View Full Version : Cuts Cuts Cuts Tax Tax Tax
Now this is progressive:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17411117
Public sector workers in poorer areas will have pay frozen!
I do not understand this at all.... How is it making the private sector more responsive?
John Little
17-Mar-12, 12:21
Easy - no-one in their right mind will want to work in the poorer areas where all the problems are. The turnover of staff will be quicker and the problems will get worse. The quality of people working in those areas will go down, thus making a downward spiral that never stops.
Except bankers.
Bankers in those areas must be paid more or they will take their talents abroad...
And the private sector will respond to the pool of cheap labour by depressing wages, increasing hours, doing away with with needless safety regulations and getting loads of moolah.
Everybody happy!!
Well - all those that count...
weezer 316
17-Mar-12, 12:33
mmmmmmm........shouldnt this happen already??
They already give south east living allowances to public sector workers because of the cost of living there. The public understands the costs are higher there and allowances are made accordingly. NO ONE MOANS as its just
The government then says we will allow public pay in poorer areas to come inline with private pay. Everyone goes mad.
Explain how you can justify extra cash in both the very expensive areas due to costs yet cant justify lower pay in other areas due to costs?
John Little
17-Mar-12, 12:55
"Explain how you can justify extra cash in both the very expensive areas due to costs yet cant justify lower pay in other areas due to costs?"
Same rule as for bankers - incentive!! Why should a doctor, a teacher, a social worker go to a poorer area?
Or look on a global scale.
Africa would have a lot more doctors, nurses, teachers if the pay there was better, and the charities would not be so busy and human disaster would not be on such a scale.
On the other hand the NHS would collapse...
weezer 316
17-Mar-12, 13:06
John thats a pretty ludicrous argument.
Africa is a mess as theri governments are totally corrupt, dont respect the rule of law and generally cant see further than the next day. nothing to do with incenvtives or even wages, as neither can happen minus a stable functioning government.Also climatic conditions most first world countries would struggle with so....
Secondly, A doctor or teacher must go where both the work and people are, just like the rest of us. Quite how thats the governments fault I am not sure.
mmmmmmm........shouldnt this happen already??
Not really, it would be more prudent to try and create an even and fair system nationally. Once you freeze public sector pay in poor areas, private sector will follow (as John has pointed out).
Logically the 'national' minimum wage would need regional adjustment in due course.
So not only are they saying that they don't give a feck about poor & deprived areas, they are actually creating a policy to make such areas decisively worse.
Oh to live the little bubble of a politico!
John Little
17-Mar-12, 13:13
Weezie - a change of word here and there;
Some British inner cities is a mess as theri governments are totally corrupt, dont respect the rule of law and generally cant see further than the next day. nothing to do with incenvtives or even wages, as neither can happen minus a stable functioning government.Also climatic conditions most first world countries would struggle with so..
As for doctors and teachers, surely incentives count with them as much as bankers? The Ghanaian anaesthetist who helped put me out earlier this week wants to go home in the end - he told me so. He's here for the money. If they paid him more in Ghana then they would have another world class specialist and we'd have to train a British one...
weezer 316
17-Mar-12, 13:27
Not really, it would be more prudent to try and create an even and fair system nationally. Once you freeze public sector pay in poor areas, private sector will follow (as John has pointed out).
Logically the 'national' minimum wage would need regional adjustment in due course.
So not only are they saying that they don't give a feck about poor & deprived areas, they are actually creating a policy to make such areas decisively worse.
Oh to live the little bubble of a politico!
Right well surely you suport the withdrawal of a south eastern allownace then? Its only making high prices higher by that arguement?
John Little
17-Mar-12, 13:28
Put it another way.
What is the function of a modern state?
In Tudor times it was clear - the writ of the law shall be enforced and by force if necessary - as it often was.
Yet today, with a vastly increased population, the state has taken on regulatory, welfare, judicial and administrative functions which it never had just over a century ago.
It is the Social Service State that we live in. Not the Welfare State.
The function of the state is to provide a service, to regulate, to administer society in such a way that it is possible to live in reasonable standards provided that you work reasonably and behave reasonably.
You know, as well as I, that there are areas of Britain where the writ of the State runs very thin - it is something imposed on societies which have almost broken down in unemployment, crime, drugs etc - places where you and I would not wish to go.
If the State withdraw from, or abandons those areas to some degrees then the State shrinks; it abdicates its responsibility; it not only fails but uses the selfish logic of Ayn Rand to give a virtuous gloss to it. It connives at creating a divided state where the lucky Jacks and Jills are alright and the rest of the schmucks can go hang.
Logically, from a purely Capitalist point of view, after a generation or so these areas, with their disenfranchised and unengaged populations, sunk into football, videos games, drink and drugs may be a useful pool of cheap labour which can compete with China. But really they are superfluous, can be marginalised and ignored and will turn into self-contained concentration camps for the dispossessed and beyond hope, trapped by their poverty and ignorance into irrelevance.
That ain't my Britain.
The function of a government should be to create a prosperous and fair society where people have the opportunity and desire to succeed and contribute to making a fair and prosperous society. The London weighting allowance and indeed the islands allowances are an allowance that recognises the strains on the salary of public sector workers in these areas. It is an allowance. The basic pay remains the same. A member of staff working in HMRC in london is on the same pay scale as one in Manchester or Newcastle. The Remuneration for the job ... The same job ... Is on the same rate for the job. The job is
valued the same and so it should be, its the same flaming job.
Nurses, teachers and many public sector workers do jobs which help
support and encourage others. They pay benefits and work to get people back to work in challenging labour markets. Why why why are these people the target for the governments ire. The only reason is the idealogical opposition of the tory party to the public sector. Well, it looks like they may scrap the 50 p tax band and freeze the salaries of nurses north of the watford gap.
Its disgusting, immoral and self serving me me me. I do not understand why this policy does not disgust people. I dont get how ANYONE can say it is fair.
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 14:07
J-George is both stupid and dangerous. Let's hope he makes himself so unpopular that Call Me Dave has to get rid of him soon.
weezer 316
17-Mar-12, 14:15
The function of a government should be to create a prosperous and fair society where people have the opportunity and desire to succeed and contribute to making a fair and prosperous society. The London weighting allowance and indeed the islands allowances are an allowance that recognises the strains on the salary of public sector workers in these areas. It is an allowance. The basic pay remains the same. A member of staff working in HMRC in london is on the same pay scale as one in Manchester or Newcastle. The Remuneration for the job ... The same job ... Is on the same rate for the job. The job is
valued the same and so it should be, its the same flaming job.
Nurses, teachers and many public sector workers do jobs which help
support and encourage others. They pay benefits and work to get people back to work in challenging labour markets. Why why why are these people the target for the governments ire. The only reason is the idealogical opposition of the tory party to the public sector. Well, it looks like they may scrap the 50 p tax band and freeze the salaries of nurses north of the watford gap.
Its disgusting, immoral and self serving me me me. I do not understand why this policy does not disgust people. I dont get how ANYONE can say it is fair.
So, in summary, the government should pay the rate + some more when local economic conditions dictate. In otherwords, adapt the wages so people arent in poverty in that region.......Interesting. It seems to be EXACTLY what I said. Except it involves some going down. Which you are opposed to on the grounds its th tories attacking easy targets.
We could of course raise taxes...
So, in summary, the government should pay the rate + some more when local economic conditions dictate. In otherwords, adapt the wages so people arent in poverty in that region.......Interesting. It seems to be EXACTLY what I said. Except it involves some going down. Which you are opposed to on the grounds its th tories attacking easy targets.
We could of course raise taxes...
You could of course leave the 50 p tax rate as it is and make big corporations pay their dues instead of patting them on their back as they walk away.
The government should be trying to close the gap between high pay and low pay, richer and poorer, north and south. They should be investing and developing economies where wages are low and putting money into develoment funds to create industry and businesses which pay good wage rates not freezing pay in areas where people are hard pressed to find any flaming work.
BTW the smug raising taxes comment is lost on me - if i was in charge I would be increasing taxation. I would also be happy to pay more in a fairer society as I have said many times on this forum.
Right well surely you suport the withdrawal of a south eastern allownace then? Its only making high prices higher by that arguement?
No. Not the same, we're talking wages not allowances.(It is an allowance, maybe there is an argument to certainly rationalise it, possibly remove it.)
But to try and cut wages by the place in which people work is just regressive and in no way beneficial to individuals, the immediate local economy, wider economy and society as a whole.
The public sector needs shaking up, big style. But cutting the wages of front line staff is not the way forward. Addressing the gravy train junket that supposed management is, is a starting point.
Once you start making regional pay scales then Tesco's, BP, BT et al follow suit. Additionally it gives the Unions even more excuse to cause trouble and further their ego trip into destroying the fair workplace.
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would think that some of the Whitehall advisers are setting up Mr Osborne & co for the fall.
weezer 316
17-Mar-12, 20:06
You could of course leave the 50 p tax rate as it is and make big corporations pay their dues instead of patting them on their back as they walk away.
The government should be trying to close the gap between high pay and low pay, richer and poorer, north and south. They should be investing and developing economies where wages are low and putting money into develoment funds to create industry and businesses which pay good wage rates not freezing pay in areas where people are hard pressed to find any flaming work.
BTW the smug raising taxes comment is lost on me - if i was in charge I would be increasing taxation. I would also be happy to pay more in a fairer society as I have said many times on this forum.
Big corproations certainly do pay their share, and the rich pay more than their share as a matter for fact, thing on the bbc there said the top 1% pay 27% of all income tax! And often for services they genuinly dont use. You and me are the ones that use state schools/NHS/rely on public pension when we are older etc so we should pay for it becuase cuts dont affect rich people, or of they did what on bloody earth would be the point in trying to make any money?
How on earth can the government invest more money when it needs to borrow just to provide the services you voted it into provide?
And the point about closing the pay gap is good. it seems to be exactly what Osborne is trying to do. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17411117) So do you support it now? Apparently public pay is 18% higher in wales than private sector. Those in the private sector could legitimately claim the government is making them poor by not addressing the pay gap....
Put it another way.
What is the function of a modern state?
In Tudor times it was clear - the writ of the law shall be enforced and by force if necessary - as it often was.
In modern times as well, Today, Cameron sent in police who were armed with machine guns to police the Drop the health Bill protests. What does this say about the tory's vision of a modern democracy? :(
John Little
17-Mar-12, 20:58
That government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth?
We did not vote for this.
In modern times as well, Today, Cameron sent in police who were armed with machine guns to police the Drop the health Bill protests. What does this say about the tory's vision of a modern democracy? :(
Yes the Tories are born out of wedlock (to get round the swear monitor) .. and need to be watched, I think they would be very happy when all the low paid and out of workers are shot dead. Then they could start their Tory Heaven here in the UK, Slavery had nothing on the modern day Tories!
And if anyone reading this voted for them well shame on you!!
C3......................[disgust][disgust]
Big corproations certainly do pay their share, and the rich pay more than their share as a matter for fact, thing on the bbc there said the top 1% pay 27% of all income tax! And often for services they genuinly dont use. You and me are the ones that use state schools/NHS/rely on public pension when we are older etc so we should pay for it becuase cuts dont affect rich people, or of they did what on bloody earth would be the point in trying to make any money?
How on earth can the government invest more money when it needs to borrow just to provide the services you voted it into provide?
And the point about closing the pay gap is good. it seems to be exactly what Osborne is trying to do. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17411117) So do you support it now? Apparently public pay is 18% higher in wales than private sector. Those in the private sector could legitimately claim the government is making them poor by not addressing the pay gap....
Many large corporations avoid tax by the use of creative accountants. The tax system has more loopholes than the scarves I was knitting last weekend.
The rich should pay even if they CHOOSE not to use the services we all require - if they lost all their money overnight where would their kids go to school? If they have a massive accident and need emergency treatment do they go, unconscious and dying to a private hospital or is their life saved in an NHS one? Whilst the rich may not need their state pension they will still get it. Society is about supporting those people that need support at a time when they are weaker or more vulnerable. We should be prepared to pay more if we are rich.
And of course I support the closing of the pay gap Weezer however the government needs to work drive UP wages in the private sector and increase prosperity of areas outside the South East by investment and development and job creation rather than penalising hard working public servants who happen to live in economically deprived areas
Today, Cameron sent in police who were armed with machine guns to police the Drop the health Bill protestsReally?
.......Slavery had nothing on the modern day Tories! And if anyone reading this voted for them well shame on you!!At least you see them coming, unlike the Labour Tories in sheep's clothing.
Many large corporations avoid tax by the use of creative accountants.No. They use legitimate legislation to avoid tax. (I ain't sayin' it's right)
The rich should pay even if they CHOOSE not to use the services we all requireCareful with the rich bashing. We need them! We need more of them in the UK, remember they are very mobile, they shop for the best Tax system from different countries. ('THEY / THEM' in Whitehall & the Treasury are licking their wounds from a 'media soundbite' Rich cash grab which saw £Billions disappear from the UK)
And of course I support the closing of the pay gap Weezer however the government needs to work drive UP wages in the private sector and increase prosperity of areas outside the South East by investment and development and job creation rather than penalising hard working public servants who happen to live in economically deprived areasAbsobloominlutely! Wages need to come up, from the bottom up. Not be driven down in some decisive backward policy aimed at making everything North of Watford a bizarre modern day no man's land.
No. They use legitimate legislation to avoid tax. (I ain't sayin' it's right).
Thats why I used tax avoidance rather than tax evasion. Legal it may be - moral it isnt.
Careful with the rich bashing. We need them! We need more of them in the UK, remember they are very mobile, they shop for the best Tax system from different countries. ('THEY / THEM' in Whitehall & the Treasury are licking their wounds from a 'media soundbite' Rich cash grab which saw £Billions disappear from the UK).
Im not bashing the richI would love to be rich. :lol:. I am however bashing the policies which allow some to sidestep their responsibility and I am challenging the view that we shouldnt pay for services which society needs because we choose to pay for something else.
Absobloominlutely! Wages need to come up, from the bottom up. Not be driven down in some decisive backward policy aimed at making everything North of Watford a bizarre modern day no man's land. true
You are all talking about fairness. This seems to me to be a very moveable goal depending on your point of view. (If you a are a public sector worker for instance).
To be fair, it is essential that there be parity in wages between public and private sector workers in each area of the UK.
The simple fact is, the private sector pay for the public sector through all the different taxes they pay. I know, I know, public sector workers pay tax too, but every penny they earn and every penny they pay in tax, NI, VAT, fag and booze duty etc. has already been payed by someone working in the private sector.
So if the public sector earn more for a similar job. That is not fair!
John Little
18-Mar-12, 09:03
So because the private sector can squeeze as much as they like whilst giving as little as possible where there is a surplus of cheap labour, then the State should indulge in a similar oppression?
The Free Market slogan is not an ideology and it is no justification for rank exploitation.
You people are going to make Marxism respectable again and I would not have thought that possible!
The State should be setting the example, not following the bullies of the market.
Government is for the People, not the Market. It's called Democracy.
The conservative party will always put markets before people. This is not an economic decision it is a political and idealogical decision.
Ducati points out rightly that we all pay for public sector staff. Absolutely we do, but we are not paying for nothing. We pay for a job to be done in an environment where cuts and centralisation have already made public sector jobs harder, less responsive and less accountable locally. The length of time it now takes to process a new claim for benefits as an example. More people are having to rely on
foodbanks because of the delay in processing new claims.
Osborne claims it will allow private companies to compete for the best staff. Are there people queuing up for civil service jobs and not applying for private sector jobs just in case? When was the last time
DWP or HMRC last advertised in the north of Scotland? Are private companies in the poorer areas of the UK really losing good staff to the
public sector in such a way that it is affecting their ability to grow their business? I very much doubt it.
There is also a suggestion that public sector jobs will migrate to less
expensive areas. Again nonsense. Affluent areas will still require public services, fire, police, hospitals. I cant see that Great Ormond Street
will move itself to Abergele to save money. In addition how will poorer areas recruit key staff? Headteachers, science and maths teachers of
which there is a shortage anyway if the wage rates are lower and frozen? Teachers in Disadvatanged areas of high
unemployment and low morale paid less than those in affluent areas of
high employment and connected parents. Is the job they are doing in
areas of little hope less valuable? Those children less challenging?
What about police officers? Those pounding the beat in a leafy part of Kent paid more than an inner city bobby in Manchester or Liverpool?
Firemen killed putting out a fire in Newcastle who were paid less than those killed putting out a fire in Peckham- why? Is the risk any less? Are we, as the people paying for publuc services, asking less of our
public servants outside the south east?No we arent.
This policy does not make economic sense. You freeze wages in poorer
areas and people dont buy new cars, dont move house, dont go to
restaraunts, dont shop on their high streets. This contributes to depressing an already depressed economy. Maybe George Osborne
doesnt know this. Maybe his wealth and that of the others in the
cabinet has meant that he doesnt get it. Does he understand that people have to budget for new cars, clothes, holidays or even to pay their council tax or replace a broken washing machine. I dont know, but I do know this... make no mistake, once this principle has been conceded, then there would be no end to its implementation.
Oh except for one area. You think the pay freeze will apply to MPs? MPs in the north paid less than those in the affluent areas? No.... I didnt think so.
Osborne claims it will allow private companies to compete for the best
staff. Are there people queuing up for civil service jobs and not applying for private sector jobs just in case? When was the last time DWP or HMRC last advertised in the north of Scotland? Are private companies in the poorer areas of the UK really losing good staff to the public sector in such a way that it is affecting their ability to grow their business? I very much doubt it.
Squidge, the reason you never see the HMRC recruitment posters is because most recruitment is done in house. There is a surplus of civil service staff, due to changes in working practices, and many other reasons, so staff move from one department to the other, where there are any vacancies, I myself for a short time moved from HMC&E to work with IR prior to the take over of the HMC&E by the IR and the Immigration dept, to become HMRC and the UKBA. But I quickly moved back to HMC&E and retired before the take over.
Oh except for one area. You think the pay freeze will apply to MPs? MPs in the north paid less than those in the affluent areas? No.... I didnt think so.
If that happens poor old John Thurso would drop down to about £50 a week!!!!
C3....................:roll:;)
Exactly Golach, so where are these people that are ignoring private sector jobs in favour of public sector ones. Private companies are NOT losing potentially excellent staff to the civil service. Its nonsense.
To be fair, it is essential that there be parity in wages between public and private sector workers in each area of the UK.
So if the public sector earn more for a similar job. That is not fair!It needs to be progressive though, and we need to stick to national deals. Bar fuel most national chains have national pricing policies, the milk & bread doesn't get cheaper in deprived areas.
Osborne claims it will allow private companies to compete for the best staff. Are there people queuing up for civil service jobs and not applying for private sector jobs just in case?This proves just how out of touch and feckless the ignoramus MP are. The differences in public & private sector go way beyond pay scales.
There is also a suggestion that public sector jobs will migrate to less expensive areas. Again nonsense.Not really, quite a big danger. Especially once it filters through into the private sector. It will be exploited, payroll by postcode. And I guess it will be a system based on where you work, not where you live so even more damaging. (I can think of several ways this could easily be exploited by public & private employers to cut wages)
If that happens poor old John Thurso would drop down to about £50 a week!!!! I've long maintaned that all MP's should be on NATIONAL minimum wage, the vast majority are independently wealthy so really don't need the money. And after all they are doing this for the good of the country, not for their own benefit surely!
weezer 316
18-Mar-12, 12:38
Some of these argumetns are incredible, and seemignly contradictory.
The governmetn just cannto win it seems. If the have a deficit they can either cut wages/staff or increase taxes. Your against tax increases for the most part (exceot for the rich) and against cuts in staff/wages as all services seem to be literally a matter of life and death.
Why is noone complaing about the inflationary pressures that high public sector wages have on poorer paid privatly employed locals? Why is that not a bad thing and why arent people moaning that the government do something about it?
Business people are in business to make money, for themselves and families, for the taxman, for the bank for whomever.
If they have to employ people to help then it is necessary expense. All expenses in a business have to be kept to a minimum. You cannot blame employers for paying the going rate, anything else would be commercial suicide. Go find someone else to be angry at! [disgust]
John Little
18-Mar-12, 18:20
Business people are in business to make money, for themselves and families, for the taxman, for the bank for whomever.
If they have to employ people to help then it is necessary expense. All expenses in a business have to be kept to a minimum. You cannot blame employers for paying the going rate, anything else would be commercial suicide. Go find someone else to be angry at! [disgust]
That is not the case.
You are speaking of primitive Capitalism.
Good socially responsible Capitalism, the modern version, was pioneered in Scotland nearly 200 years ago.
There are companies today that follow its principles- the most notable, John Lewis, being exampled by David Cameron less than a month ago as a good example to follow.
The throwback sort of exploitative nonsense - and it is nonsense because all it breeds is poverty and discontent- which some of the Tory right wing want, is straight from the early years of the Industrial Revolution.
Capitalism does not have to be that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen
F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen)urthermore - if the Tory Right insist on imposing this with their dodgy mandate then they will breed social unrest and the break down of our society; they are not its friends but its enemies.
weezer 316
18-Mar-12, 19:31
John Lewis - great example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10325097
To Quote the story - "Retailers such as John Lewis adopt another approach, dividing the UK into five "pay zones"....."
So do you back it now John? And if not why not? Seems to be similar to what the government wants to do.
John Little
18-Mar-12, 19:36
And why do John Lewis do that?
John Little
18-Mar-12, 19:50
I've finished my dinner now so a few questions.
Hypothetical because I am no expert on John Lewis or regional pay, but I do have questions.
Let us say for example that the average pay for a shop worker in Tyneside is £7 an hour.
John Lewis perhaps reflect that by paying their workers £10 an hour? For example.
But why?
Is it because they are reacting to the low average pay in that area?
That if they paid more then it would reflect on their profits and on the amount of stuff they could sell?
So far, all good Capitalism.
But let us not forget that John Lewis Employees are 'partners' - they share in the profits of the business on top of their basic pay. So if there is no profit then their partner bonus goes down.
But I also ask why is the average pay in that area so low?
Could it be due to a Recession which is being artificially prolonged?
By what?
High fuel taxes?
High VAT at 20%
High unemployment?
Shortage of cash in the system?
Pay in those areas is low - so if you want to sell to people with little cash, your prices and pay must reflect that.
To a degree.
I take it then that you are happy to advocate the partnership/profit sharing to be applied to all businesses?
John Little
18-Mar-12, 20:00
You see if you are going to take John Lewis as your example and reason for imposing regional pay, then you must take the full analogy and not just part of it.
If you are happy to extend profit sharing to Civil Servants, Teachers, Doctors, Nurses, shop workers and so on - then fair enough.
I don't actually see how you can apply it to the public sector - but feel free to tell me.
It could be handed over to private companies of course, but then it ain't public service any more.
And it will be incredibly difficult to administer, inefficient, bureaucratic and open to all sorts of peculation and abuse- a bit like that back to work Tsar woman.
But John Lewis by all means.
Some of these argumetns are incredible, and seemignly contradictory.
The governmetn just cannto win it seems. If the have a deficit they can either cut wages/staff or increase taxes. Your against tax increases for the most part (exceot for the rich) and against cuts in staff/wages as all services seem to be literally a matter of life and death.?
Do you have me on ignore weezer? I have repeatedly advocated the need for an increase in income tax since feb 2011and not just for the rich. http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?135277-Is-it-time-Would-it-help&highlight=income (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?135277-Is-it-time-Would-it-help&highlight=income)
I believe that we all have to pay for the services we consume and I would increase income tax but and here is the but I would also advocate closing the avoidance loopholes, I wouldnt be getting rid of the 50% tax bracket whilst cutting tax credits for single parents and turfing ill people off benefits. Focusing the cuts, the savings, the pressure, the austerity measures on those with least whilst allowing those with most to largely escape the austerity measures is immoral.
Why is noone complaing about the inflationary pressures that high public sector wages have on poorer paid privatly employed locals? Why is that not a bad thing and why arent people moaning that the government do something about it? I dont really agree that this is the case but can you give me some examples of what you mean?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.