30/11 Strikes.

[Tefal]

No, I'm saying the tax you pay doesn't add anything new to the tax pot, as the money to pay it already comes from the tax pot.

Interesting idea, I wonder if it would be more efficient to exempt public sector employees from income taxes and just reduce their pay accordingly.

that way you eliminate the cost of sending out the money, recollecting it then sending it out again, insted just sending out the money they don't normally collect back resulting in no loss of income to the employee.

 

[Glaucus]

Interesting idea, I wonder if it would be more efficient to exempt public sector employees from income taxes and just reduce their pay accordingly.

that way you eliminate the cost of sending out the money, recollecting it then sending it out again.

I said that before, then someone pointed out. That would require a 2nd system to be implemented. Increasing complexity and probably pen pushing jobs. So probably cheaper just to use the one system. Which basically doesn't cost anything as its already set up for the rest of the population.

 

[Yozz76]

No, I'm saying the tax you pay doesn't add anything new to the tax pot, as the money to pay it already comes from the tax pot.



Don't be so sure, I'll happily stand alongside anyone who isn't getting what they deserve, the issue is that many people have an inflated sense of self-worth.

And those who wipe arses for a living are worth nothing?

 

[Glaucus]

And those who wipe arses for a living are worth nothing?

Again where did you pull that from? It's not what he has said.

 

[Dolph]

And those who wipe arses for a living are worth nothing?

And this appears where in any of my posts?

 

[weescott]

It does seem convoluted that the private sector pays tax for the public sector and those who work in the public sector pay tax on what is essentially a tax on a tax.

Damn, another reason to strike!

 

[Yozz76]

Again where did you pull that from? It's not what he has said.

Tell me then what he said so I can actually understand because I'm not intelligent enough.

 

[Glaucus]

Tell me then what he said so I can actually understand because I'm not intelligent enough.

Public pay is paid from the tax pot. Therefor tax on public pay isn't really tax. It adds nothing to the tax pot. All it means is becuase public sector pay tax, it costs a littel less from the tax pot.
Totally correct and doesn't infer any of the trash you suggest.

 

[Yozz76]

Public pay is paid from the tax pot. Therefor tax on public pay isn't really tax. It adds nothing to the tax pot.

And so public sector jobs are worthless, I get you.

 

[Dolph]

Tell me then what he said so I can actually understand because I'm not intelligent enough.

I highlighted that public sector taxpayers don't actually add to overall tax revenue.

An analogy for you:

I earn £100
I give my daughter £50 pocket money

This leaves me with £50

My daughter gives me £10 back in 'tax'.

This leaves me with £60.

The tax paid hasn't meant I have more money to play with, because it came from money I had to give her in the first place.

Nowhere in my post was there a value judgement about relative worth of public sector employees. As it happens, I'm sure that there are some over-valued, some under-valued (especially in healthcare and education where the state monopoly is strong) and some probably about right based on their education and skills.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[Glaucus]

And so public sector jobs are worthless, I get you.

Nope, stop sprouting Bs. Where did anyone say that.

 

[Dolph]

And so public sector jobs are worthless, I get you.

Some are, and some are overpaid. Others are vital, but don't need to be provided by a public sector monopoly, and yet more are both vital and should be restricted to the state.

Public sector jobs are not worthless, just some are not provided in the best way, or we are overpaying for them. In other areas, we are underpaying or failing to manage performance.

Highlighting these issues is nothing against those who work in the public sector, although it does mean some of them may be subject to change. It isn't personal.

 

[dirtydog]

Nope, stop sprouting Bs.

Agreed.

 

[weescott]

Tax aside. Do you not think that the public sector has a unique role in suporting society as a whole? i.e other public sector workers, people on benefits for whatever justified or not reason, and private sector workers?

Is the reason for strikes not about equal distribution of wealth for the working class? Something which the conservatives do not want for the working class, people on benefits and the "wealthy" private sector.

I said it before in this thread. Joining the public sector one has to reaslise they are susceptable to political influence more than anyone else. Want a decent pay: Vote Labour, want to work harder for less, Vote Conservative. Live in Scotland? Tough!

 

[Glaucus]

Tax aside. Do you not think that the public sector has a unique role in suporting society as a whole?

Yes, has anyone said otherwise. No we haven't. But you repeatedly made up bs.

Is the reason for strikes not about equal distribution of wealth for the working class? Something which the conservatives do not want for the working class, people on benefits and the "wealthy" private sector.

Not for me, it's about having pension pots that aren't in a deficit. There is no reason for pension pots to be paid by the tax payers. Private sector have had to cut pension pots as they are also in deficite. Same has to happen to public sector. It's about paying your own way. Not about comparing private vs public.

People have expected far to much, reality hurts when it kicks you in the bum.
It's not theft, it's not broken promisises. With consultation all employment contracts are subject to change. Economics, life expectancy, markets, technology and another million things change. Hence why contracts can change.

I said it before in this thread. Joining the public sector one has to reaslise they are susceptable to political influence more than anyone else. Want a decent pay: Vote Labour, want to work harder for less, Vote Conservative. Live in Scotland? Tough!

meaningless and shows why public opinion democracy fails in so many areas. It should be about doing what's needed. Not winning votes.

 

[dirtydog]

Tax aside. Do you not think that the public sector has a unique role in suporting society as a whole? i.e other public sector workers, people on benefits for whatever justified or not reason, and private sector workers?

Is the reason for strikes not about equal distribution of wealth for the working class? Something which the conservatives do not want for the working class, people on benefits and the "wealthy" private sector.

I said it before in this thread. Joining the public sector one has to reaslise they are susceptable to political influence more than anyone else. Want a decent pay: Vote Labour, want to work harder for less, Vote Conservative. Live in Scotland? Tough!

Delusional.

 

[Dolph]

Tax aside. Do you not think that the public sector has a unique role in suporting society as a whole? i.e other public sector workers, people on benefits for whatever justified or not reason, and private sector workers?

Is the reason for strikes not about equal distribution of wealth for the working class? Something which the conservatives do not want for the working class, people on benefits and the "wealthy" private sector.

I said it before in this thread. Joining the public sector one has to reaslise they are susceptable to political influence more than anyone else. Want a decent pay: Vote Labour, want to work harder for less, Vote Conservative. Live in Scotland? Tough!

No, I don't think the public sector has a 'unique role'. The vast bulk of what is currently done by public sector monopolies could be done by other agencies, even while preserving the state provided access. The exception are those activities that rely on direct access to the state monopoly of force.

Furthermore, the susceptibility to political influence is a very bad thing. Decisions should be made on objective business arguments to provide the best combination of cost and performance, not based on what is politically expedient.

Equal distribution of wealth can only be achieved by forceful removal of property, so I can't support that. Equality of opportunity is far more important than equality of outcome.

 

[weescott]

Yes, has anyone said otherwise. No we haven't. But you repeatedly made up bs.

BS? I haven't made anything up. I only posted my opinion which you are welcome to disagree with.

Not for me, it's about having pension pots that aren't in a deficit. There is no reason for pension pots to be paid by the tax payers. Private sector have had to cut pension pots as they are also in deficite. Same has to happen to public sector. It's about paying your own way. Not about comparing private vs public.

This is where the government has made mistakes much like the public sector has in places. I see your point but the arguement is that the public sector workers shouldn't have to suffer to the extent that is being put forward. Yes we are all in the same boat in the economy a whole. But the distribution is wrong.

People have expected far to much, reality hurts when it kicks you in the bum.
It's not theft, it's not broken promisises. With consultation all employment contracts are subject to change. Economics, life expectancy, markets, technology and another million things change. Hence why contracts can change.

I agree. But Public sector workers do not see it quite so clear cut as that. Hence my point about joining the public sector and being open to change that a lot do not understand. [/quote]

meaningless and shows why public opinion democracy fails in so many areas. It should be about doing what's needed. Not winning votes.

True. But that's politics for you.

 

[weescott]

No, I don't think the public sector has a 'unique role'. The vast bulk of what is currently done by public sector monopolies could be done by other agencies, even while preserving the state provided access. The exception are those activities that rely on direct access to the state monopoly of force.

Furthermore, the susceptibility to political influence is a very bad thing. Decisions should be made on objective business arguments to provide the best combination of cost and performance, not based on what is politically expedient.

Equal distribution of wealth can only be achieved by forceful removal of property, so I can't support that. Equality of opportunity is far more important than equality of outcome.

If only we lived in a more [maybe not what you mean as such?] libertarian society then what you put forward could be true.

 

[Glaucus]

Why shouldn't they suffer to the extent they are? Unless the reforms bring them into massive profit it's fair, if there is still deficits, it's not extreme enough.

I'm sort of am public sector. I have no doubt I will lose my final salary pension, well before I retire and I won't be striking. There's no point. All you'll do is lose a few days pay and may just may delay it a few years.