270,000 Civil Service Workers To Strike For 2 Days

tomterm8

What I can't understand is why all these people who apparently think public sector conditions are so wonderful, and public sector employees do nothing for that money, don't stop wingeing and start applying.

Personally, I think most public sector jobs suck.

StevieJ

tomterm8 wrote: »

What I can't understand is why all these people who apparently think public sector conditions are so wonderful, and public sector employees do nothing for that money, don't stop wingeing and start applying.

Personally, I think most public sector jobs suck.

I must say it confuses me as well.

Pennywise

StevieJ wrote: »

Yes I know but over £10k and paying 40% is a little extreme don't you think especially seeing as some high rollers have been gaining 40% tax relief on their pensions over the years.

Not extreme at all - surely those people receiving above average occuptional pensions should be paying a corresponding "above average" level of tax on it.

Re the high rollers, yes, they'll have received higher rate tax on the monies going in, and under my suggestion, they'll be paying higher rate tax on more of the resulting pensions coming back to them. If their pensions are high enough, they'll be paying 50% or more on a proportion of their pensions if their total income goes above £100k. Sounds fair enough to me.

Thinking about the H/R tax relief on contributions to pension schemes (available to all higher rate tax payers), yes, probably too generous in the past, but there's nothing we can do about that now, in the same way that people are arguing that we can't change workers T&Cs now even though its widely agreed they were over-generous in the first place. I'd suggest for the future that H/R tax relief is scrapped for everyone, leaving just basic rate tax relief available on all contributions into pension plans. Trouble is, of course, that will also hit alot of people who are only kept out of higher rate tax by their employees pension contributions, like a lot of public sector workers such as experienced teachers, higher grade policemen and senior nursing staff, etc., whose salaries are around the £40-£45k pa level, but hey-ho, we have to be fair to everyone don't we?

At the end of the day, whatever they want to think, we're all in this mess together (Thanks Gordon) and we'll ALL have to pay for its consequences, public and private sector workers alike. In their retirement years, if average public sector workers are receiving higher pensions than average private sector workers, then they'll have to pay a higher proportion in tax, hence my idea of lower tax rates for the poorest pensioners, with fairly rapidly rising tax rises for those whose pensions are above average. It's only fair.

StevieJ

Pennywise wrote: »

Not extreme at all - surely those people receiving above average occuptional pensions should be paying a corresponding "above average" level of tax on it.

.

A disclosure off you would be interesting e.g. I am pretty sure you do not work in the public sector and doubt you have a occupational pension either, easy isn't it removing other peoples benefits

BTW I will add my disclosure I have never worked in the public sector ( and I mean employed before you jokers start)

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

A disclosure off you would be interesting e.g. I am pretty sure you do not work in the public sector and doubt you have a occupational pension either, easy isn't it removing other peoples benefits

If we don't reduce the deficit by 'removing other people's benefits', then it will be reduced by increasing taxes to pay for those benefits. How do you propose to raise the money to pay off the deficit if public sector salaries/pensions/redundancy packages are sacred?

Sir_Humphrey

Kohoutek wrote: »

If we don't reduce the deficit by 'removing other people's benefits', then it will be reduced by increasing taxes to pay for those benefits. How do you propose to raise the money to pay off the deficit if public sector salaries/pensions/redundancy packages are sacred?

Well we shouldn't be reducing the deficit right now anyway.

Eventually, you decrease the deficit by increasing the tax base, by pushing high growth economic policies.

Old_Slaphead

tomterm8 wrote: »

What I can't understand is why all these people who apparently think public sector conditions are so wonderful, and public sector employees do nothing for that money, don't stop wingeing and start applying.

Personally, I think most public sector jobs suck.

They are. But...

a) there aren't 20million jobs vacancies
b) there are regularly 100+ applications for each vacancy

Kohoutek

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Well we shouldn't be reducing the deficit right now anyway.

You decrease the deficit by increasing the tax base, by pushing high growth economic policies.

But I don't we have a choice continuing to run a 12% GDP deficit. No other country is running such a large deficit without proposing to reduce it. The government borrowing that much a year will make an impact on the amount of money left available to lend for private investment.

Increasing the tax base is going to damage our consumer based economy, and it would have to be raised a lot to beginning paying off the deficit. A percentage on VAT or a penny on income tax raises about £2 billion I think, not really enough to reduce a £200 billion deficit.

What are 'high growth economic policies'? Most of our growth in the last decade has been based on increased government and consumer spending, both backed by increased debt to a significant extent.

StevieJ

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

They are. But...

a) there aren't 20million jobs vacancies
b) there are regularly 100+ applications for each vacancy

They must have high quality staff then with the 'cream' of the private sector applying for the jobs

mbcomper

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

They are. But...

a) there aren't 20million jobs vacancies
b) there are regularly 100+ applications for each vacancy

It's all about perseverance.

I have worked in the private sector for the last 25 years. I got made redundant Jul 2009. I have applied for numerous public and private sector vacancies and have just received a letter to say I have been successful with a public sector role. The role is 6K less than what I was earning in my previous private sector role, The hours are longer and I have to travel much further than before. However, a job is a job and I am very grateful.

BTW to obtain this job, I had to complete a 75 minute online test with a pass rate of 95%, then attend an interview on a Sunday (Mothers Day). I was told by the HR dept that there were 1800+ applicants originally, the original newspaper advert did not explain there was 25 posts available, it just looked like one post.

I'm hoping that because they are an 'Equal Opportunities Employer' and due to me having a disability, that I get treated with more respect than other private companies I applied to for a role who saw that I was disabled and wrote me off prior to investigating whether I was capable of doing the job first!

I have no idea what I am letting myself in for by taking this public sector role. However, it's not a life unless you have experienced as much as possible - so fingers crossed.

It sure beats sitting at home feeling sorry for myself and having no cash. I can assure you that although I do sympathise with public sector workers and their views on recent retrospective changes. I will not be striking myself over terms and conditions that will certainly benefit me personally from any private sector role I have had in the past.