House prices and taxes

beingjdc

benood wrote: »

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

Supposing that it would be better, how much should someone in ultimate administrative charge of making sure that £400 million is raised and spent efficiently and effectively earn?

The_White_Horse

benood wrote: »

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

exactly.

failures and people that can't work in the real world join councils. why do you think the ceo of BUPA earns 1.4m and the council berk earns 140k? do you honestly believe the council cretin could function in the real world and run a real business that needs to make money, rather than find idiotic ways to waste free money it is given? Of course not. The council berk could in no way run BUPA or any other company. The cretin at the top of the council is just the biggest cretin at the council. You have to have a certain mindset and be a certain way (a screaming lefty pc brigade moron) to rise up through the ranks of a council.

whereas the head of BUPA probably made money by streamling and running an efficient organisation, the head of the council probably has three meetings a day to decide which pants to wear, followed by a committee meeting about the coffee mugs followed by a debate on whether muslims are offended by pig shaped jellys at M&S followed by a vote on implementing some stupid new scheme in the safety that costs hundreds of thousands and ends up making things more dangerous. Finally, he will set some useless targets, for some useless people to fail to meet. council people are useless and could not last a week in a real job where they had to earn money rather waste it.

The_White_Horse

beingjdc wrote: »

Supposing that it would be better, how much should someone in ultimate administrative charge of making sure that £400 million is raised and spent efficiently and effectively earn?

who knows? it has never happened. I think 40k is quite sufficient for a job for life, gold plated pension, loads of holiday laugh in, where if they over spend the 400m, they just get given 450m instead the next year.

moggylover

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the reason why people don't revolt over the ever increasing and punitive council tax is because they can't. the trendies, led by ben elton and tommy sheridan and their ilk rioted over the poll tax (which was actually fairer than this council tax).

they longed for labour to come in and save the world, but all they did is fleece us. They are money grabbing scum and the waste is horrendous. It would be embarrassing to complain against labour.

when the tories get in, following their historic landslide victory in May 2010 (as the usurper barnacle will cling on as long as possible) they should cut the public workers by AT LEAST 50%

non-job wastes of space the lot of them.

And suppose you just tell me where the work for all those people is going to come from then? Or do you just want another load of people stuck on the dole for years so that you can rant on about them?

We had 3million on the dole when the tories were last in power, our hospitals had wards shut and our schools were so short of basics that parents were having to provide exercise books and even text books at primary level! The tories were making such a mess of it by the time that little wet fog Major took over that there was a real chance of uprising if the dole numbers didn't come down - so they shifted 2/3rds of them on to the sick because they were unable to get anyone to invest in "private sector" jobs in this Country and were so far against employing extra teaching and hospital staff that the NHS and our education system were nearly in ruin.

The thought of another bunch of over-priviledged, under-brained and totally conscience-less public school, tight-lipped woofters in government is the only thing likely to drive me to COMPLETE rage. However, Nu-Labour need to be shot as well, and should be ashamed to ever have dragged the name of socialism into the kind of wooly liberalism that allowed the banks and the SUPER rich to crucify the working and middle classes YET again.

However, to keep knocking the Government for doing EXACTLY what big business does (i.e. borrow on future revenue and expand too rapidly/too large whilst creaming off what money does come in for shareholders revenues instead of paying off their debts) and what senior economists ADVISE them to do, whilst pumping all the monetarist and capitalist carp that has brought us to our knees is proof that some people are so dumb that they do not even understand what is going on around them.;)

beingjdc

The_White_Horse wrote: »

exactly.

failures and people that can't work in the real world join councils. why do you think the ceo of BUPA earns 1.4m and the council berk earns 140k?

Because shareholders are more generous than voters, and the rich can afford to pay more for care than taxpayers.

Do you honestly believe the council cretin could function in the real world and run a real business that needs to make money, rather than find idiotic ways to waste free money it is given?

Yes, I do indeed.

As I've said before, running a business where you can discontinue unprofitable products, and introduce profitable new ones rapidly might make a nice change after running a business where you don't have control over the number of customers you have, you make a loss on each transaction, and you are dictated to in what goods and services you provide and at what price by government and voters.

You have to have a certain mindset and be a certain way (a screaming lefty pc brigade moron) to rise up through the ranks of a council.

You haven't met many council Chief Executives, I think.

the head of the council probably has three meetings a day to decide which pants to wear, followed by a committee meeting about the coffee mugs followed by a debate on whether muslims are offended by pig shaped jellys at M&S followed by a vote on implementing some stupid new scheme in the safety that costs hundreds of thousands and ends up making things more dangerous. Finally, he will set some useless targets, for some useless people to fail to meet. council people are useless and could not last a week in a real job where they had to earn money rather waste it.

I shall reduce the number of Council Chief Executives I think you have met from the 'not many' I suggested above to 'not any'.

moggylover

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

In London they are listed separately, so much for Camden, so much for the police, fire, and GLA.

You and I know that NDG, but I do know people who do not read that nice glossy little booklet (what a waste of money) that comes with their bill and do not have a clue what amount goes where.

moggylover

macaque wrote: »

Means testing is an unpleasant process that old people very reasonably object to. 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.

The term "means tested" is what frightens most old people who are old enough to remember when that meant that some nasty little man came around and told you what items from your home had to be sold off to keep you before you could qualify for that weeks food coupons;) . There was to only be one item per person left, one plate, one fork, one chair one coat, one dress, etc., etc. (although most of those being inspected got quite adept at passing their one or two slightly valuable heirlooms over the garden fence to a neighbour until the inspection was over;) ). The very title "means-test" was not only a dirty word, but a degrading and dreadful process: so even if they only heard about it from their own parents they would not want to go there.

moggylover

beingjdc wrote: »

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.

Could we please put "gets" instead of "earns". I have to apologise profusely, but I can envisage very few hardships in this life that would mean a person actually "earnt" £1.4 million per year. Sorry, I just find that an obscene sum of money - not from greed or jealousy on my part, I am simply not ever going to need that amount of money.


ETA: Also, when we talk about "creating wealth" can someone tell me who they create that money for? It does not appear that much makes it into the mainstream of the Country (or why are we up to our eyes in it in all directions now) and it does not appear to truly even make it's way down the pyramid as far as even the middle classes nowadays. So, since it is the needs of business that "run" our economy, and their gambles that lead to the boom and bust periods - would it not be better to find another, more solid and stable way to make an economy function - or is that just too much common sense?

The_White_Horse

moggylover wrote: »

Sorry, I just find that an obscene sum of money - not from greed or jealousy on my part, I am simply not ever going to need that amount of money.

well, if you ever have the ability to earn that much money, keep 40k for yourself and give the rest away.

The_White_Horse

moggylover wrote: »

ETA: Also, when we talk about "creating wealth" can someone tell me who they create that money for? It does not appear that much makes it into the mainstream of the Country (or why are we up to our eyes in it in all directions now) and it does not appear to truly even make it's way down the pyramid as far as even the middle classes nowadays. So, since it is the needs of business that "run" our economy, and their gambles that lead to the boom and bust periods - would it not be better to find another, more solid and stable way to make an economy function - or is that just too much common sense?

well, if BUPA has 46,000 staff it is creating wealth to pay them, and then they spend that money in the economy. without them getting paid and paying taxes, the councils would have no money to waste.

Also, shareholders get money in the form of dividends (or buying and selling the shares). again this creates wealth, rather than draining it from the economy to help single mothers of eight keep on the methodone, so they don't slip back into taking heroin.