House prices and taxes

beingjdc

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

How can any Council official justify being on more than the Prime Minister?

You're comparing apples with, at best, pears. In fact I think you may be comparing cows with milkmen.

Politicians are expected to earn less than staff at an equivalent level, because politicians are assumed to do the job at least partly for the love/fame/glory/power, rather than the money.

You may have views about that, but that's how it is.

So the fair comparison is between the Prime Minister and a Council Leader, not a Council Chief Exec. Council Leaders are paid far less. Similarly (I appreciate many of these roles are part time, but plenty are not);

The PM earns less than the Chief Secretary to the Cabinet
Council Cabinet Members earn less than Council Directors
Councillors earn less than the vast majority of Council staff
Hospital Trust Members get less than Hospital Managers
Charity Chairmen get less than Charity Chief Executives
Chairmen of police authorities earn less than Chief Constables
Parish Councillors usually get expenses at most parish clerks get a wage
School Governors get less than dinner ladies (nothing, in fact)

macaque_2

StevieJ wrote: »

One minute you guys are going on about people mewing,foreign holidays, Sky tv, smoking, alcohol etc. Does it not occur to you that some people may be in arrears because they spend the money on something else All your posts appear to be party political propoganda.

What I said was:

Like others in government, your reaction is to look at everything but the elephant in the room. Does it not occur to you that to have 1.2 million people in council tax arrears is evidence that council taxes have gone way beyond affordable levels. To get back to the original theme, does it not occur to you that house prices will turn to sawdust if the public sector cannot get its spending under control.

You accuse me of party politics, blame the people for mewing and smoking etc but the one thing you won't do is face the elephant in the room. You havn't actually responded to the points I raised.

As a matter of interest, which political party do you feel I am promoting? Labour have a scandalous record for wasting taxes and the conservatives have promised to to match them. As for the Lib Dems, they have have been the party of high taxes for at least 15 years.

StevieJ

macaque wrote: »

What I said was:



You accuse me of party politics, blame the people for mewing and smoking etc but the one thing you won't do is face the elephant in the room. You havn't actually responded to the points I raised.

As a matter of interest, which political party do you feel I am promoting? Labour have a scandalous record for wasting taxes and the conservatives have promised to to match them. As for the Lib Dems, they have have been the party of high taxes for at least 15 years.

I said 'appear to be' I would suggest Tory even though you 'appear' to deny this. If you are not a Tory voter/member and Daily Mail reader I would be amazed.

You havn't actually responded to the points I raised.
that house prices will turn to sawdust if the public sector cannot get its spending under control - What does that mean? So house prices are going to collapse because CT is too high, mmmmmmmm OK:D

Does it not occur to you that to have 1.2 million people in council tax arrears is evidence that council taxes have gone way beyond affordable levels.
As I said no, they have spent it on something else like cigs, alcohol, holidays etc.

You also appear to disagree with means testing, well I don't. I know older people who are receiving the fuel allowance who are fairly rich and still receiving it, this should be means tested. I suppose you think we should pay the Duke of Westminsters council tax bill as well because he does not want to be means tested:D

The_White_Horse

carolt wrote: »

How many more baby P's need to die before you can see that council workers who do their jobs WELL are invaluable?

What private sector job is as important or vital as providing healthcare, education, social services etc? And do you really live in the cloud-cuckoo land where all these could just administer themselves?

There are hundreds like Baby P who are exposed because of useless council workers. I know of one father who did not want the mother seeing the child because she went mad. the lefty council ignored him and she killed the child.

all these jobs - healthcare, education etc can be privately run.

yes, we can have a small number (at least half of current numbers) doing social work, but there is no need for any public service worker to earn more than 40k per annum.

beingjdc

The_White_Horse wrote: »

yes, we can have a small number (at least half of current numbers) doing social work, but there is no need for any public service worker to earn more than 40k per annum.

And again.

A first year solicitor I know at a big city law firm earns £38k.

Why would anyone well qualified go into public services if the most they can ever earn in their career is the same as they could start on in their early twenties in a different career?

Might as well go into the private sector who you want to run these things. What does the Chief Exec of BUPA earn, is it under £40k?

beingjdc

StevieJ wrote: »

What does that mean? So house prices are going to collapse because CT is too high, mmmmmmmm OK:D

Of course they won't, since renters pay it too, but supposing (maybe by encouraging people to live more densely) property tax could achieve this. Make it really high.

Would we lose out? Imagine that instead of paying £500 mortgage, £100 council tax, and £400 income tax, for a total spend on tax and housing of £1000 a month, one instead paid £300 council tax, and £200 income tax, giving the state the same £500. But house prices apparently collapse in this scenario, so everyone in the future only pays £300 mortgage, keeping total housing costs the same.

Everyone except the debtmasters wins, don't they? The state gets the same amount of tax intake, but the taxpayer saves £200 (on their mortgage). Rents presumably fall in line with purchase costs, and the economy becomes much stronger and more competitive.

beingjdc

beingjdc wrote: »

Might as well go into the private sector who you want to run these things. What does the Chief Exec of BUPA earn, is it under £40k?

Answering my own question, I have looked up the last available figures, and they show the Chief Exec of BUPA earning £1.4 million.

Kind of puts a Council Chief Exec on £150k into context, I'd say.

BUPA's turnover is £4.2billion and it has 46,000 staff, so as an organisation it's about twice the size of the UK's largest council.

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

yes, we can have a small number (at least half of current numbers) doing social work, but there is no need for any public service worker to earn more than 40k per annum.

Let's pretend this is a sensible conversation for just a second.

Mr White Horse is in charge of deciding how Birmingham City Council operates. The finance function there is in charge of handling £800 million per year of money coming in and out. You need someone to run that finance function. You'd feel happy paying someone a maximum of 40k per annum to run that function?

benood

Cleaver wrote: »

Let's pretend this is a sensible conversation for just a second.

Mr White Horse is in charge of deciding how Birmingham City Council operates. The finance function there is in charge of handling £800 million per year of money coming in and out. You need someone to run that finance function. You'd feel happy paying someone a maximum of 40k per annum to run that function?

I think Mr White Horse is saying that it would be much better if BCC was only handling £400million pa.

Cleaver

benood wrote: »

I think Mr White Horse is saying that it would be much better if BCC was only handling £400million pa.

Doesn't matter what a council's figures are, you wouldn't want somone paid less than 40k a year to be responsible for an entire city or town budget and finances. Well, I wouldn't anyway.