Poll: The Budget

[Dolph]

Well, lets take a closer look at that figure of 2.5bn (or 2.6bn is the correct figure IIRC). It's actually based on an uncharacteristic growth for recent years in the number of 150k'ers for the past year. Considering our economy is dead, that is rather unlikely. The common sense perception is that the total number of 150k'ers has probably remained static and if so, this would make my claim correct.

Well, we'll find out on wednesday.

There is a good reason the public sector and the welfare state costs. It's the price of having a civilised nation and not some kind of textbook libertarian 'utopia' or minarchist Victorian slum.

So you're saying both our public sector and welfare sector run perfectly, with maximum efficiency, zero wastage and no unintended consequences?

We have massive scope for improvement in efficiency in the public sector, and fairer approaches to state benefits, that will in turn reduce expenditure on these items.

When I talk about clamping down on tax evasion I refer to the kind of cushy deals made with Swiss banks and the UK tax evaders they shield.

Because the sovereignty of other countries is irrelevant in the communist utopia?

 

[Richie]

Yes, because to be fair to the taxpayer, pay rates should be set at the level that attracts the right staff, which varies by area.

Why do you think they should be fixed?

Quite simple really and I will use the police example as I know someone in the police so have some knowledge.

When you join the police you join with the understanding that you can be posted anywhere within that force area. Moving to a different area within the same force can be difficult and, even if you request it, the force can refuse (its in the T&C's).

In Scotland they are merging the current 8 forces into 1 with the result that cops working in John O'Groats will be in the same force as cops working in Edinburgh.

If they are UNABLE to move region as their employer prevents it, is it really fair for the cop to be given a lower wage than someone else?

 

[Dolph]

Quite simple really and I will use the police example as I know someone in the police so have some knowledge.

When you join the police you join with the understanding that you can be posted anywhere within that force area. Moving to a different area within the same force can be difficult and, even if you request it, the force can refuse (its in the T&C's).

In Scotland they are merging the current 8 forces into 1 with the result that cops working in John O'Groats will be in the same force as cops working in Edinburgh.

If they are UNABLE to move region as their employer prevents it, is it really fair for the cop to be given a lower wage than someone else?

How is that different from most private employers?

 

[piggeh]

The differences in living costs need to be taken into account, especially where there are extreme differences in living costs. I could move up and down the country and receive the same wage in the NHS wherever I go (except a 5% high cost area adjustment for London, which makes a negligible difference). At present, you'd be better off in the public sector to move from London to Wales, Dorset, Newcastle, or wherever, taking jobs from local people and financially being much better off, in the current system. I can see why people are against changes, as you potentially then flip that around and people move the other way, but it needs to be more balanced against local living costs than it currently is.

I'm also stuck in the public sector bandings when potentially I could move to the private sector and earn £10/20k a year more. The public sector needs to look at its pay to ensure its competitive with the private sector.

I guess alcohol will take another pounding in the budget this year?

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why? It's not the same thing at all. One is related to ensuring value for money for the population who have their income forcibly taken to pay for these things, and the other is about personal choices of the employee...

For most people (Even some of those who claim it isnt), your choice of where you live is a personal choice. Living in trendy Soho is as much of a lifestyle choice as choosing to drive a Range Rover or holidaying in the Seychelles.

How is that different from most private employers?

It's not but where are most of the prestigious and best companies in the UK located? Oh, the South. Where the money is and where the talent is drawn to. Now, they are private companies. They can locate where they want frankly who can blame them for wanting to be where the action, the money and the quality of life is? It's up to them.

Public services like police and schools are different - there must be an even spread across the country.

I'm not even sure I've formed an opinion either way - but the concept has asked many questions and I'm kicking around thoughts. It might even be that this proposed plan actually makes the situation BETTER - because they can increase pay for positions where people are vastly underpaid, funded by reducing pay for over-inflated positions where an identical private sector worker gets paid a lot less.

But the big worry is how do you guage the appropriate level of local pay for an employee who has no private sector equivilent? What do you pay a primary school teacher?

 

[Dolph]

The differences in living costs need to be taken into account, especially where there are extreme differences in living costs. I could move up and down the country and receive the same wage in the NHS wherever I go (except a 5% high cost area adjustment for London, which makes a negligible difference). At present, you'd be better off in the public sector to move from London to Wales, Dorset, Newcastle, or wherever, taking jobs from local people and financially being much better off, in the current system. I can see why people are against changes, as you potentially then flip that around and people move the other way, but it needs to be more balanced against local living costs than it currently is.

I'm also stuck in the public sector bandings when potentially I could move to the private sector and earn £10/20k a year more. The public sector needs to look at its pay to ensure its competitive with the private sector.

I guess alcohol will take another pounding in the budget this year?

Total compensation, for similarly skilled employees, is, on average, substantially higher in the public sector

Ensuring pay is competitive means cutting the overall compensation for many in the public sector, be careful what you wish for.

 

[kinetic747]

Because the rich self-fund whereas the poor tend to be funded by others, and there is a world of difference between not taking as much of someone's property, and not giving someone as much of other people's property?

I wasn't talking about the poor, that's a different issue entirely, I was talking about families such as my own. Both working, both paying more and more taxes in one way or another but with the same end result, less money to spend at the end of the month. I class myself as fortunate, I own my own house which is mortgage free and we have zero debt yet I am still finding it harder and harder to justify spending money on the things that I'd like. Isn't that bad for the economy also?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Why would you be a copper in Sheffield if you could have exactly the same disposable income after living costs if you instead decided to just move to Hertfordshire? Hertfordshire is a nicer place to live.

Currently, it's more expensive to live in Hertfordshire so you can increase your disposable income after living expenses by living somewhere cheaper if you are a police officer. This helps stop everyone just moving to the nice parts of the country. One of the main reasons why there isn't an even bigger North/South divide than there is now is because the cost of living in the South versus the North puts enough people off to prevent huge North-South migration.

Perhaps we should pay police officers different rates of pay depending on the car they chose to drive or the holidays they go on, so that a police officer who drives an Audi and holidays in Hawaii has the same disposable income after said purchases as one who drives a Corsa and holidays in Bognor Regis?

But they aren't saying anything about disposable income, they are saying matching wages. Which will have SOME link to disposable not the be all and end all.
Different things, you can earn a fortune in London and be worse off than someome earning half that amount in the north east. % disposable income will vary on many many factors not least how much you actually earn and what the average cost of living in that area is.

Plenty of people see there is more to life than just your disposable income. With your logic no one would ever take a pay cut to do the job they really want to do as opposed to the one that pays best.

I thought the issue previously had been recruiting these sorts of jobs in exactly the areas you are saying they want to work in. I am 99% sure the problem areas to recruit nurses, police etc were in London due to the high cost of living and same wages. Why would you work in London when you could work in say Chelmsford for the same wages or practically the same, yet the awesomeness that is London is only just down the road?

 

[Dolph]

For most people (Even some of those who claim it isnt), your choice of where you live is a personal choice. Living in trendy Soho is as much of a lifestyle choice as choosing to drive a Range Rover or holidaying in the Seychelles.

But the cost of attracting staff in an area is not the choice of the employee, and it is the cost of living that determines the wages in the area in a market economy. It can be tweaked by (for example) commuters who live in other areas, but overall, the ability to attract appropriately skilled staff depends on the wages of surrounding employers for similar staff, not the cost of living in the area directly.

Should the taxpayer be expected to shoulder a higher cost than necessary to provide the required service? if so, why?

 

[Richie]

How is that different from most private employers?

Moot point. There is no private sector version of the Police Force. Are you really wanting to compare a public sector job like the Police to a normal private sector job considering you state in various previous posts on this forum that they should remain solely public sector due to their function?

Even the Government recognise the police as "a special case" but ok, I'll play this game:


The police can also move cops to a different area to fulfil requirements. Is it really just and fair that the cop that is moved to a different region FORCEFULLY is also reduced in pay for something not of their choosing?

Have a think about it Dolph - I am not for or against regional variation yet as there is insufficient data surrounding the proposals but, even with this fact, you don't feel that CERTAIN jobs should not have regional variation?

 

[Dolph]

I wasn't talking about the poor, that's a different issue entirely, I was talking about families such as my own. Both working, both paying more and more taxes in one way or another but with the same end result, less money to spend at the end of the month. I class myself as fortunate, I own my own house which is mortgage free and we have zero debt yet I am still finding it harder and harder to justify spending money on the things that I'd like. Isn't that bad for the economy also?

Yes, that's where there is the emphasis on raising the tax thresholds and reducing state spending.

 

[Jokester]

Well, lets take a closer look at that figure of 2.5bn (or 2.6bn is the correct figure IIRC). It's actually based on an uncharacteristic growth for recent years in the number of 150k'ers for the past year. Considering our economy is dead, that is rather unlikely. The common sense perception is that the total number of 150k'ers has probably remained static and if so, this would make my claim correct.

Even considering the big increase in people earning £150K+ before it came in doesn't explain the massive difference in what was projected and what is actually coming in. Either there has been massive levels of unemployment amongst high earners (there hasn't been) or high earners are moving out of the country or moving to more efficient tax schemes.

 

[[TW]Fox]

But they aren't saying anything about disposable income, they are saying matching wages.

Because of a difference in living costs.

Income minus living costs = disposable income.

 

[Dolph]

Moot point. There is no private sector version of the Police Force. Are you really wanting to compare a public sector job like the Police to a normal private sector job considering you state in various previous posts on this forum that they should remain solely public sector due to their function?

Even the Government recognise the police as "a special case" but ok, I'll play this game:


The police can also move cops to a different area to fulfil requirements. Is it really just and fair that the cop that is moved to a different region FORCEFULLY is also reduced in pay for something not of their choosing?

Have a think about it Dolph - I am not for or against regional variation yet as there is insufficient data surrounding the proposals but, even with this fact, you don't feel that CERTAIN jobs should not have regional variation?

If it's a 'business need', that's somewhat different (and almost certainly in breach of employment legislation). However, as cases go, that one is an exception rather than a reason to stop all changes.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Because of a difference in living costs.

Income minus living costs = disposable income.

Yes there is but they aren't talking about disposable, you are.

They are talking about wages.

There is some but not a perfect correlation between wages and costs, so there cannot be a perfect correlation between wages and disposable income.

 

[Floogie]

Simple question, will you support the removal of the 50p band if it demonstrated that it doesn't work effectively?

How do you demonstrate it doesn't work effectively?

We need HMRC to produce accurate figures, not estimates, on the change in 150k'ers. We also need confirmation that any reduction in the amount of 150k'ers have rearranged their affairs or left these shores due to that 50% tax rate.

To top that off, we really need to clamp down on unethical tax avoidance to measure the true potency of the 50% tax rate.

The closer the above can be met, the more credibility the argument for removal will have in my mind.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yes there is but they aren't talking about disposable, you are.

Because thats where people will notice it, I guess.

 

[Richie]

If it's a 'business need', that's somewhat different (and almost certainly in breach of employment legislation). However, as cases go, that one is an exception rather than a reason to stop all changes.

That's all I was referring to. A blanket decision for all public sector jobs to use regional variations is irresponsible for certain, albeit a very small minority of roles.

 

[Floogie]

So you're saying both our public sector and welfare sector run perfectly, with maximum efficiency, zero wastage and no unintended consequences?

The public sector, like all large organisations, always has scope for efficiency savings in terms of processes and procurement, etc. However you speak of efficiency in relation to job losses.

We have massive scope for improvement in efficiency in the public sector, and fairer approaches to state benefits, that will in turn reduce expenditure on these items.

So you are advocating policy making on what is fair now? Surely such a subjective measure is frought with problems? Least its one on from clairvoyance...

Because the sovereignty of other countries is irrelevant in the communist utopia?

Is the United States communist? I ask as they managed the same situation with the Swiss banks a lot differently and got a much better deal for the US taxpayer...

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Because thats where people will notice it, I guess.

Quite difficult in reality though to compare living/working in a big city to doing so even in a small city. Disposable income isn't the only factor

How about not having a horrible (relatively) commute for example?

The real impact (and I have seen it) is that this pay policy can inflate wages where they cannot afford for them to be inflated.

I worked for a global company that employed a lot in the Northwest and Southeast. The wages in the northwest were not really any different to the south east. There was only 2 major employers in this area of the northwest, the company I worked for and the Civil service. The Civil service set the pay scale for the area as we could not recruit the right people unless we at least matched their wages (plus of course the pension etc they got which was good). The people in the area only wanted to work for one of these two employers locally as the wages were significantly more than anyone else could afford to pay. Hence every other employer struggled to recruit and retain good staff.

Why there are not more employers of significant size basing elsewhere is pretty simple. They will struggle to maintain and support quality trained/skilled staff they would be to some extent cutting themselves off from the market. London has a critical mass no where else in the UK has, it draws in lots of the good people towards that critical mass. You could move say a big merchant bank from LSE to Liverpool but how many staff would go? Not many, so you either make it worth their while (too expensive) or just stay put.
If you were setting up a new company where would you choose, an area thats cheap but you may struggle to recruit staff, or an area thats expensive but you know as long as you pay going rate you can easily recruit who you need?
Most of the manufacturing heartlands are outside the southeast, thats the area we have allowed to be destroyed in the uk economy and hence why some of these areas are now struggling.