PDA

View Full Version : tax credit cuts



rob murray
16-Oct-15, 16:19
see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34548733

Plenty like this women are going to lose big time over tax credit cuts..........this could become cameron and osbournes poll tax !!!!!
Under the government's plans, the earnings level above which tax credits are withdrawn will be lowered from £6,420 to £3,850, and the rate at which the benefit is lost as pay rises will be sped up. Ministers argue the impact of the cuts will be mitigated by the new National Living Wage and higher tax thresholds. ( which is not being impleneted until 2017 ) Labour says three million families face losing an average of £1,000 a year.

Redsnapper
17-Oct-15, 12:07
Unless its a rant against the SNP you won't get many responses on here.

rob murray
17-Oct-15, 12:32
Unless its a rant against the SNP you won't get many responses on here.

Its not............................................... ................and so what ?

Shabbychic
17-Oct-15, 12:53
see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34548733

Plenty like this women are going to lose big time over tax credit cuts..........this could become cameron and osbournes poll tax !!!!!
Under the government's plans, the earnings level above which tax credits are withdrawn will be lowered from £6,420 to £3,850, and the rate at which the benefit is lost as pay rises will be sped up. Ministers argue the impact of the cuts will be mitigated by the new National Living Wage and higher tax thresholds. ( which is not being impleneted until 2017 ) Labour says three million families face losing an average of £1,000 a year.

She was one of the 24% of those eligible to vote in the UK, who actually voted Tory, because she thought they were going to be nasty and horrible to everybody else, but not her. My heart bleeds for her! Home to roost and all that.

tonkatojo
17-Oct-15, 14:48
She was one of the 24% of those eligible to vote in the UK, who actually voted Tory, because she thought they were going to be nasty and horrible to everybody else, but not her. My heart bleeds for her! Home to roost and all that.

Totally agree, all those wannabe torys will get their comeuppance at some stage of the near future. LOL

theone
19-Oct-15, 14:32
see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34548733

Plenty like this women are going to lose big time over tax credit cuts..........this could become cameron and osbournes poll tax !!!!!
Under the government's plans, the earnings level above which tax credits are withdrawn will be lowered from £6,420 to £3,850, and the rate at which the benefit is lost as pay rises will be sped up. Ministers argue the impact of the cuts will be mitigated by the new National Living Wage and higher tax thresholds. ( which is not being impleneted until 2017 ) Labour says three million families face losing an average of £1,000 a year.

So what's the truth?

Will the tax credit changes be mitigated by other changes, or will 3 million families lose £1000?

Somebody must know............

rob murray
19-Oct-15, 15:36
So what's the truth?

Will the tax credit changes be mitigated by other changes, or will 3 million families lose £1000?

Somebody must know............

I think a large trache of the Tory party "know" enough to be concerned for various reasons......Osbourne has to save c£4 billions from TC cuts.The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies have warned millions of people will lose up to £1,300 a year from the Budget changes. Torys in marginal seats and "rebels", up to 70 of them, are "worried"....Boris JOhnson has very vocally joined the fray, seemingly peers are ready to launch a last-ditch bid to kill off the tax credit cuts in the House of Lords. A rare “fatal” motion is expected to be tabled this week, with a potential vote next Monday. The move would almost certainly to lead to a Government defeat because the Tories do not have a majority in the Upper Chamber.Peers could inflict the blow because the tax credit cut was not outlined in the Conservative election manifesto.

Crossbencher Baroness Meacher, who is putting forward the motion, urged the Government to “think again” and protect the “very, very bottom”. She told the BBC: “The most vulnerable people in our society are going to lose money as a result of this regulation. “It is unbelievable to me that people go out to work and they earn as little as £3,850 - and even at that level of earnings they will be losing tax credits.”Lady Meacher said there were “clearly a lot of Conservatives very concerned about this”....hence over the week end "tweaking" the proposed changes has leaked out....but Osbournes seems not for turning.....could be then that this turns out to be his poll tax

BetterTogether
19-Oct-15, 16:50
Well no one is going to claim there won't be anyone affected by the cuts or maybe that the way they are being implemented may need restructuring but one thing is for sure that particular system does need sorting out.

Although I'm always sceptical of a Conservative voter embarrassing a Conservative Minister on a notoriously left biased BBC programme. We only have her word that she voted conservative " this time" who have her previous votes been for.

The interviews after in her house didn't seem to show a person living on the bread line.

Mr P Cannop
20-Oct-15, 08:37
there is a debate about this in the house of commons today

rob murray
20-Oct-15, 09:52
Well no one is going to claim there won't be anyone affected by the cuts or maybe that the way they are being implemented may need restructuring but one thing is for sure that particular system does need sorting out.

Although I'm always sceptical of a Conservative voter embarrassing a Conservative Minister on a notoriously left biased BBC programme. We only have her word that she voted conservative " this time" who have her previous votes been for.

The interviews after in her house didn't seem to show a person living on the bread line.

The Tax Credit issue was a political hot potatoe long before the BBC incident, it does need sorting out yes, but politically there has to be a minimum of losers if cuts are as wide as the IFS and some elements of the Tory party claim as well as house of lords..whatever the issue this is political and one "weepy" voter on BBC hasnt caused all this .

weezer 316
20-Oct-15, 14:29
Well no one is going to claim there won't be anyone affected by the cuts or maybe that the way they are being implemented may need restructuring but one thing is for sure that particular system does need sorting out.

Although I'm always sceptical of a Conservative voter embarrassing a Conservative Minister on a notoriously left biased BBC programme. We only have her word that she voted conservative " this time" who have her previous votes been for.

The interviews after in her house didn't seem to show a person living on the bread line.

Implying only folk on the brink should get tax credits? If that's the case you prior support for pensioners freebies is absurd, they should get nothing unless they are on the breadline, which was ironically my argument.

Tax credits doenst so much need reformed as wages need to rise. The tories could solve this at a stroke keeping their reforms in place and simply raise the minimum wage again to about £8. Simples. Nobody looses anything and some of that cash companies hoard will get back into the economy

rob murray
20-Oct-15, 14:38
Implying only folk on the brink should get tax credits? If that's the case you prior support for pensioners freebies is absurd, they should get nothing unless they are on the breadline, which was ironically my argument.

Tax credits doenst so much need reformed as wages need to rise. The tories could solve this at a stroke keeping their reforms in place and simply raise the minimum wage again to about £8. Simples. Nobody looses anything and some of that cash companies hoard will get back into the economy

and what about companies who wont recruit if wages were set at £8.00 an hour, you cannot make them rercuit, so a wage hike will cost wages, ie through the loss of jobs that companies wont create, prefering staff to work harder, and use over time, more flexible working rotas : you only put wages up when youve got the profits and market share, the greedy will hold back anyway but if you look at the highlands there are 15k micro businesses employing < 5 people...how many of them do you think could pay £8 per hour ?? This will impact upon the small companies, the very companies we want to grow...we have a low wage economy in the UK thats why we have tax credits, a wage subsidy to get people of benefits and into work. You could of course stop the lot, including JSA and people have to work at the prevailing rates...what they are worth, but importantly what an employer will pay....a free market ! That will go down a storm eh

weezer 316
21-Oct-15, 09:38
and what about companies who wont recruit if wages were set at £8.00 an hour, you cannot make them rercuit, so a wage hike will cost wages, ie through the loss of jobs that companies wont create, prefering staff to work harder, and use over time, more flexible working rotas : you only put wages up when youve got the profits and market share, the greedy will hold back anyway but if you look at the highlands there are 15k micro businesses employing < 5 people...how many of them do you think could pay £8 per hour ?? This will impact upon the small companies, the very companies we want to grow...we have a low wage economy in the UK thats why we have tax credits, a wage subsidy to get people of benefits and into work. You could of course stop the lot, including JSA and people have to work at the prevailing rates...what they are worth, but importantly what an employer will pay....a free market ! That will go down a storm eh

Mate you have a race to the bottom with wages anyway where you have the upper reaches awarding themselves more and more and the workers less and less. I've worked for a few small companies and this was the case, not just at the big ones.

Also, that extra money going into workers pockets means more money for these very same business customers to spend.

The gap between wages and productivity has grown massively in the past 25 years. How, in the ace of this, can you justify not arguing for wages to be forced up? Clearly the market, in this instance, is not doing its job as efficiently as it should be.

rob murray
21-Oct-15, 09:46
Mate you have a race to the bottom with wages anyway where you have the upper reaches awarding themselves more and more and the workers less and less. I've worked for a few small companies and this was the case, not just at the big ones.

Also, that extra money going into workers pockets means more money for these very same business customers to spend.

The gap between wages and productivity has grown massively in the past 25 years. How, in the ace of this, can you justify not arguing for wages to be forced up? Clearly the market, in this instance, is not doing its job as efficiently as it should be.

Youve answered your own points, IM not justifying wages not going up far from it, free market ideologoy / neo classical economics mate the economic bobole of the right.......work for what you can get or are lucky enough to work for what you can demand, ie supply / demand of labour, withdraw tax credits ( wage subsidies ) and let the market dicate wages....I thought you proclaimed you were right wing,...so markets dont always work do they ??

weezer 316
21-Oct-15, 12:44
Youve answered your own points, IM not justifying wages not going up far from it, free market ideologoy / neo classical economics mate the economic bobole of the right.......work for what you can get or are lucky enough to work for what you can demand, ie supply / demand of labour, withdraw tax credits ( wage subsidies ) and let the market dicate wages....I thought you proclaimed you were right wing,...so markets dont always work do they ??

I am a bit of everything mate.

To say markets always work is like saying markets never work. Both are wrong. they work to varying degrees, which is stating the obvious. However, in a marketplace where wages have not kept pace with productivity, but have have vastly outstripped it for some, namely the top 5% of wage earners (Roughly 67k per annum). If the market was efficient, this discrepancy wouldn't have happened. Its not. So, either govt subsidises them at the bottom or takes from the top. If that costs jobs (it wont, it never does, see the CBI's 40 years of things costing jobs that never did) then so be it, it will put the tax payer and those at the bottom on a better footing and possibly limit wage growth at the top.

rob murray
21-Oct-15, 14:11
I am a bit of everything mate.

To say markets always work is like saying markets never work. Both are wrong. they work to varying degrees, which is stating the obvious. However, in a marketplace where wages have not kept pace with productivity, but have have vastly outstripped it for some, namely the top 5% of wage earners (Roughly 67k per annum). If the market was efficient, this discrepancy wouldn't have happened. Its not. So, either govt subsidises them at the bottom or takes from the top. If that costs jobs (it wont, it never does, see the CBI's 40 years of things costing jobs that never did) then so be it, it will put the tax payer and those at the bottom on a better footing and possibly limit wage growth at the top.

AGree, markets work only in some circumstances, but people of a certain persuasion are 100% wedded to the concept of leaving things to the "market" as their ideological belief ( see below ) is that markets always work ( given time or "the long run" ) and that includes determining wages ( bull, and disproved but still trotted out by the neo cons ) ......top 5% of earners...are you counting bankers and 6 figure bonuses here...as £67k is not exactly in that catgeory is it ??? Hell theres people in HIghland Council, at least 15 of them on more than £100k....£67k is not a high wage by any stretch

Neoclassical microeconomics of labour markets

Neoclassical economists (http://forum.caithness.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics) view the labour market as similar to other markets in that the forces of supply and demand (http://forum.caithness.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand) jointly determine price (in this case the wage rate) and quantity (in this case the number of people employed). if you want more info on the economics behind wage rates see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_economics

BetterTogether
21-Oct-15, 15:04
Ahh the brave new world as Scotland's first ultra conservative socialist liberal stirs to tap his wand and make the whole countries problems vanish " poof " in one easy answer.

weezer 316
21-Oct-15, 16:03
AGree, markets work only in some circumstances, but people of a certain persuasion are 100% wedded to the concept of leaving things to the "market" as their ideological belief ( see below ) is that markets always work ( given time or "the long run" ) and that includes determining wages ( bull, and disproved but still trotted out by the neo cons ) ......top 5% of earners...are you counting bankers and 6 figure bonuses here...as £67k is not exactly in that catgeory is it ??? Hell theres people in HIghland Council, at least 15 of them on more than £100k....£67k is not a high wage by any stretch

Neoclassical microeconomics of labour markets

Neoclassical economists (http://forum.caithness.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics) view the labour market as similar to other markets in that the forces of supply and demand (http://forum.caithness.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand) jointly determine price (in this case the wage rate) and quantity (in this case the number of people employed). if you want more info on the economics behind wage rates see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_economics

It doesn't sound high because you know folk on wages like that. You earn 100k you're comfortably in the top 3% of wages earners in this country.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax

I actually tell a lie, 62k a year puts you in the top 5%, not 67, that's the top 4%.

Bettertogether, you seem a bit traditionalist. If so your mother must have told you if you haven't got anything constructive to say then don't say anything. If she didn't then I am.

rob murray
21-Oct-15, 16:13
It doesn't sound high because you know folk on wages like that. You earn 100k you're comfortably in the top 3% of wages earners in this country.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax

I actually tell a lie, 62k a year puts you in the top 5%, not 67, that's the top 4%.

Bettertogether, you seem a bit traditionalist. If so your mother must have told you if you haven't got anything constructive to say then don't say anything. If she didn't then I am.

Better write to Highland Council and when yout at it NHS, HIE and evrey damn quango in the Highlands as all CEO's / Deputy CEO's etc are all on way above £67k.....very few wages at that rate are locally available in the private sector, unless you own / have shares in a private local business thats doing well.

weezer 316
21-Oct-15, 16:26
I know. That was my original point. Top is doing too well. Exactly why govt should just up the min wage, remove millions from govt assistance when they are at it, and it will help the wider economy.

Think about it. If you have a CEO on 100k, thats top 3% of workers, 97% earn less than him.

Now he has 20 employees on £7 and hour and eligible for tax credits of various flavours.

Up that to £8 an hour for them all. Yearly cost for a 40 hour week - £41600 in total + some NI. Now, unless CEO dude here is 11x more productive than the bloke on the minimum wage then the market has failed (I would bet he's not). Yet I would bet a 40k payrise for a successful company for Mr CEO would not break the company, and given how wages at the top have went in the past 30 years I am probably making an underestmation.

You can stretch that uplift over a few years if you want too. Premise is the same.

And thats why the govt should just mandate it. Jobs wont go anywhere simply because there is more money in the economy going round in more pockets.

BetterTogether
21-Oct-15, 16:30
Have I mentioned a totalitarian mentality of late, and it the fact I have absolutely zero respect for it.


Lets not not mention our illustrious first minister Nicola Sturgeon and her somewhat immodest wage.

But never mind all is well as long as you're still kowtowing to the quasi messianic leaders and her acolytes, £75k our local man " Paul " ( yes it could be he of movie fame so odd are his rantings ) is upset because he can't check in his " hand luggage " with easy jet.

rob murray
21-Oct-15, 16:50
I know. That was my original point. Top is doing too well. Exactly why govt should just up the min wage, remove millions from govt assistance when they are at it, and it will help the wider economy.

Think about it. If you have a CEO on 100k, thats top 3% of workers, 97% earn less than him.

Now he has 20 employees on £7 and hour and eligible for tax credits of various flavours.

Up that to £8 an hour for them all. Yearly cost for a 40 hour week - £41600 in total + some NI. Now, unless CEO dude here is 11x more productive than the bloke on the minimum wage then the market has failed (I would bet he's not). Yet I would bet a 40k payrise for a successful company for Mr CEO would not break the company, and given how wages at the top have went in the past 30 years I am probably making an underestmation.

You can stretch that uplift over a few years if you want too. Premise is the same.

And thats why the govt should just mandate it. Jobs wont go anywhere simply because there is more money in the economy going round in more pockets.

In the real world ie not public sector and high paying bank jobs, people get paid the going rate which for some professions is in excess of £60k...why...because they have skills / expereince that merit that type of money. There is nothing stopping anyone from studying and developing themselves, gaining expereince and through time gaining good wages maybe not £60k but in some parts thats not extravagent. What you dont seem to grasp is the CEO is responsible for company and therefore the emplyees if he f 's up and company takes massive hit..he's out on his lug, thats why he gets £100k plus..because he / she has the expereince and the buck stops with him/ her.ANyone on £8 per hour is not managing work nor getting work they do the work and if the company doesnt get work they are out on their lug to. SO I cannot for the life of me get your logic....take from those who carry the can and give to those who do the actual work ?

weezer 316
21-Oct-15, 17:02
In short yes.

The buck all to often doenst stop with with them though. Prime example recently, Carly Fiorina. By ANY measure she was a disastrous CEO of HP from the Compaq acquisition that cost the company 20 000 jobs to recover from such was the hole she put on the balance sheet. She left with a $47m handshake. Who "carried the can" there I ask?

Same thing happens all the time in smaller businesses. A mate of mine down in Aberdeeen once told me about a 3rd house his boss had just bought outright, then a few months later a pay freeze was implemented and several redundancies were announced. Boss though was OK and still is. that was onyl a few years ago. Who carried the can there too I ask?

Fact is, responsibility isnt a measure of wages, production is. Its about a bottom line. Sport is a prime example, an efficent market at last in temrs of wages, the best players get the most, the ones the team depends on gets the most. The manager almost NEVER earns more. And if the company depends on the emplyee doing his job to run, the he clearly has a measure of responsibility.

Thats an extreme example but that the premise. Meritocracy is the name of the game.

rob murray
21-Oct-15, 19:46
In short yes.

The buck all to often doenst stop with with them though. Prime example recently, Carly Fiorina. By ANY measure she was a disastrous CEO of HP from the Compaq acquisition that cost the company 20 000 jobs to recover from such was the hole she put on the balance sheet. She left with a $47m handshake. Who "carried the can" there I ask?

Same thing happens all the time in smaller businesses. A mate of mine down in Aberdeeen once told me about a 3rd house his boss had just bought outright, then a few months later a pay freeze was implemented and several redundancies were announced. Boss though was OK and still is. that was onyl a few years ago. Who carried the can there too I ask?

Fact is, responsibility isnt a measure of wages, production is. Its about a bottom line. Sport is a prime example, an efficent market at last in temrs of wages, the best players get the most, the ones the team depends on gets the most. The manager almost NEVER earns more. And if the company depends on the emplyee doing his job to run, the he clearly has a measure of responsibility.

Thats an extreme example but that the premise. Meritocracy is the name of the game.

True a good football manager gets results keeps his job, similar in business, crap and yer out. The boss you site is a greeday exploiter and yer mate shoulda jumped ship as soon as he was given an important job to do left the geezer in the sh...

rogermellie
25-Oct-15, 22:05
all this despite David Cameron's pre election 'promise' not cut child tax credits
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxS-Tow-Qik)
(the comments on this clip are disgustingly accurate - bar the obvious one)

tonkatojo
26-Oct-15, 11:30
I cannot understand why working people are conned every time these torys open the lying mouths and believe them, ​I question my own intelligence wondering how gullible people are.

rob murray
26-Oct-15, 11:46
I cannot understand why working people are conned every time these torys open the lying mouths and believe them, ​I question my own intelligence wondering how gullible people are.

Well lets wait and see what the Lords do......this is fast turning out to be a real sore one for Tories, so dont be surprised if a compromise is made ie staging in cuts over time so that nowt gets cut until the national wage hits the ground. Its either that or the Lords kick it into touch and we will have a constitutional issue, even though the Lords are fully entitled to kick it into touch as it was not in the Tory manifesto.

weezer 316
26-Oct-15, 13:12
Well lets wait and see what the Lords do......this is fast turning out to be a real sore one for Tories, so dont be surprised if a compromise is made ie staging in cuts over time so that nowt gets cut until the national wage hits the ground. Its either that or the Lords kick it into touch and we will have a constitutional issue, even though the Lords are fully entitled to kick it into touch as it was not in the Tory manifesto.

Yeah they should. Like I say the tories are right in raising wages but wrong it cutting the tax credits. Just legislate the correct size of wage rise to remove the people from the eligibility and no one will whinge. Business moan incessantly it will cost jobs and it never does when the ones in charge up their pay way above inflation year on year. There is a website documenting the CBI's position on such things over the past 30 years and they have opposed every wage rise and holiday change going and have been proven wrong every time.

And raise taxes when we are at it.

rob murray
26-Oct-15, 16:34
Yeah they should. Like I say the tories are right in raising wages but wrong it cutting the tax credits. Just legislate the correct size of wage rise to remove the people from the eligibility and no one will whinge. Business moan incessantly it will cost jobs and it never does when the ones in charge up their pay way above inflation year on year. There is a website documenting the CBI's position on such things over the past 30 years and they have opposed every wage rise and holiday change going and have been proven wrong every time.

And raise taxes when we are at it.

If the government can look after their own employees and raise their wages now so that they are no longer in a position to claim tax credits ( same with all public sector jobs ) then the private sector will need to follow suit so as to tempt employees away from the public sector.....surely ???

BetterTogether
26-Oct-15, 17:16
The reformation of tax credits is in principle the right thing to do. What is required is some adjustment to ensure those with the lowest incomes are not unduly affected.

rob murray
26-Oct-15, 17:37
The reformation of tax credits is in principle the right thing to do. What is required is some adjustment to ensure those with the lowest incomes are not unduly affected.

That is the crux of it, move from benefits in work, to living wages, drop the benefits = higher pay, nowt wrong with that, the big picture is the creation of a high wage / low tax economy thats why tax credits are being targeted....allegedly

BetterTogether
26-Oct-15, 17:46
But it isn't everyone on tax credits who will be severely affected. I'm afraid I have little sympathy with the likes of the woman with six children decrying the system, since when did the state become the paymaster for having a large family. The system should rightly be capped at two children and then those on low earnings assisted. Not a panacea for having a large family you cannot support even with good wages. I know very few people even on higher incomes who would find 4,5 or 6 children responsible if you're unable to provide a sufficiently high paying income for yourself without state support.

weezer 316
26-Oct-15, 18:13
If the government can look after their own employees and raise their wages now so that they are no longer in a position to claim tax credits ( same with all public sector jobs ) then the private sector will need to follow suit so as to tempt employees away from the public sector.....surely ???

I am not too sure that would make a difference but I see what you mean. It would be a start I suppose.

Reality is most companies, vast majority (including every one I have ever worked for including present) wont raise your wages unless they feel compelled to do so either by law or having their hands forced by the employee, most of whom wont say a word and just hope for the best. I worked for BT for 7 years and in the first 5 I got 1 payrise of 18p an hour. Meanwhile BT never made less than £1.4bn profit AFTER tax bar one year when it made a loss of £80m.

I feel there needs to be a link with productivity and boardroom pay. Pay should capped at say 15x the lowest bands average or something along these line, that way if director pay goes up so does employees, as well as a link to productivity for the average of your position. That way it creates upwards pressures on wages.

The current system is effectively a subsidy to low paid workers that companies receive through the tills. They are right to attack it but force it upon those paying the wages, not receiving.

cptdodger
26-Oct-15, 18:21
This was in Dundee's Evening Telegraph tonight -

"A row has broken out over the number of people earning more than £50,000 at the city council at a time when thousands of workers face losing their jobs.

The leader of Dundee City Council’s Labour opposition, Councillor Kevin Keenan, has asked the council’s chief executive to investigate the situation.
In an e-mail to David Martin, Mr Keenan said the “position did not sit well” given the pressure the council was currently under.
Mr Keenan said figures released in Dundee City Council’s annual accounts revealed that last year, 18 people joined the top earnings bracket.
He added that was at a time of finding £7 million budget cuts.
Mr Keenan added: “Given that we face a further budget cut of £28 million during the next two years this does not sit well.”
Earlier this week the council’s finance convener Councillor Willie Sawers warned nowhere would escape the impact of finding the £28 million savings.
He warned it was inevitable there would be job cuts, although he promised there would be no compulsory redundancies and said savings would be achieved through voluntary redundancies.
A report to go before the council’s policy and resources committee on Monday also reveals the council plans to re-structure senior management positions.
They hope to save £400,000 towards the budget savings by doing so.
However, Mr Keenan said given 18 new posts had been created, any restructuring would simply take them back to the position they were in a year ago and wouldn’t save any extra money.
He said: ”We cannot afford to have any other potential overspend and whilst we look to shed workforce through redundancy and voluntary early retirement. There is the potential for a great deal of knowledge to be lost increasing the risk for the council.”
Mr Keenan has asked that at a minimum, a sub-committee is formed to over-view the HR process.
There are 166 council employees earning between £50,000 and £140,000.
A council spokesman said: “The chief executive will respond to Councillor Keenan directly in due course.”

weezer 316
26-Oct-15, 21:59
This was in Dundee's Evening Telegraph tonight -

"A row has broken out over the number of people earning more than £50,000 at the city council at a time when thousands of workers face losing their jobs.

The leader of Dundee City Council’s Labour opposition, Councillor Kevin Keenan, has asked the council’s chief executive to investigate the situation.
In an e-mail to David Martin, Mr Keenan said the “position did not sit well” given the pressure the council was currently under.
Mr Keenan said figures released in Dundee City Council’s annual accounts revealed that last year, 18 people joined the top earnings bracket.
He added that was at a time of finding £7 million budget cuts.
Mr Keenan added: “Given that we face a further budget cut of £28 million during the next two years this does not sit well.”
Earlier this week the council’s finance convener Councillor Willie Sawers warned nowhere would escape the impact of finding the £28 million savings.
He warned it was inevitable there would be job cuts, although he promised there would be no compulsory redundancies and said savings would be achieved through voluntary redundancies.
A report to go before the council’s policy and resources committee on Monday also reveals the council plans to re-structure senior management positions.
They hope to save £400,000 towards the budget savings by doing so.
However, Mr Keenan said given 18 new posts had been created, any restructuring would simply take them back to the position they were in a year ago and wouldn’t save any extra money.
He said: ”We cannot afford to have any other potential overspend and whilst we look to shed workforce through redundancy and voluntary early retirement. There is the potential for a great deal of knowledge to be lost increasing the risk for the council.”
Mr Keenan has asked that at a minimum, a sub-committee is formed to over-view the HR process.
There are 166 council employees earning between £50,000 and £140,000.
A council spokesman said: “The chief executive will respond to Councillor Keenan directly in due course.”

Mental. Just mental. Unless those positions belong to extreme technical specialists then that is where one of the serious issues lies with our current model. A manager cannot be worth 140k a year at a council when the first minister and PM earns that and that should be the extreme upper limit for positions like that.

Drives me nuts. This is why taxes should be raised. I would bet my house many of these people are essentially admin staff bar they get to go to meetings. Link it to productivity, probably on min wage.

cptdodger
26-Oct-15, 23:49
Although I live here now, what I find really galling is the Victoria and Albert Museum they are building at the waterfront in Dundee. £80 million and rising, it's not even out the ground yet. At least £6.5 million is coming out of the Councils budget.

“Given that we face a further budget cut of £28 million during the next two years this does not sit well.”

How they justify that cost for a building is beyond me.

cptdodger
26-Oct-15, 23:55
For anybody that ever questioned the need for The House Of Lords -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34631156

Fulmar
27-Oct-15, 09:22
You should have seen Dundee a few years back when it was well in the doldrums. Now, it's being re-vitalised with all sorts of development and innovation going on of which the new V and A forms a part. Investment brings jobs and a thriving local economy, hopefully, at least that is the rationale. The V and A will be a superb building- leading architects from all over the world competed over its design and the people of Dundee chose the winner. It will bring in people from all over the world to visit it- (I think so anyway) and will pay back the investment through the money they spend when they are in the city- plus it will be a source of employment. What would the steel towns give for something like that- or Wick, for that matter. Maybe I am being simplistic but I like to see what is happening in Dundee and hope it thrives. I shall continue to go there anyway!

cptdodger
27-Oct-15, 10:25
You should have seen Dundee a few years back when it was well in the doldrums. Now, it's being re-vitalised with all sorts of development and innovation going on of which the new V and A forms a part. Investment brings jobs and a thriving local economy, hopefully, at least that is the rationale. The V and A will be a superb building- leading architects from all over the world competed over its design and the people of Dundee chose the winner. It will bring in people from all over the world to visit it- (I think so anyway) and will pay back the investment through the money they spend when they are in the city- plus it will be a source of employment. What would the steel towns give for something like that- or Wick, for that matter. Maybe I am being simplistic but I like to see what is happening in Dundee and hope it thrives. I shall continue to go there anyway!


Are you from Dundee ?

Have you ever lived in Dundee?

cptdodger
27-Oct-15, 11:04
You should have seen Dundee a few years back when it was well in the doldrums. Now, it's being re-vitalised with all sorts of development and innovation going on of which the new V and A forms a part. Investment brings jobs and a thriving local economy, hopefully, at least that is the rationale. The V and A will be a superb building- leading architects from all over the world competed over its design and the people of Dundee chose the winner. It will bring in people from all over the world to visit it- (I think so anyway) and will pay back the investment through the money they spend when they are in the city- plus it will be a source of employment. What would the steel towns give for something like that- or Wick, for that matter. Maybe I am being simplistic but I like to see what is happening in Dundee and hope it thrives. I shall continue to go there anyway!

I think it's a safe bet to say I saw Dundee a few years back as I was born in Broughty Ferry in the 60's and lived in Dundee before moving here.

The V&A, well, if that design won a competition, I would hate to have seen the designs that lost, you would be hard pressed to come up with a design that is worse than that monstosity they are attempting to build.

I don't know what the steel towns or Wick would give to have a council so much in debt that it has to cut a further £28 million from the budget, where there is poverty, food banks and children going hungry on a daily basis. What do you think the steel towns and Wick would give for that ?

I wouldn't worry about the poverty, the need for food banks and so on because we will have a shiny new building, in say about three years time that probably will have cost somewhere in the region of £100 million plus.

Next time you go to Dundee, don't just stay in the City Centre (what's left of it) go round the schemes, especially Charleston, Fintry, Beechwood, I could name a lot more, then come back and tell me how brilliant it is for Dundee that we have to pour money hand over fist on this one building.


https://www.facebook.com/VandADundee/photos/a.322389161149876.78107.148004088588385/322389164483209/?type=3&theater

rob murray
27-Oct-15, 11:29
Mental. Just mental. Unless those positions belong to extreme technical specialists then that is where one of the serious issues lies with our current model. A manager cannot be worth 140k a year at a council when the first minister and PM earns that and that should be the extreme upper limit for positions like that.

Drives me nuts. This is why taxes should be raised. I would bet my house many of these people are essentially admin staff bar they get to go to meetings. Link it to productivity, probably on min wage.

Look closer to home, HIghland Council !

weezer 316
27-Oct-15, 11:42
Look closer to home, HIghland Council !

Is there detailed wage info available for them? You have a link?

See the measure was defeated in the House of lords last night. Mental. This will be fun.

BetterTogether
27-Oct-15, 11:46
It's no big secret that public sector wages have been rising a lot more quickly than private sector which require little technical skill and do not have the same commercial pressures of the private sector.
If you read most of the job requirements for council jobs nowadays they are written in gobbledygook so apply only if you have our pc money grubbing values.

Just shows how out of touch councils have become building their ivory towers and giving jobs for their own peculiar breed.
fundamentally they are no longer fit for purpose.

weezer 316
27-Oct-15, 12:04
It's no big secret that public sector wages have been rising a lot more quickly than private sector which require little technical skill and do not have the same commercial pressures of the private sector.
If you read most of the job requirements for council jobs nowadays they are written in gobbledygook so apply only if you have our pc money grubbing values.

Just shows how out of touch councils have become building their ivory towers and giving jobs for their own peculiar breed.
fundamentally they are no longer fit for purpose.

You're an ideologue. Clearly the public sector consists of a much more technical workforce than most private companies. They earn more because if you shut your eyes and randomly point the chances are you will hit somone with a technical skill vis a vis the private sector. On top of that, all job titles are gobbledygook that I have ever seen and you don't brandish the private sector with the same amount of scorn en masse. Your like the nationalists in your zeal bar its private enterprise you cant see past.

The problem is the top salaries and who they go too. A people manager shouldn't earn more than the man/woman who for example designs and manages the systems that keep out water safe. Yet they will, probably a lot more. Leads to skills leaving jobs for higher pay and lower productivity, while a chancer cna talk his way into a man management job yet couldnt do the job himself he is in charge of.

rob murray
27-Oct-15, 12:07
Is there detailed wage info available for them? You have a link?

See the measure was defeated in the House of lords last night. Mental. This will be fun.

IN HC there are 7 levels of management and then a layer above them, in 14/15 pay scales were

Management grade 1 37k
Grade 2 41k
grade 3 46k
grade 4 52 k
grade 5 60 k
grade 6 68 k
grade 7 77 k
Chief Executive - £142,926
Depute Chief Executive and Director of Corporate Development - £118,323
Director of Care and Learning - £107,568
Director of Community Services - £107,568
Director of Development and Infrastructure - £107,568
Director of Finance - £107,568



for above 100k plus see http://www.highland.gov.uk/info/695/council_information_performance_and_statistics/105/senior_managers/2 the rest are in a PDF accessed from http://www.highland.gov.uk/downloads/file/3708/highland_council_pay_and_grading_structures_2014_a nd_2015 : lowest paid is = £12k........
 (http://www.highland.gov.uk/downloads/file/3708/highland_council_pay_and_grading_structures_2014_a nd_2015)

Fulmar
27-Oct-15, 13:11
Well, CPT, obviously you have more knowledge than me from the 60s etc. My brother lived in Dundee in the 70s and it was a depressing place then is all I can say. I am in Dundee a lot as one of my kids lives there. Of course there is deprivation, I never said that there was not but at least things are being improved which to my mind is better. I went to the exhibition of the short-listed designs for the V and A before the vote and I thought that they were all amazing. It is a pity that you view it as a monstrosity but there it is. My two lived in one of the new waterside flats for 3 years plus (renting) and they loved it there on City Quay.
Anyway, as this thread is to do with tax credits, I am not contributing further and will just continue to enjoy my visits to Dundee. My family members certainly like living there and there is lots to do and places to go to and for me, I particularly like all the green spaces and wild flower areas which are free for everyone to enjoy and I am looking forward to going to the new V and A if I live that long, of course.

cptdodger
27-Oct-15, 13:28
My two lived in one of the new waterside flats for 3 years plus (renting) and they loved it there on City Quay.

If I did'nt originally come from Dundee, and my only experience of living in the City was living there (City Quay) I would have the same blinkered view of Dundee as well.

weezer 316
27-Oct-15, 13:42
IN HC there are 7 levels of management and then a layer above them, in 14/15 pay scales were

Management grade 1 37k
Grade 2 41k
grade 3 46k
grade 4 52 k
grade 5 60 k
grade 6 68 k
grade 7 77 k
Chief Executive - £142,926
Depute Chief Executive and Director of Corporate Development - £118,323
Director of Care and Learning - £107,568
Director of Community Services - £107,568
Director of Development and Infrastructure - £107,568
Director of Finance - £107,568



for above 100k plus see http://www.highland.gov.uk/info/695/council_information_performance_and_statistics/105/senior_managers/2 the rest are in a PDF accessed from http://www.highland.gov.uk/downloads/file/3708/highland_council_pay_and_grading_structures_2014_a nd_2015 : lowest paid is = £12k........



Blurgh.......The CEO earns 7k a year more than the first minister!! Are you kidding me! Unreal. Just unbelievable. Seems they cant even get the higher you are the more you earn bit right either! fine.

rob murray
27-Oct-15, 14:21
Blurgh.......The CEO earns 7k a year more than the first minister!! Are you kidding me! Unreal. Just unbelievable. Seems they cant even get the higher you are the more you earn bit right either! fine.

They would likely say that they ( senior managers ) are accountable and manage a large budget, hence the pay scales......me.....well yonks back the public sector was not that well paid cos staff had job guarantees, pensions and didnt carry the hassles of private business...so whats changed. As regards HC their arguement for the large salaries is that they have to pay them to attract the right calibre of people.......if you do a like for like comparison between the public and private sector in the Highlands very few private sector companies pay these sorta rates.

BetterTogether
27-Oct-15, 15:02
I'm far from an ideologue the public sector has its place but I consider some of the wages paid nowadays to those running them unrealistic. In the private sector if you fail you're fairly swiftly dismissed from your position and replaced in the public sector it seems they just get moved to another position. I'm not sure why you consider the public sector full of more technical expertise than the private sector maybe you've no real experience of what skills are required at the top of some of the countries leading companies.

rob murray
27-Oct-15, 15:09
I'm far from an ideologue the public sector has its place but I consider some of the wages paid nowadays to those running them unrealistic. In the private sector if you fail you're fairly swiftly dismissed from your position and replaced in the private sector it seems they just get moved to another position. I'm not sure why you consider the public sector full of more technical expertise than the private sector maybe you've no real experience of what skills are required at the top of some of the countries leading companies.

Spot your misatke lol lol lol....................... In the private sector if you fail you're fairly swiftly dismissed from your position and replaced in the private ( do ya mean PUBLIC ) sector it seems they just get moved to another position.

BetterTogether
27-Oct-15, 15:27
Oops mea culpa !

rob murray
27-Oct-15, 15:31
Oops mea culpa !

AYe...slow down on the ol keyboard lol lol lol .............................

BetterTogether
27-Oct-15, 15:32
I'm just having one of those days. Put it down to the clocks going back and full moon.

rob murray
29-Oct-15, 15:57
Blurgh.......The CEO earns 7k a year more than the first minister!! Are you kidding me! Unreal. Just unbelievable. Seems they cant even get the higher you are the more you earn bit right either! fine.

NEW figures suggest Highland Council spends around £30,000- a-month on hire cars for its workers. The council spend £363,063 on hired cars including £120,138 on fuel costs for the last financial year. From the Caithness Courier

BetterTogether
29-Oct-15, 16:53
NEW figures suggest Highland Council spends around £30,000- a-month on hire cars for its workers. The council spend £363,063 on hired cars including £120,138 on fuel costs for the last financial year. From the Caithness Courier

Taking that the owners of said hire cars will be making a profit and the lease of reasonable cars is fairly inexpensive it does beg the question why aren't they using some form of lease/ maintenance scheme to have their own pool of cars to keep costs down.

BetterTogether
29-Oct-15, 16:58
You could also ask whether the proposed £8.5 million price tag of the council offices in Wick was money well spent, when the highland council are screaming about cuts needing to be made. I'm pretty sure any private sector enterprise would of either made the most of the buildings they already have or just moved into a pre existing building and modified it to suit. The Old Caithness Glass building up by Tesco would of probably managed to accommodate a lot of the required office spaces with a lot smaller price tag to the public purse and wouldn't of landed an architectural monstrosity in the middle of town.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/inverness/613671/highland-council-facing-massive-cuts-as-budget-deficit-trebles/