 2 simple rules -

    1. Fill your own pockets with as much money as possible and hope you dont get caught (this applies to MP's as well as if you were PM)

    2. Don't worry about making silly mistakes that cost the country millions, coz you can quiet easily get the money back from raising taxes.

    so basically you cant go wrong, well that is until a general election comes round

  2. Thanks to Techie101 from:

    farmerste (14th December 2009)

  3. #32
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post
    In february the cost was as below apparently.






    Not as much as I thought but it's still substantial.


    Cost of war in Afghanistan soars to 2.5bn | World news | The Guardian
    14bn over 8 years and counting.......

    but Brown is planning on 12bn in cost savings over just 4 years by encouraging us to fill in more online forms when we make GP appointments and what have you.

    So unless the military need make it's feasible to make such adjustments to the presence in these conflicts dramatically, the cost savings seem comparatively small.

  4. #33
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by torledo View Post
    14bn over 8 years and counting.......

    but Brown is planning on 12bn in cost savings over just 4 years by encouraging us to fill in more online forms when we make GP appointments and what have you.

    So unless the military need make it's feasible to make such adjustments to the presence in these conflicts dramatically, the cost savings seem comparatively small.

    Cost savings though yeh right I bet they don't get close.

  5. #34
    AyatollahPies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    900
    Thank Post
    48
    Thanked 105 Times in 95 Posts
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by JJonas View Post
    25-30K would have me buying Champagne every week!
    Proof that money cannot buy taste.

  6. #35
    Busybub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    384
    Thank Post
    44
    Thanked 39 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post
    It's a disaster really but a pay cap is probably the only way to avoid mass redundancy in the public sector
    I see it differently. It's only a disaster because Labour doesn't have the guts to make rational redundancies going into an election.

    If Labour hadn't increased the size of government and allowed the creation so many non-jobs (The TaxPayers' Alliance - Burning our Money: Non-jobs), thereby commiting to a certain level of public spending, there might be enough to give the rest of the public sector workers the payrises they are worth.

    What has changed in the last decade that requires so many more state employees? (other than Labour showing how inefficient they are, and how ineffective they are at securing value for our money) Perhaps a plan by this government to artificially reduce the underlying rate of unemployment? 50% of schools leavers should be in University too apparently... cynical? Me?

    On the other hand, Labour would probably screw us even if there was any money available because they would probably squander it somewhere else, ID Cards anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post
    , the treasury really is on its knees.

    The government (this one and the last one) really only have themselves to blame for allowing the banks to run riot. I think the whole bonus thing is a bit annoying but a vote winning non issue the issue was banks lending endless money to people who couldn't repay it. , then the treasury having to bail them out to make sure rich people got their money back.
    We can all blame bankers, but when it comes down to it, we need them to prop up our pensions. If Labour had given the FSA (which they created) some teeth, and actually taken notice of domestic and international warnings of our spiralling levels of debt, maybe they wouldn't have sat around doing nothing while bankers do what they've always done, and will do in the future unless somebody steps in and regulates them more tightly.

  7. Thanks to Busybub from:

    torledo (25th January 2010)

  8. #36
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Busybub View Post
    I see it differently. It's only a disaster because Labour doesn't have the guts to make rational redundancies going into an election.

    If Labour hadn't increased the size of government and allowed the creation so many non-jobs (The TaxPayers' Alliance - Burning our Money: Non-jobs), thereby commiting to a certain level of public spending, there might be enough to give the rest of the public sector workers the payrises they are worth.

    What has changed in the last decade that requires so many more state employees? (other than Labour showing how inefficient they are, and how ineffective they are at securing value for our money) Perhaps a plan by this government to artificially reduce the underlying rate of unemployment? 50% of schools leavers should be in University too apparently... cynical? Me?

    On the other hand, Labour would probably screw us even if there was any money available because they would probably squander it somewhere else, ID Cards anyone?



    We can all blame bankers, but when it comes down to it, we need them to prop up our pensions. If Labour had given the FSA (which they created) some teeth, and actually taken notice of domestic and international warnings of our spiralling levels of debt, maybe they wouldn't have sat around doing nothing while bankers do what they've always done, and will do in the future unless somebody steps in and regulates them more tightly.

    You're right don't get me started on government waste. My point was more looking at it from the current government’s perspective.
    Putting off the big decisions because they have an election coming up is one of the most irresponsible things I’ve heard of late.

    As for “What has changed in the last decade that requires so many more state employees?”. Social meddling the more they interfere the more people they need.

  9. #37

    SpuffMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,224
    Thank Post
    54
    Thanked 276 Times in 184 Posts
    Rep Power
    133
    Call me an old leftie - but I really can't see why we can't have a properly progressive taxation system - so the more you earn, the more you pay (as a percentage).

  10. #38
    ahuxham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,122
    Thank Post
    76
    Thanked 138 Times in 109 Posts
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by SpuffMonkey View Post
    Call me an old leftie - but I really can't see why we can't have a properly progressive taxation system - so the more you earn, the more you pay (as a percentage).
    I'd be more inclined to scream than pay on that scale.

    I can work overtime and I do, I no longer work in education, there is plenty of overtime available around 30 hours a week should I need it.

    I shouldn't have to pay excessive amounts because I actually want to work hard and earn my money the hard way. Not to throw in all those hours and get heavily penalized on it.

  11. #39

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,526
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,404 Times in 1,861 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by ahuxham View Post
    I'd be more inclined to scream than pay on that scale.

    I can work overtime and I do, I no longer work in education, there is plenty of overtime available around 30 hours a week should I need it.

    I shouldn't have to pay excessive amounts because I actually want to work hard and earn my money the hard way. Not to throw in all those hours and get heavily penalized on it.
    Its not about penalising, its about being a community and those who can afford to pay more should, in order to support those who can't.

  12. #40
    mpe
    mpe is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    1,101
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 65 Times in 57 Posts
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by somabc View Post
    Is there a definition anywhere of what is and is not in the public sector? Surely not everybody in the public sector is included otherwise it would include RBS
    Apparently it dosn't apply to Parliment.
    BBC News had a nice animation of the 90 billion a year shortfall, you have 3 options you can either reduce public spending (severely reduce it, unpopular)
    Depends exactly what you cut.
    How unpopular would cutting managment in the NHS be?
    How bringing British soldiers home?
    There's also legalising drugs. Which would provide a revenue source, even without
    any special taxes or duties being applied.
    or raise taxes (basic tax rate would need to double to 40%, VERY UNPOPULAR)
    Against depends on how you do it. Cracking down on tax evasion and/or avoidance is likely to only
    be unpopular with a minority. As is having a more progressive income tax system.
    or just keep borrowing money and spending as if nothing is wrong (the bury your head in the sand approach).
    The first two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed anything which takes something out of the "black economy" and into the "white" is likely to do both at the same time. But that involves asking tough questions like "Are currently illegal drugs more intrinsically harmful than currently legal ones?" and "Is prohibition more or less harmful to society than the drug(s) in question?"[/quote]

  13. #41
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    Call me an old leftie - but I really can't see why we can't have a properly progressive taxation system - so the more you earn, the more you pay (as a percentage).


    I agree to a point the problem is as found by labor in the 60's and 70's when you apply silly tax (90%) the super rich just leave the country or move their money, e.g. the beatles. Look at U2 now moving their money out of Ireland. Is it better to have 50-60% of something rather than nothing. At the end of the day I just don't think it's fair for the state to take more that half of what someone earns, unless it's old money that is inherited wealth I don't care about the upper class.

  14. #42
    mpe
    mpe is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    1,101
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 65 Times in 57 Posts
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by torledo View Post
    But RBS are covered with the Bonus tax. And it may be the bonus tax will be felt a lot further down the chain in the banks on those who are not on six figure salaries.
    What's to stop these people either waiting a year or calling their "bonuses" something else?

  15. #43
    mpe
    mpe is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    1,101
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 65 Times in 57 Posts
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post
    If they can outperform labour I'll be very surprised. It's time for the third way, why we keep letting the same two parties spend alternating terms undoing the others work is beyond me.
    The basic problem here is that these two parties are too similar, just that things havn't (yet) got quite as bad as the US. Which is, IMHO, part of the problem. This country is too often trying to emulate the US, warts and all, rather than trying to find the best examples from the rest of Europe.

  16. 2 Thanks to mpe:

    farmerste (14th December 2009), witch (11th December 2009)

  17. #44
    mpe
    mpe is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    1,101
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 65 Times in 57 Posts
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by torledo View Post
    Just strikes me as they've got public spending priorities the wrong way round. But then, as you say it's politiking to appease private sector employees where overall wage inflation is or has been lower than in the public sector.....over the course of the recession atleast.
    The real irony being that a lot of public money goes into the private sector, certainly in sectors such as education and health. Through the likes of PPP, PFI, BSF, RBC, government contracts, consultants, etc, etc. No doubt through many other routes. In the case of a government (especially a national government) any kind of "contract" can revoked at will anyway.

  18. #45
    mpe
    mpe is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    1,101
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 65 Times in 57 Posts
    Rep Power
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by fafster View Post
    How much are we spending in Afghanistan? If we pulled out today, where would the budget be?
    Depending how much it's currently costing currently we might save money quickly even if we needed book people (and cargo) on regular commercial flights.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Video] MS Employees try to dance
    By somabc in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17th November 2009, 09:29 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th May 2009, 12:23 PM
  3. Public Sector workers discounts
    By laputa01 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 21st April 2009, 01:12 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 25th February 2008, 04:14 PM
  5. Deal on public sector pensions
    By russdev in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18th October 2005, 09:18 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •