Tory cuts could be mighty unpleasant

moggylover

wxmlad wrote: »

Public money is also used in the private sector to top up the measly wages of private sector employees in the form of working tax credits.

Tesco makes billions of pounds profit and pays its staff £5.73 an hour, so low that you as a tax payer has to 'top it up' so they can actually afford to live

:T:T:T:T

Well said!

moggylover

bendix wrote: »

Different argument completely, but you're right. Cut working tax credits too. Totally unnecessary.

If people want to profit from Tesco's greed, let them do what I do. Instead of going to tesco to buy eightpacks of cheap lager or lottery tickets, buy Tesco shares instead.

Easy, isnt it?[/QUOTE]

If it actually was then everyone would be doing it - I am sure it is "easy" if you really know what you are doing, and also can afford to loose that money if it all goes t's up - for the majority it is just a foreign language in a foreign World.

wildmandy

edgex wrote: »

sooo

you dont use the pavements
or the roads
or the rubbish collection
or any of the NHS


your job is not reliant on the basic fact that people are employed by the NHS, the education system etc, & therefore have money to spend in shops & on services?

what is your job?

Left wing twit!

moggylover

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I certainly did !!!

The figure was average not minimum

There are several pay grades and respondent was probably on one of the lowest. Many qualified nurses are earning more than £27,000pa

http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/pay_rates_2009_-_2010

Just as a matter of interest: do you think that they are not worth this sort of amount? What do you think a nurse is "worth"? Would you work the hours they work (often under-staffed) for that sum, or take on the life and death responsibilities that they do for that amount of money?

moggylover

Cleaver wrote: »

A newly qualified nurse will start in what they call a Band 5 position. The staring salary is £20,710 at present and a nurse can move up their band every year up to a maximum of £26,839. As well as simply moving up a step of the scale each year, the scale itself will probably be uplifted by 2% or 3% each year too. On top you would get additional pay for unsocial hours: earlies, lates, nights etc. Maybe 1.33 time or 1.5 time. This is the same principle for each 'band'.

However, a good nurse who has the right attitute, develops their skills and looks after patients well should move to a Band 6 position within two or three years. This pays on a scale of £24k to £33k.

Again, if you perform well in this role for two or three years and are good and ambitious, say and do the right things, you should be aiming for a Ward Managers role at Band 7. This salary scale starts at just shy of £30k and goes up to £39k.

And so it continues. A really good Ward Manager who manages staff and their budget well should be moved on quite quickly after two or three years to higher roles, looking after bigger areas: maybe two or three specialist wards, or to be a matron.

A matron role at Band 8a would be paid at £38k to £45k.

In used to work in a hospital and it wasn't uncommon to see really good, ambitious, competent and talented nurses move from being a Band 5 nurse at 21 years of age in to a Matron position, earning £45k with shift allowance by the age of 30 or even late twenties.

All depends on how you look at things, but not too bad career development in my eyes. Sorry to be harsh but any nurse who says that they have 20 years experience and is still on £20k is someone who either isn't very good at what they or has no interest whatsoever in taking on extra responsibility or developing themselves.

I would agree to some extent, but there are people who go into nursing to NURSE, not to be a manager! Personally I would see dedication to hands on nursing rather than paper-pushing to be something to applaud not criticise with comments regarding competence or ambition.

Spiv_2

This is an interesting nugget of info. The tax relief given on private sector pensions costs the tax payer more than the public sector pensions.

A second thing he could do is end tax relief on pension contributions — something that would no doubt initially cause uproar in the industry but which in fact would probably be a good thing.

How much this would help the Exchequer depends rather on whom you ask but I was taken with a TUC paper of a few weeks ago which pointed out that the cost of public-sector pensions (which has unfortunately and in many ways unfairly become a fashionable whipping boy) is rather less than the cost of the tax relief given on private-sector pensions.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23753413-just-a-plaster-on-the-pensions-wound.do

bendix

moggylover wrote: »

bendix wrote: »

Different argument completely, but you're right. Cut working tax credits too. Totally unnecessary.

If people want to profit from Tesco's greed, let them do what I do. Instead of going to tesco to buy eightpacks of cheap lager or lottery tickets, buy Tesco shares instead.

Easy, isnt it?[/QUOTE]

If it actually was then everyone would be doing it - I am sure it is "easy" if you really know what you are doing, and also can afford to loose that money if it all goes t's up - for the majority it is just a foreign language in a foreign World.

Well, it's not Tesco's fault that the majority of people are pathologically stupid, is it?

There is no law against anyone buying shares, last time i checked.

People should stop whining and blaming others for their misfortunes. Instead, they should concentrate on bettering their lot on their own volition.

bendix

Just so Rochdale Pioneer remembers, I'm still waiting to see the 'published budget' that he claims Darling has issued, detailing Labour's plans to half the budget deficit.

Old_Slaphead

moggylover wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest: do you think that they are not worth this sort of amount? What do you think a nurse is "worth"? Would you work the hours they work (often under-staffed) for that sum, or take on the life and death responsibilities that they do for that amount of money?

You've taken my posting completely out of context and I suggest you read the posting which led to my responses.

Original poster said that all front line staff were low paid. I responded with average salaries for teachers, nurses and police and suggested this was not so. Subsequent poster said the 'average' of £27,000 for nurses was fantasy but anecodotal evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

I made no observations as to what they were worth - merely that the vast majority of frontline staff (incl nurses) earn above national average average pay and consequently could not be considered 'low wage'.

As to what nurses are really worth - probably like most people I've mixed views. Some. in my experience have been excellent and should be paid a king's ransome, others poor and apparently uncaring and I wouldn't pay them in used stamps (having said that I've no idea as to what sort of shift they've had and there may have been good reason for their surliness - who knows?).

As a broad average £27000 (up to £30,000 with various allowances) seems not desperately out-of-line.

Old_Slaphead

Spiv wrote: »

This is an interesting nugget of info. The tax relief given on private sector pensions costs the tax payer more than the public sector pensions

The source of that comment is from a TUC paper which is not supported by any evidence (I've read the paper). I would question the validity of that statement if it were applied to accruals (which are significantly higher at £30bn) rather than current payments. Unsubstantiated evidence is often presented as fact in such a way to support an argument - in this case the TUC were arguing on affordability of PS pensions.

If they were arguing against the lavish pension tax reliefs available to the very highly paid and used to avoid higher rate tax then I wholeheartedly support their stance.

Regarding tax relief public sector pension contributions have exactly the same reliefs as private sector.