Strikes

[wyatt]

Although not in a position to strike I've voted to not strike. Yes the government and banks have contributed heavily to the situation we're currently in but public sector benefits and jobs can't continue the way they're going.

 

For example, Birmingham City Council allow you 6 months at full pay when sick. I know of numerous people who do 5 and a bit months with 'back' problems and then a months work before going off again because the system will pay them to do it. Imagine a NGO allowing you that?!?

 

No one will challenge the rules or people doing it due to the threat of 'strike' as the workers see this as an attack on them and their benefits. Who pays for this? The local tax payer.

[scooterboy]

What makes me laugh is when Mr Camer moron is telling us all that we are all in this together, but I havent been on 5 holidays this year or have I been on a 3 million pound yacht

 

Look what happened in the 80`s, thatcher and the tories broke the biggest union (NUM), then closed them all. It has taken just over 20 years to loose all our big industries and what are we left with, minimuim wage, casual and temporary work

 

I dont blame anyone for striking, they have worked and saved for their pensions so who can blame them

 

The goverment is very good at getting the joe public against any strikes, but just think how many hospitals, doctors and dentists surgerys have closed, leisure centres, swimming pools etc

 

 

By the way, Im not an ex miner, just a self employed sparky

 

power to the people

[kdubya]

The fundamental thing is the country can't afford it so Kudubya would you take the approach of Gordon Clown and just keep borrowing or what would you actually do about the situation?

 

 

 

Wrong! the country can afford to maintain public sector pensions? seems they are with the proposals to hit the public sector workers "hard" looking to bring in 2.8 billion er a lot less than say the 11 billion we gave to the Irish and Portuguese ( we wont see that again) or the 20 billion we gave to the banks (have we got that back yet didn't think so) or the billions we give in overseas aid,India needs it bad or housing benefit and income support to non nationals or free health care to those who come here solely for that I.E health tourism etc etc

 

Or god forbid we should have a full reinstatement of the gangsters oops banksters bonus tax estimated to bring us in 3,5 billion a year (just in case you can't add up that's more than the 2.8 we are worried about) so go on you figure get the money off the corrupt **** that caused the problems with the countries/ worlds economy, or cut the ghastly waste and expense of the great multicultural experiment or do it the easy way and simply blame it all on the guy who sweeps your street for you?

 

KW

[kdubya]

Wow this thread wanders about...

 

BUT

 

"1 in 4 people in employment in Scotland work in the public sector".

 

That's 595,200 people working in the public sector out of a total of 2,486,000 in employment.

 

That is just not sustainable.

 

Once we agree on that then there *has* to be public sector cuts (simples).

 

 

 

This is the most blindingly obvious example I can find. There are similar examples and analogies for the health service.

 

It is just not sustainable. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.

 

 

Seems that the number of times you've posted it , it's the only example you can find.

 

KW

[al4x]

those numbers look a bit small Kudubya compares to the 167 or so billion that the defecit is, thats before they start trying to reduce the actual debt. You mention a few loans there that they will aim to retrieve but the whole thing is unsustainable.

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

[scooterboy]

Wrong! the country can afford to maintain public sector pensions? seems they are with the proposals to hit the public sector workers "hard" looking to bring in 2.8 billion er a lot less than say the 11 billion we gave to the Irish and Portuguese ( we wont see that again) or the 20 billion we gave to the banks (have we got that back yet didn't think so) or the billions we give in overseas aid,India needs it bad or housing benefit and income support to non nationals or free health care to those who come here solely for that I.E health tourism etc etc

 

Or god forbid we should have a full reinstatement of the gangsters oops banksters bonus tax estimated to bring us in 3,5 billion a year (just in case you can't add up that's more than the 2.8 we are worried about) so go on you figure get the money off the corrupt **** that caused the problems with the countries/ worlds economy, or cut the ghastly waste and expense of the great multicultural experiment or do it the easy way and simply blame it all on the guy who sweeps your street for you?

 

KW

 

 

Its not just non nationals that need the benefits stopping, its all the british white scrouts that have never worked too, but if you stopped the mobility benefit, Nissan would got bust : )

[kdubya]

those numbers look a bit small Kudubya compares to the 167 or so billion that the defecit is, thats before they start trying to reduce the actual debt. You mention a few loans there that they will aim to retrieve but the whole thing is unsustainable.

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

 

hang on you asked how we covered public sector pensions, and the fact Danny Alexander wants to save 2.8 billion from the pension contributions. deficit, now you want the public sector workers to clear the national debt as well oh what a jolly good idea, anyway nice to see you can debate it in your work time, you are after all self-employed and always have your Neb on the grindstone do you not, unlike those lazy council chaps.

 

KW

[Cam_in_Cornwall]

Why dont we just ask the banks back for the money they owe, they are quick to ask us for it if we go overdrawn, or just tell the world we havent got any money so lets wipe the slate clean and the whole world starts from scratch.

[Nial]

Forgetting everything else one point of fact is that people are living longer.

 

 

It used to be that people would work 40 - 45 years then expect to draw a pension for 10 - 15 years.

 

Now people seem to expect to work for 40 years then draw a pension for 20 - 25 years.

 

 

On this fact alone the unions should accept that something's got to change.

 

 

 

 

Seems that the number of times you've posted it , it's the only example you can find.

 

KW

 

 

But it's one elephant in the room that _must_ be addressed.

 

Who's going to pay for all these public sector workers?

 

 

Nial.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Nial

[kdubya]

Forgetting everything else one point of fact is that people are living longer.

 

 

It used to be that people would work 40 - 45 years then expect to draw a pension for 10 - 15 years.

 

Now people seem to expect to work for 40 years then draw a pension for 20 - 25 years.

 

 

On this fact alone the unions should accept that something's got to change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nial.

 

I know, Logans run that should do it.

 

Known fact the earlier you retire the longer you live, so lets work them to death,no probs then eh! lets see how many 67 or 68 year old scaffolders we will have, over the sat on their backside workers (anyone we know ) who say anyone can work longer?

 

 

KW

Edited September 16, 2011 by kdubya

[Nial]

I know, Logans run that should do it.

Known fact the earlier you retire the longer you live, so lets work them to death,no probs then eh! lets see how many 67 or 68 year old scaffolders we will have, over the sat on their backside workers (anyone we know ) who say anyone can work longer?

KW

 

OK, not talking public or private industry, just in general.

 

Where's the money going to come from?

 

We are _all_ going to have to either...

 

1) Contribute more while we're working

 

and/or

 

2) Work longer

 

 

Unless we want to totally condemn the next generations to supporting us.

 

I don't see how anyone can dispute this.

 

 

Nial

[al4x]

One things for sure it wouldn't be at the 40% rate Kdubya is so keen on saying he pays it would be more like 60% plus.

 

Oh and KD technically I'm not self employed I'm PAYE and my little contribution also includes a VAT, corporation tax and PAYE bill probably similar to your total income. Thats how us small business runners get hammered, so don't overlook the other sources of tax that those who look self employed pay

Edited September 16, 2011 by al4x

[Wharf Rat]

Between 1918 and 1961 the national debt was over 100 per cent of GDP. Today it is 56.3 per cent. There was no crisis then, there is no crisis now.

Our debt is lower as a proportion of GDP than the economies of the US, Japan, France and Germany.

 

Cutting the public sector won't make room for the private sector but will sap demand and weaken the private sector.

The Office for Budget Responsibility recognised this when a leaked document showed cuts of 600,000 public-sector jobs will have a knock-on effect, costing 700,000 jobs in the private sector.

 

Since 2002, government spending went up at the same rate as government income, until the collapse of 2008. It was collapses in revenues, not rises in spending that caused the deficit to increase.

Spending increased marginally post-2008 because welfare spending increased due to rising unemployment, as a result of the recession.

However there are two reasons for asserting that Britain has been undertaxed.

First there is the UK tax gap of £120 billion in evaded (£70bn), avoided (£25bn) and uncollected (£26bn) tax.

Second, the main income tax and corporation tax rates were cut by new Labour.

Corporation tax was cut from 33 per cent in 1997 to 28 per cent by the time new Labour left office, costing around £50bn by 2010.

 

Public-sector pension costs are not spiralling. The cost of public-sector pensions today is 1.9 per cent of GDP in 2010-11, but by 2060 that will have fallen to 1.4 per cent.

The change to pension calculations from RPI to CPI will save the Exchequer £150bn over the next 40 years.

The 2005 agreement on public-sector pensions between the government and trade unions also cut long-term costs.

 

In September 2000, claimant count unemployment was 1.035 million. For September 2010, claimant count unemployment was 1.47 million.

So the staggering real terms increase of 45 per cent is not that "staggering" when 42 per cent more people were claiming unemployment benefit.

Welfare spending increased due to rising unemployment, as a result of the recession.

In real terms the value of many benefits fell under new Labour. If jobseeker's allowance had kept pace with earnings since 1997 it would have been worth over £75 per week by 2009. Instead it was just £64 per week.

 

I am closing our firms office on any day of coordinated strike action. Underpaid private sector workers squabbling with underpaid public sector workers for who gets the worst deal must make the bankers and de-regulating finance ministers responsible for this crisis **** themselves with laughter.

[AVB]

Public-sector pension costs are not spiralling. The cost of public-sector pensions today is 1.9 per cent of GDP in 2010-11, but by 2060 that will have fallen to 1.4 per cent.

 

 

Are you saying that somebody has been able to predict GDP in 2060?

 

What is that in £'s not percentage (adjusted for inflation if you wish).

[kdubya]

One things for sure it wouldn't be at the 40% rate Kdubya is so keen on saying he pays it would be more like 60% plus.

 

Oh and KD technically I'm not self employed I'm PAYE and my little contribution also includes a VAT, corporation tax and PAYE bill probably similar to your total income. Thats how us small business runners get hammered, so don't overlook the other sources of tax that those who look self employed pay

 

sounds like you need a career change, the public sector sounds a cushy number, why not give that a go

 

KW

[allthegearandnoidea]

Between 1918 and 1961 the national debt was over 100 per cent of GDP. Today it is 56.3 per cent. There was no crisis then, there is no crisis now.

 

Personally I would call World War I and World War II a little more than a crisis.

Edited September 16, 2011 by allthegearandnoidea

[Nial]

Wharf Rat, I don't know where you get your figures from but almost everything you posted could be debated.

 

A couple of things...

 

However there are two reasons for asserting that Britain has been undertaxed.

First there is the UK tax gap of £120 billion in evaded (£70bn), avoided (£25bn) and uncollected (£26bn) tax.

 

"Avoided (£25bn)".

 

If you are against tax 'avoidance' I hope you don't make use of the tax free allowance and lower tax bands.

I also hope you don't hold any ISAs or Premium Bonds?

 

 

The economies which are doing best in the Eurozone are those eastern European countries with very

low rates of tax.

 

 

Nial.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Nial

[Kes]

Are you on leave today KDUBYA?

[kdubya]

Are you on leave today KDUBYA?

 

4 on 4 off its raining and Im bored (cant you tell)

 

KW

[Wharf Rat]

Personally I would call World War I and World War II a little more than a crisis.

 

That's right. During both world wars the biggest problem everybody had was a public debt crisis. People wore public debt crisis masks and spent the night in public debt crisis shelters.

[Wharf Rat]

Wharf Rat, I don't know where you get your figures from but almost everything you posted could be debated.

 

A couple of things...

 

 

 

"Avoided (£25bn)".

 

If you are against tax 'avoidance' I hope you don't make use of the tax free allowance and lower tax bands.

I also hope you don't hold any ISAs or Premium Bonds?

 

 

The economies which are doing best in the Eurozone are those eastern European countries with very

low rates of tax.

 

Nial.

 

 

Funnily enough I don't hold any ISAs or Premium Bonds, although if I did I doubt it would make much difference to the entire UK economy... Not sure about your contention re: the Eurozone peformance, Ireland had very low tax rates, didn't do them much good.

[Nial]

Funnily enough I don't hold any ISAs or Premium Bonds, although if I did I doubt it would make much difference to the entire UK economy...

 

 

But making use of the tax free allowance and lower tax bands makes you guilty of 'tax avoidance' which you claim is

losing the country £25 billion a year.

 

And Ireland had very low _corporate_ tax rates to attract investment, not low personal rates.

 

 

Nial.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Nial

[Mungler]

Seems that the number of times you've posted it , it's the only example you can find.

 

KW

 

 

KW, I think you will find that it is an astonishing example in its own right.

 

That example is a knock out blow or a silver bullet - it is just ridiculous and unsustatinable. It is employing people for the sake of it.

 

A quick Google finds me my next example (as already mentioned by Flashman).

 

NHS is world's biggest employer after Indian rail and Chinese Army

 

"Almost 1.3 million people — or the combined populations of Birmingham and Coventry — work for the NHS, which is one of the world’s biggest employers.

 

Only the Chinese Army and the Indian State Railways are believed to employ more people — with 2.3 million and 1.5 million staff respectively — but both workforces represent a far smaller proportion of the national populations. "

 

Game, set and match.

[twitchynik]

These make for interesting reading

 

http://www.reform.co.uk/portals/0/Documents/Public%20Sector%20Productivity%20v2.pdf

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6974029.ece

 

Look at productivity, pay and pension comparisons between public and private sector.

[ME]

These make for interesting reading

 

http://www.reform.co.uk/portals/0/Documents/Public%20Sector%20Productivity%20v2.pdf

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6974029.ece

 

Look at productivity, pay and pension comparisons between public and private sector.

 

 

That first set of stats unzips the flies, flops out the member and urinates all over any argument about the public sector