Ninehigh
|
| posted on 1/12/11 at 07:50 PM |
|
|
Not saying anyone's a jobsworth or lazy and overpaid but I have heard of some crackingly useless jobs that councils and governments have
created. I can't think of any right now but I'm sure we all know one.. Head of car park usage research or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 1/12/11 at 08:36 PM |
|
|
Reading this thread from afar, here's my take on it: (from the perspective of 1. a ret'd RAF officer with 18 yrs served, 2. a pensions and
tax planner in the City for 12 years). So I have peered through both ends of the looking glass.
1. "What we've got her is a failure to communicate." (Strother Martin as the Captain in 'Cool Hand Luke'
2. The public sector are woefully ill-informed as to the cost of provding their contractual benefits.
3. The Government are appallingly inept at putting their (our, private sector) message across.
4. We will all be enveloped by the same shit-storm, public and private sector alike.
5. As JP Donleavy said in 'The Ginger Man' : " We'll be o'roight so long as there's drink."
Bob.
[Edited on 1/12/11 by bobinspain]
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 1/12/11 at 09:23 PM |
|
|
This country owes 492% of GDP. That is personal, commercial, banking and government debt. So we owe 5 times as much as we make in a year....Which is
the 2nd highest level of debt in the world (only Japan owes more). This is not sustainable and something has to give.
We can't borrow more money so the choice is to either increase tax revenues, increase GDP or reduce costs (or all three). One of the biggest
bills that our Government pays is public sector wages & pensions. There are more than 20000 public sector workers on more than £170000 per
annum.
It can't continue as it is.
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 1/12/11 at 10:00 PM |
|
|
No maybe not, but as long as Splitrivet keeps putting that avatar up, I'll be tuning in.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 1/12/11 at 10:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
This country owes 492% of GDP. That is personal, commercial, banking and government debt. So we owe 5 times as much as we make in a year....Which is
the 2nd highest level of debt in the world (only Japan owes more). This is not sustainable and something has to give.
We can't borrow more money so the choice is to either increase tax revenues, increase GDP or reduce costs (or all three). One of the biggest
bills that our Government pays is public sector wages & pensions. There are more than 20000 public sector workers on more than £170000 per
annum.
It can't continue as it is.
When you are in the poo due to over borrowing, the best solution is to borrow more!! Makes sense (to someone)
We borrowed an additional £157,000,000,000 last week, that amount is so big we cannot comprehend, a Radio4 presenter said it was enough to double
glaze every building in britain - even if it had double glazing to begin with.
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
rb968
|
| posted on 1/12/11 at 10:21 PM |
|
|
Clarksons comment with context.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HJP0WXyeaA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 1/12/11 at 11:02 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
When you are in the poo due to over borrowing, the best solution is to borrow more!! Makes sense (to someone)
We borrowed an additional £157,000,000,000 last week, that amount is so big we cannot comprehend, a Radio4 presenter said it was enough to double
glaze every building in britain - even if it had double glazing to begin with.
I can't go into real detail but the basic idea is that we borrow like buggerie right now in order to keep us services like buses, post, daycare
and helping people stay (and get) in jobs.
Then when the going's good and we "have cash to spare" we pay back those loans because we can afford to.
The method that's going on now is stopping money going round because the government need to hoard it so no-one has any, thus none gets spent
anywhere, then business slows down and jobs get cut, so no-one has any money...
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 1/12/11 at 11:25 PM |
|
|
Amazing variety of responses here.
Some reasonably informed, some not so much so.
|
|
|
plentywahalla
|
| posted on 1/12/11 at 11:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
When you are in the poo due to over borrowing, the best solution is to borrow more!! Makes sense (to someone)
We borrowed an additional £157,000,000,000 last week, that amount is so big we cannot comprehend, a Radio4 presenter said it was enough to double
glaze every building in britain - even if it had double glazing to begin with.
I can't go into real detail but the basic idea is that we borrow like buggerie right now in order to keep us services like buses, post, daycare
and helping people stay (and get) in jobs.
Then when the going's good and we "have cash to spare" we pay back those loans because we can afford to.
The method that's going on now is stopping money going round because the government need to hoard it so no-one has any, thus none gets spent
anywhere, then business slows down and jobs get cut, so no-one has any money...
Good theory .... But it just doesn't work like that. Remember Gordon Brown? He was chancellor when 'the going was good' but he was
still borrowing money as he was spending more than he was getting in taxes. That's how we got to be where we are. Even if we got back to the
level of GDP we had in 2006, we would still be borrowing to sustain present levels of spending.
We have to cut spending ... No choice
Rules are for the guidance of wise men ... and the obedience of fools. (anon)
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 2/12/11 at 12:13 AM |
|
|
The Roman Empire was run by 10,000 people... Apparently we have 40,000 running the UK alone. I agree there is fat to be cut but at the moment
we're cutting fat, flesh, bone and still expecting it to work harder than ever.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 2/12/11 at 11:15 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
The Roman Empire was run by 10,000 people... Apparently we have 40,000 running the UK alone. I agree there is fat to be cut but at the moment
we're cutting fat, flesh, bone and still expecting it to work harder than ever. [/quote
A large part of the problem lies in two facts of western society; nobody wants to do the dirty or manual jobs and nobody is prepared to pay a fair
price for anybody else to do the jobs, when combined with our open borders the results is we suck in huge numbers of immigrants and imported
manufactured goods.
The roman empire may have been run by 10,000 Romans but that doesn't count the vast numbers of local chieftains the running of the empire was
in effect sub-contracted to or the legions that kept the lid on it.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
onenastyviper
|
| posted on 2/12/11 at 01:23 PM |
|
|
Funny how people complain about public sector workers striking to try and protect what they have.
The irony is that those in the private sector are only jealous so instead of supporting a right to have something, they are arguing as to why should
they (public) have it if we can't (private).
I wonder what would happen if every private sector worker went on strike for a day to protest about the total financial mismanagement of the UK
economy as a whole?
Oh wait, that's right - it would be called Civil Unrest!
But we won't strike because we are afraid of loosing our jobs, houses, careers etc. - isn't that nice how things are tied up together?
Clarkson is just the bow on top reminding us that if we play within the system one day we may be "rich" like him and become a minor TV
star.
Clarkson is a "rich" idiot who likes to run his mouth off - he is a cartoon character: treat him and his ilk as such.
|
|
|
chris mason
|
| posted on 2/12/11 at 01:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by plentywahalla
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
When you are in the poo due to over borrowing, the best solution is to borrow more!! Makes sense (to someone)
We borrowed an additional £157,000,000,000 last week, that amount is so big we cannot comprehend, a Radio4 presenter said it was enough to double
glaze every building in britain - even if it had double glazing to begin with.
I can't go into real detail but the basic idea is that we borrow like buggerie right now in order to keep us services like buses, post, daycare
and helping people stay (and get) in jobs.
Then when the going's good and we "have cash to spare" we pay back those loans because we can afford to.
The method that's going on now is stopping money going round because the government need to hoard it so no-one has any, thus none gets spent
anywhere, then business slows down and jobs get cut, so no-one has any money...
Good theory .... But it just doesn't work like that. Remember Gordon Brown? He was chancellor when 'the going was good' but he was
still borrowing money as he was spending more than he was getting in taxes. That's how we got to be where we are. Even if we got back to the
level of GDP we had in 2006, we would still be borrowing to sustain present levels of spending.
We have to cut spending ... No choice
Makes you wonder is the Uk is now so over populated that it will ever change?
Makes you wonder if robots have taken/are taking over the world? (1 machine does the work of 10 men etc)
Makes you wonder are we now living too long? (with an increase in births, an increase in life expectancy)
On the surface, it's easy to see that we will never return to the glory days of easy money, have we exceeded the population the world can
support? (Famine, flooding, supposed global warming, etc)
The public sector though is always going to be a problem, technically they don't earn profit for the country in the same sense a FTSE 100
company would or many others for that matter, so it's always going to cause conflict in hard times as they have nothing too offset their
financial burden against.
What Doctors, Nurses, Teachers etc do is equally important to the country as what the top sucessful business men do, just it can't be shown on a
balance sheet.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/12/11 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
I couldn't quite work out the wording of his 'apology'... "If the BBC and I have caused any offence, then I'm quite
happy to apologise alongside them."
Until now that is, as it transpires the 'joke' was scripted and approved by The One Show!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/12/11 at 05:57 PM |
|
|
imagine if labour had won the last election and tried to spend their way out of recession. We would probably have had our credit rating cut, and we
might have found ourselves in the situation that Italy and Spain are now in, with borrowing costs spiralling up.
I myself am sick of hearing 'bankers' being blamed. For every person lending money, there were 10 quite happy to borrow cheap money and
'roll with the good times'. How did all the recent goverments ever think it was acceptable to spend more than they were taking? Even when
you know the economy is riding high? Maybe borrow through the bad times and repay when all is well, but you cant just borrow indefinately! Even with
all these austerity measures, IIRC it will be 2014 before we actually stop spending more than we earn. How many years uncounted will we be paying it
off for? 
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 2/12/11 at 06:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
But we won't strike because we are afraid of loosing our jobs, houses, careers etc. - isn't that nice how things are tied up together?
Yeah that's why I'm being tortured for minimum wage
|
|
|
se7ensport
|
| posted on 2/12/11 at 09:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
Funny how people complain about public sector workers striking to try and protect what they have.
The irony is that those in the private sector are only jealous so instead of supporting a right to have something, they are arguing as to why should
they (public) have it if we can't (private)......
If the money was there then fine. I'm sick of the arguement of "dragging the public sector benfits/pension down to meet the private
sector".
So... lets bring the private sector pension funds and benefits up to the same level by taxing the public sector a "public sector bonus
tax", this tax is to reflect the additional job security. Don't like the suggestion? what a surprise. And please don't quote
"we get paid less in the public sector... blah, blah, blah" because numerous studies have found this to be complete bo 11 ox.
Yes Clarkson is a tw@.
|
|
|
onenastyviper
|
| posted on 2/12/11 at 10:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by se7ensport
quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
Funny how people complain about public sector workers striking to try and protect what they have.
The irony is that those in the private sector are only jealous so instead of supporting a right to have something, they are arguing as to why should
they (public) have it if we can't (private)......
If the money was there then fine. I'm sick of the arguement of "dragging the public sector benfits/pension down to meet the private
sector".
So... lets bring the private sector pension funds and benefits up to the same level by taxing the public sector a "public sector bonus
tax", this tax is to reflect the additional job security. Don't like the suggestion? what a surprise. And please don't quote
"we get paid less in the public sector... blah, blah, blah" because numerous studies have found this to be complete bo 11 ox.
Yes Clarkson is a tw@.
Err, I don't work in the public sector. I have seen my prospective pension quotes from numerous different companies and they are basically
cloud-cuckoo bits of financial bull excrement.
besides, who exactly are we going to tax in the public sector, teachers, nurses, doctors, civil servants, politicians (yes they are public sector
workers too)?
I have a problem with the entire system - it is completely bolloxed, based on assumptions, ruses etc.
Remember most if not all economies are based upon this salient fact: growth.
However, growth for the sake of growth is the economics of a cancer cell.
Another problem is that ideologies, morality and economics are inherently tied together so basically you are either screwing or getting screwed.
|
|
|
se7ensport
|
| posted on 2/12/11 at 11:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
quote:
Originally posted by se7ensport
quote:
Originally posted by onenastyviper
Funny how people complain about public sector workers striking to try and protect what they have.
The irony is that those in the private sector are only jealous so instead of supporting a right to have something, they are arguing as to why should
they (public) have it if we can't (private)......
If the money was there then fine. I'm sick of the arguement of "dragging the public sector benfits/pension down to meet the private
sector".
So... lets bring the private sector pension funds and benefits up to the same level by taxing the public sector a "public sector bonus
tax", this tax is to reflect the additional job security. Don't like the suggestion? what a surprise. And please don't quote
"we get paid less in the public sector... blah, blah, blah" because numerous studies have found this to be complete bo 11 ox.
Yes Clarkson is a tw@.
Err, I don't work in the public sector. I have seen my prospective pension quotes from numerous different companies and they are basically
cloud-cuckoo bits of financial bull excrement.
besides, who exactly are we going to tax in the public sector, teachers, nurses, doctors, civil servants, politicians (yes they are public sector
workers too)?
I have a problem with the entire system - it is completely bolloxed, based on assumptions, ruses etc.
Remember most if not all economies are based upon this salient fact: growth.
However, growth for the sake of growth is the economics of a cancer cell.
Another problem is that ideologies, morality and economics are inherently tied together so basically you are either screwing or getting screwed.
I didn't suggeest you did work in the public sector.
You are still missing the fundamental point that there is a complete lack of money, the government is in debt and the deficit is growing.
I agree with you that the entire system is bo 11 ox, but do I feel sympathy for "teachers, nurses, doctors, civil servants, politicians"?
not a chance as there is fkall chance that it would be reciprocated.
Regarding morality and economics; I'm being shafted, the sand on the massively intrusive strap-on that L(ie)bour set in motion smarts like hell,
I'm further pi55 ed that friends of the Bullingdon club are currently skimming the cream.
|
|
|
Dangle_kt
|
| posted on 3/12/11 at 02:50 AM |
|
|
seems people are artfully missing the point about strikes, whilst spouting what the papers say.
If said public sector workers were working for say...sony, doing, I don't know... telephone sales, and their employer tried to alter terms and
conditions beyond what the union that represented them thought was reasonable and fair, and a majority of union members voted to withhold their labour
(which is right under UK law - except certain public sector workers who arn't allowed, ever) then no one would care.
It wouldnt be in the news, and no one would be telling anyone to "work hard like the rest of us..."
Fact is, its not some worthless sales people, but people who keep each and every one of our lives ticking over very well, and so when the same thing
happens to them, and they react the same way (first headteachers strike in 20+ years...so guess they have to have been pushed pretty hard to act
finally) everyone throws their hands up, and blames them for excercising a right in law, which other less vital workers can use and not raise any eye
brows.
Striking is a right.
And for the record I do work in the public sector, but have spent much more in the private sector - and they are both as bad as each other, with
equally lazy/hard working people in my opinion, its just public sector has many more hoops to jump through (none of which were created by them).
I didn't strike
I'm not in a union
I'm not even in the pension scheme.
The public sector strikes had the same impact on me as everyone else - but I still respect the right of workers to withhold labour as a last resort to
deal with employers which in their view are not being fair.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 3/12/11 at 07:51 AM |
|
|
But the point is, it isnt sony thats getting shaken upside down for more. No one would care except the shareholders! When the public sector strikes,
its ME they are shaking upside down for more, and from my point of view, things arent looking too rosy at the min and i dont really feel like chipping
in a bit more for someone elses pension when i dont have one at all myself.
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 3/12/11 at 09:44 AM |
|
|
+1
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 3/12/11 at 11:40 AM |
|
|
The bottom line (literally), whether public or private sector comes down to affordability.
Private sector pensions, in the majority of cases are based on a pot of money and what that pot'll buy at retirement.
Public sector pensions involve building up an 'entitlement' with the promise to pay that entitlement made by the Gov't but funded by
the taxpayers working at the time benefits are claimed.
Assuming an inflation-linked pension of £20k pa at age 65 with a two thirds widows' benefit would require a capital sum in the region of £400k
to buy it. So 'monetising' the entitlement of a public sector worker, the 'value' of his benefits is the same.
Given that the retiree worked for 40 years to build his entitlement, he and/or spouse have a 50% chance of being in receipt of benefits for over 20
years. (Given a 3.5% inflation rate over 20 years will double his pension).
Pensions are a dear do! but as Maurice Chevalier said when he reached 80yrs of age: "old age isn't that bad when you consider the
alternative."
[Edited on 3/12/11 by bobinspain]
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 3/12/11 at 12:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
The bottom line (literally), whether public or private sector comes down to affordability.
Private sector pensions, in the majority of cases are based on a pot of money and what that pot'll buy at retirement.
Public sector pensions involve building up an 'entitlement' with the promise to pay that entitlement made by the Gov't but funded by
the taxpayers working at the time benefits are claimed.
Assuming an inflation-linked pension of £20k pa at age 65 with a two thirds widows' benefit would require a capital sum in the region of £400 to
buy it. So 'monetising' the entitlement of a public sector worker, the 'value' of his benefits is the same.
Given that the retiree worked for 40 years to build his entitlement, he and/or spouse have a 50% chance of being in receipt of benefits for over 20
years. (Given a 3.5% inflation rate over 20 years will double his pension).
Pensions are a dear do! but as Maurice Chevalier said when he reached 80yrs of age: "old age isn't that bad when you consider the
alternative."
That's all correct, but it isn't quite that black and white. What is missing is anything about the goverment [i.e the employer] taking
pension holidays and not paying into funds as they agreed.
For example, the goverment [from both parties] has literally taken billions from the mineworkers pension scheme it over the years, then they had the
nerve to say it was unaffordable.
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 3/12/11 at 12:51 PM |
|
|
Whitestu
I was making the generic point, not dealing with specifics.
The privatisation of the mining industry in 1994 and its subsequent impact on the MPS is a whole different 'can of worms.'
You may recall however, that Brown shafted the private sector too in 1997 with the abolition of tax credits on pension fund dividends, to the tune of
£5bn a year.
Like I said, we all get enveloped by the same shit-storm.
Bob.
[Edited on 3/12/11 by bobinspain]
|
|
|
