What would happen if the whole Civil Service took a 10% pay cut?

Graham_Devon

chopperharris wrote: »

Tell me why/how?

There is no carrot v stick here , its purely carrot.

Given that peoples cirumstances change with their ages and decisions that affect their life , ie further education-sinlge-kids/married-near retirement-retirement then everyone actually benefits and at the time they need it if they choose....its a win-win.

Because you would be draughting in people withou children to do all the sh*tty hours and paying them less in the process.

You could only do this if you described it as positive discrimiation I guess.

Mr_Mumble

Bambuzzled by these threads (NHS one along with this). You could cut hundreds of billions off the tax bill before getting to doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters, police, military personnel and anyone working at the HMRC, DVLA or in Whitehall.

The taxpayer spends £124bn on quangos, £9bn on the EU (net figure), £4bn to the World Bank. There is plenty of fat to cut, and with a £100bn deficit will need to be cut, but the idea that schoolznhospitalz or any 'essential' service will be directly affected is ridiculous*.

Mr Mumble

*though the pension deficit has to be sorted. At the moment its a pure ponzi scheme and public sector workers selfish enough to defend it are only setting themselves up for a fall later when the rapidly increasing £1tn obligation bankrupts Britain.

puddy

ukcarper wrote: »

Perhaps he was prepared to sacrifice higher salary for a better pension

oh if only, i think the pension contribution was about 2.5% (yes he could have chosen to pay more but not on those wages), he now works for a london LA and the contribution is higher, with the employers contribution being higher too, so even though i think he isnt taking home that much more per month, the pension he is paying is much more (and being paid for him too)

puddy

Avina_Popp wrote: »

The assessors 'obviously' earned more. What's obvious about that?

because assessors are higher than collectors, the assessors assess the tax, the collectors just collect it, the sort of minions i suppose!!

puddy

Kenny4315 wrote: »

Why does anyone want to be a tax inspector ..... job satisafaction at hassling small businesses ... qualifications required ... a moustache and a german accent. The power mad women are the worst .... especially those with a fully grown moustache.... :money:

its when he goose steps around the house that i cant stand it...

Kenny4315

jenner wrote: »

its when he goose steps around the house that i cant stand it...

Shave his 'tash off in his sleep ..... Then show him the Fawlty Towers episode 'The Germans'.

Radiantsoul

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

*though the pension deficit has to be sorted. At the moment its a pure ponzi scheme and public sector workers selfish enough to defend it are only setting themselves up for a fall later when the rapidly increasing £1tn obligation bankrupts Britain.

That liability will never crystalise in one year though. Rather what will happen is people will have to pay more tax, but in return they will expect to receive a pension.

A private sector funded pension requires that current workers provide consumption for current workers. The idea that is funded does not change this, except that higher taxes presumably dull the incentive to work.

chopperharris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because you would be draughting in people withou children to do all the sh*tty hours and paying them less in the process.

You could only do this if you described it as positive discrimiation I guess.

As I said it was option not enforcement which it is currently , those that choose to work off the 9-5 "norm" are benefitting , they are being paid more for it in monentary terms.I dont know how you read got paid less?

It isnt a positive discrimination either , nearly everyone will be in those stages of life at some time.If anything its socialism and capitalism's barstard child , spawning a new working "bonus" for everyone as and when they need it....or just plain want it.

!!!!!! hours are purely defined by those that work them.My suggestion is option based , you choose your own hours to suit yourself as your life invariably changes.Currently its chosen for you , perhaps unequally applied against you at times because of your age or circumstances.NOW thats what I call discriminatory.

I worked for years in a system where those that had kids had the day shifts , those that didnt had the nights....it wasnt optional or equality in any form and there was no added pay.It was a 5 from any 7 days a week job (16 not 24 hrs then) , singles got what I deemed the good shifts then (nights) but for others (those with families)it was the !!!!!! shifts.Yet when it was weekends the 9-5 workers wanted them off (or as rotational at least) but didnt want rotational shift patterns....now I ask you is that discriminatory positive or otherwise?

At least my way everyone has the choice to do it for their personal benefit(maybe to get out of debt faster for example).

Folk pre-kids can opt to use up the bonus to say save up for a deposit for a nicer home for ultimately bringing kids up in.When they have kids opt for forcefeeding their hours for receiving more paid leave during the holidays or making extra income if their partner is unexpectedly laid off.The middle aged can opt to prep a personal pension , maybe started it too late to keep up with inflation , or merely get that dream holiday every year and for more than a couple of weeks with the extra paid leave.

I still see win win.

chopperharris

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Bambuzzled by these threads (NHS one along with this). You could cut hundreds of billions off the tax bill before getting to doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters, police, military personnel and anyone working at the HMRC, DVLA or in Whitehall.

The taxpayer spends £124bn on quangos, £9bn on the EU (net figure), £4bn to the World Bank. There is plenty of fat to cut, and with a £100bn deficit will need to be cut, but the idea that schoolznhospitalz or any 'essential' service will be directly affected is ridiculous*.

Mr Mumble

*though the pension deficit has to be sorted. At the moment its a pure ponzi scheme and public sector workers selfish enough to defend it are only setting themselves up for a fall later when the rapidly increasing £1tn obligation bankrupts Britain.

Totally agree on nearly every part of your excellent post.

Chile has a private funded version of a national pension scheme yet thinks that browns ideas are wrong...I wonder how those pensions are fairing in the future on the next big bubble bursting?

The nhs part is already suffering , no pay rises is a cut in any terms...yet the workload is the same hence why it was discussed as it is essentially a part of civil service its related imo.

Dylanwing

This mess was caused by senior Bankers and politicians, both of these groups are well paid, get decent pensions, and for turning up they get a bonus/ vast expense account. Both groups can shaft the UK, and help themselves out of the public purse, and don't give a damn about the rest of us.
There is a section of society that contributes f*ck all, living on benefits, and by knowing the way around the system, can live very comfortably. By not declaring the working partner is living at the property, "single" mums can do very well. Note - Not all single parents do this, but quite a lot locally do.
We have another bunch of scroungers who seem to think that taxes are beneath them, costing the UK billions, and Gormless Gordon just lets them get away with it.
So why pick on Civil Servants?