Public sector employees to get ripped off, again

[fafster]

How much are we spending in Afghanistan? If we pulled out today, where would the budget be?

[ahuxham]

How much are we spending in Afghanistan? If we pulled out today, where would the budget be?

 

Billions, absolute billions. And if we did pull out, that money wouldn't be spent on cutting the deficit, more than likely increased budgets and more than likely increase MOD budgets.

[cookie_monster]

Billions, absolute billions. And if we did pull out, that money wouldn't be spent on cutting the deficit, more than likely increased budgets and more than likely increase MOD budgets.

 

In february the cost was as below apparently.

 

£2.5bn and the Annual bill for all conflicts hits £4.5bn.

 

The new figures mean that the total cost so far of Britain's military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 - not including civil aid money, which also runs into billions of pounds - is now about £14bn

 

 

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

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/13/afghanistan-iraq-bill-british-military

[srochford]

How much does it cost to keep the army in Afghanistan compared to (say) keeping it on Salisbury Plain?

 

If we bring the army home, do we just sack all those soldiers? If not, do we really save money? There may well be good reasons for bringing the army out (but not many military people seem to think that there are) but I don't think it should be about the money.

 

The Conservatives have said that they will "slash" the cost of running the MoD; that might be possible but what that actually means is that they will just dump another load of people (probably mostly quite low paid) on the dole. It's the way they generally try and fix problems and it was a stunning success for Margaret Thatcher back in the early 80s!!!

[cookie_monster]

How much does it cost to keep the army in Afghanistan compared to (say) keeping it on Salisbury Plain?

 

If we bring the army home, do we just sack all those soldiers? If not, do we really save money? There may well be good reasons for bringing the army out (but not many military people seem to think that there are) but I don't think it should be about the money.

 

The Conservatives have said that they will "slash" the cost of running the MoD; that might be possible but what that actually means is that they will just dump another load of people (probably mostly quite low paid) on the dole. It's the way they generally try and fix problems and it was a stunning success for Margaret Thatcher back in the early 80s!!!

 

 

 

I think the estimated costs are deployment and consumables costs e.g ammunition, shot down or crashed planes or helicopters, not including the usual overheads which are already budgeted for.

 

Of course it's difficult to put a price several hundred lives and that's just on our side.

[Techie101]

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

[torledo]

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.

[cookie_monster]

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.

[AyatollahPies]

25-30K would have me buying Champagne every week!

 

Proof that money cannot buy taste.

[Busybub]

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?

 

, 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.

[cookie_monster]

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.

[SpuffMonkey]

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).

[ahuxham]

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.

[localzuk]

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.

[mpe]

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?"

[cookie_monster]

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.

[mpe]

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?

[mpe]

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.

[mpe]

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.

[mpe]

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.

[mpe]

How much does it cost to keep the army in Afghanistan compared to (say) keeping it on Salisbury Plain?

Unless we also brought lots of Afghani militiamen so they could continue fighting a war and had all the logistics from somewhere as far away from Wiltshire as Afghanistan is from Britain it's likely to save quite a bit of money.

[Boon72]

we'd save some money if we didn't pay for every tom ,dick n harry around the world and let other countries sort themselves out.

[torledo]

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.

 

good point. Infact most spending, outside of spend on employee salaries, is used by public sector orgs to buy goods and services from the private sector.

 

The perceived school of thought is that this money is merely returning to the private sector from whence it was taxed by govt., the other school however says that govt. as the currency issuer always spends first, debiting of bank accounts in the private sector each time it wishes to buy goods and services.

 

And it's this that allows the private sector to pay taxes and save. In that context govt. deficits indicate that the govt. is in part meeting the savings desires of the non-govt. sector.

 

The same school of thought says that govt. surpluses are the reverse, an indicator that non-govt. is taking on more debt [in a situation where the economy still grows]. While i have some appreciation of that thinking, i cannot reconcile it with the fact that labour are a bunch of profligate wastrels who've misallocated billions of pounds. So while that may be how the system operates, the reality is that we have a worthless govt. who've not made best use [understatement] of their immense capacity to spend as monopoly issuer of the currency. Therefore they must be compelled to cut back and reverse from the same course of action they've pursued for a decade or get booted out.

[torledo]

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).

 

That's exactly what we have at present, a progressive tax system.

[ahuxham]

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.

 

Those that can't or those that wont.