We are all in this together, well not if you are in a union.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

Erm, no. If there is less money coming in to the government in terms of taxes, the government needs to borrow more. Simple. Then, when the eventual and inevitable economic boom happens again, and tax revenues go up, the borrowings get paid back.

so we should borrow more money to give you a payrise when the country's debt is already out of control?

interesting you think that borrowings get paid back in the good times - labour barely managed any sort of meaningful budget surplus during the good times - because they were paying all of the money into the public sector. you want that investment to go on when there is no money to pay for it. you can't have it, sorry.

Well, if the government (of whichever party) decides to do as you say, then they will face the consequences, which will be strikes and a very unhappy and disaffected workforce.

you keep going on about this, but when was the last time a strike actually achieved anything material? the tube strikes have been successful in the past, but they have a stranglehold on the capital.

As for pensions, these are no longer a big issue because the government has already said that it will contribute no more than a set amount to public sector pensions, the rest having to be met by employees.

this is not true. the civil service scheme as it currently stands (i) links to average salary rather than final salary, but is not a money purchase scheme and (ii) there are no real employee contributions into public sector schemes - you just agree to take a lower net salary now in exchange for future payments from the government. there is no funding in place for the future payments. even if you believe your contributions are tangible, they are only 3.5% of salary.

The cuts have already been made here and there isn't much room to do more. The really big pension costs are due to existing payouts to pensioners from earlier decades who are living into their 90s etc.

this is not true. the future pension liabilities are entirely unfunded. it's not like your imaginary pension contributions are being paid into a funded scheme. the government doesn't have a bank account with all of your employee deductions in it. in the future the money will have to be found to pay the pensions of all of the current public sector employees - whilst their entitlements may be getting less generous, there are many many more public sector employees these days and therefore the future costs will be much higher than the present costs.

As for the wage bills, the only way to cut them is by making lots of people redundant, but then that costs money as well, so would this really be worthwhile? Pay cuts sound great, but when the economy picks up the best people will !!!!!! off and in order to replace them jobs will have to be advertised at pay levels that will attract people from the private sector. You make it sound so easy - it isn't.

well, if you'd rather be made redundant than have a pay cut, why haven't you been advocating that?

your argument has been that people who work in the public sector are not motivated by salary. now your argument is that they will all leave to get a higher salary. in any case you have now recognised that there are no jobs for them to leave to now, which means you should be able to recognise that from a supply and demand viewpoint there is no need to pay them more money at the moment.

marklv

vivatifosi wrote: »

Actually that's not true. If you look at the average salaries of companies, the factors that influence salaries are not so much the size of the company but the line of business that it is in and the type of work the typical worker within that company does. Therefore large retailers will pay significantly lower average wages than say, small legal firms. .

Well, that's obvious isn't it, brains of Britain? I was referring to people doing the same job!

vivatifosi wrote: »

Having said that there is also evidence within industries of higher pay among small firms. Take for example small, niche IT firms. They can often have average salaries of say £70k, higher than the average across larger firms. I'd argue that large firms set the benchmarks in terms of salary expectations within an industry but small firms will pay what they need to (and in some cases what they can get away with) to run their businesses.

Since when was I talking about IT? The discussion was about accountants.

marklv

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

How do these governments raise their revenue ?

there has to be a means to raise revenue for social costs/spending or do they take the view that the individual pays for everything ?

These are not normal countries because they take tax from either massive natural resources (Gulf states) or from charging outisde investors who set up companies there (the small Caribbean states). Also, countries that don't have income tax take tax in other non-direct ways.

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

so we should borrow more money to give you a payrise when the country's debt is already out of control?

As I said a million times before there are economies that can be made without a need for pay cuts, so stop harping on about this, you windbag.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

interesting you think that borrowings get paid back in the good times - labour barely managed any sort of meaningful budget surplus during the good times - because they were paying all of the money into the public sector. you want that investment to go on when there is no money to pay for it. you can't have it, sorry.

If you don't care about the public sector then nothing I say will change your mind. Obviously you are happy to see the public sector decline and rot like all the other Tories. And money can be raised through tax, not just borrowing, or have you forgotten that?

chewmylegoff wrote: »

you keep going on about this, but when was the last time a strike actually achieved anything material? the tube strikes have been successful in the past, but they have a stranglehold on the capital.

We'll see, won't we?

chewmylegoff wrote: »

this is not true. the civil service scheme as it currently stands (i) links to average salary rather than final salary, but is not a money purchase scheme and (ii) there are no real employee contributions into public sector schemes - you just agree to take a lower net salary now in exchange for future payments from the government. there is no funding in place for the future payments. even if you believe your contributions are tangible, they are only 3.5% of salary.

Rubbish. The civil service scheme used to be final salary and it changed to a less generous average salary scheme. What you suggest, making into a money purchase scheme, would remove the last incentive anyone would have for working in the public sector - totally idiotic. That would make civil service pay, already among the lowest in the public sector, totally uncompetitive. There are contributions to the pension from employees of course - what do you think the 3.5% is? And the government has said that its own contributions (c.20% at present) will be capped at that level. There is no funding in place? Of course there is, as the pension is factored is as part of the overall remuneration, so it's part of the package.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

this is not true. the future pension liabilities are entirely unfunded. it's not like your imaginary pension contributions are being paid into a funded scheme. the government doesn't have a bank account with all of your employee deductions in it. in the future the money will have to be found to pay the pensions of all of the current public sector employees - whilst their entitlements may be getting less generous, there are many many more public sector employees these days and therefore the future costs will be much higher than the present costs.

That's not the way defined benefit schemes work, brainbox. The government does contribute - I even have this printed out clearly in my pension brochure. The government contributes around 20% of salary, and this goes into an overall fund, the size of which is determined by an actuary in order to meet future pension obligations.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well, if you'd rather be made redundant than have a pay cut, why haven't you been advocating that?

No, I don't accept either. I said that there are some suprlus parts of the public sector, certain quangos, that can be closed or absorbed into the core civil service. My job is not surplus or unnecessary - it's quite important.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

your argument has been that people who work in the public sector are not motivated by salary. now your argument is that they will all leave to get a higher salary. in any case you have now recognised that there are no jobs for them to leave to now, which means you should be able to recognise that from a supply and demand viewpoint there is no need to pay them more money at the moment.

I never said that - I said that high salaries are not necessarily a top priority for public sector staff, but there is a limit of course! Or would you expect them to work for nothing? I don't accept this 'supply and demand' argument as my issue is with the essential morality of imposing pay cuts. The public sector isn't a profit making business, as I have said at least a million times here, so 'supply and demand' should not be the sole factor to determine salaries. I accept that there should be a market related link of course, but your argument, and the argument of those who share your views, is to link to the lowest possible private sector salaries - and this I reject with the most profound contempt.

Now learn to start your sentences with capital letters - or take some extra English language lessons. :rotfl:

Spartacus_Mills

marklv wrote: »

These are not normal countries because they take tax from either massive natural resources (Gulf states) or from charging outisde investors who set up companies there (the small Caribbean states). Also, countries that don't have income tax take tax in other non-direct ways.

Which would be ?

VAT ?

What else ?

Just looking to satisfy my curiosity.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

As I said a million times before there are economies that can be made without a need for pay cuts, so stop harping on about this, you windbag.

of course they can, but both are necessary given the extent of the deficit and the level of borrowing.

If you don't care about the public sector then nothing I say will change your mind. Obviously you are happy to see the public sector decline and rot like all the other Tories. And money can be raised through tax, not just borrowing, or have you forgotten that?

decline and rot? we're talking about capping payrises at 1%.

We'll see, won't we?

yes, we will. i anticipate a few short term strikes in non-essential areas, and then a general "acceptance and move-on", as with previous public sector strikes.

Rubbish. The civil service scheme used to be final salary and it changed to a less generous average salary scheme. What you suggest, making into a money purchase scheme, would remove the last incentive anyone would have for working in the public sector - totally idiotic. That would make civil service pay, already among the lowest in the public sector, totally uncompetitive. There are contributions to the pension from employees of course - what do you think the 3.5% is? And the government has said that its own contributions (c.20% at present) will be capped at that level. There is no funding in place? Of course there is, as the pension is factored is as part of the overall remuneration, so it's part of the package.

you cannot dismiss a factual argument by writing "rubbish". i didn't advocate a money purchase pension; you said:

As for pensions, these are no longer a big issue because the government has already said that it will contribute no more than a set amount to public sector pensions, the rest having to be met by employees.

this suggests that it is already a money purchase (or defined contribution) scheme, as the government would only pay a set amount in and the employee would be on their own. it is not. it is a defined benefit scheme and the government has to pay an uncertain amount at some point in the future, related to average salary, length of service, and inflation. it is not a case that the govt simply pays a set % of your salary into a pot of assets and is then free from future liability, as you tried to suggest.

That's not the way defined benefit schemes work, brainbox. The government does contribute - I even have this printed out clearly in my pension brochure. The government contributes around 20% of salary, and this goes into an overall fund, the size of which is determined by an actuary in order to meet future pension obligations.

i'm sorry, that is not true. there is no bank account containing the money. there are no invested assets. defined benefit public sector pension liabilities are entirely unfunded. the employer contribution is a theoretical number calculated by an actuary in order to work out what the employer's contribution would have to be in order to provide you and everyone else in the scheme with the pensions you have been promised. the actuary is there to work out what the unfunded liability is. read http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-03224.pdf

No, I don't accept either. I said that there are some suprlus parts of the public sector, certain quangos, that can be closed or absorbed into the core civil service. My job is not surplus or unnecessary - it's quite important.

but it is not necessary to pay you more money to do it. your argument is simply an emotional one based on what you perceive to be fairness. fairness is not a consideration i'm afraid.

I never said that - I said that high salaries are not necessarily a top priority for public sector staff, but there is a limit of course! Or would you expect them to work for nothing? I don't accept this 'supply and demand' argument as my issue is with the essential morality of imposing pay cuts. The public sector isn't a profit making business, as I have said at least a million times here, so 'supply and demand' should not be the sole factor to determine salaries. I accept that there should be a market related link of course, but your argument, and the argument of those who share your views, is to link to the lowest possible private sector salaries - and this I reject with the most profound contempt.

i said salaries should be market rate based on the role earlier in this thread, stop trying to pretend that i said they should be linked to the lowest possible private sector salary.

by accepting salaries should be linked to market rate in some form you have accepted the supply and demand argument in principle already. it is not about profit making businesses, it is a general principle that is applicable to any market, including the labour market.

Now learn to start your sentences with capital letters - or take some extra English language lessons. :rotfl:

thank you for admitting that you have lost this argument.

chewmylegoff

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Which would be ?

VAT ?

What else ?

Just looking to satisfy my curiosity.

property taxes. take BVI. you buy a house and have to pay nearly $1,000 to get a licence to do so, then you pay 12% stamp duty. you also pay an annual tax of 1.5% of the assessed rental value, plus $50 per acre per land tax.

N1AK

Exocet wrote: »

On the offchance that it is can I say I don't think alluded is correct.

You are indeed correct somehow I managed to put it, rather than the intended word: eluded.

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

of course they can, but both are necessary given the extent of the deficit and the level of borrowing.

No they are not - what evidence can you provide of this? NONE. So shut up then.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

decline and rot? we're talking about capping payrises at 1%.

That's bad enough, and it's for two years! What about if the Conservatives win? They will be even more savage. All I can say is: THERE WILL BE BLOOD!!

chewmylegoff wrote: »

yes, we will. i anticipate a few short term strikes in non-essential areas, and then a general "acceptance and move-on", as with previous public sector strikes.

I don't think so, somehow. If the government had simply talked about 'pay restraint' and left individual areas to decide their own pay budgets that wouldn't have been so bad, but the arbitrary imposition of an all-round 1% pay cap (2.7% BELOW inflation) has really angered a lot of people. There will be blood.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

you cannot dismiss a factual argument by writing "rubbish". i didn't advocate a money purchase pension; you said:

this suggests that it is already a money purchase (or defined contribution) scheme, as the government would only pay a set amount in and the employee would be on their own. it is not. it is a defined benefit scheme and the government has to pay an uncertain amount at some point in the future, related to average salary, length of service, and inflation. it is not a case that the govt simply pays a set % of your salary into a pot of assets and is then free from future liability, as you tried to suggest.

You really are a total prat. The government does not have to pay an uncertain amount, as I said before, because it has capped its own contributions! Anything more that is actuarially required by the terms of the pension scheme will be met by the employees in future years, you plonker! Are you so thick you can't even understand what I am writing here? No, there is no pool of assets, this is essentially an assurance fund that is calculated actuarially. Look this up in the dictionary if it's too big a word for you.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i'm sorry, that is not true. there is no bank account containing the money. there are no invested assets. defined benefit public sector pension liabilities are entirely unfunded. the employer contribution is a theoretical number calculated by an actuary in order to work out what the employer's contribution would have to be in order to provide you and everyone else in the scheme with the pensions you have been promised. the actuary is there to work out what the unfunded liability is. read http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-03224.pdf

THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! It is not invested in stock and shares, but that does not mean that it is 'unfunded'. As long as the contributions are of a certain level, the funds will be there - guaranteed by the actuaries! What the hell do you mean by 'funded' anyway? The money is put into bonds and other secure instruments decided by the actuaries to provide a FIXED INTEREST return that will meet the pension obligations. Investing in stocks and shares would be risky and not be acceptable to the actuaries. I am fully aware that defined benefit schemes run by private sector companies have invested in shares etc, but the result of this has been all too obvious: most of them have closed down because the shares did not perform as anticipated, leaving huge liabilities in pension funds. Most of the final salary schemes in the private sector are in this predicament.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

but it is not necessary to pay you more money to do it. your argument is simply an emotional one based on what you perceive to be fairness. fairness is not a consideration i'm afraid.

In politics, fairness is most certainly a consideration. There is more to making political decisions that doing sums on a calculator and the coming up with a plan. Decisions that affect human beings have to be determined in a fair way, otherwise you might as well have anarchy.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i said salaries should be market rate based on the role earlier in this thread, stop trying to pretend that i said they should be linked to the lowest possible private sector salary.

But salaries are already at a market rate, that's why there is no need for any pay feezes/cuts!! What you want is to lower them to the lowest common private sector denominator - and I say NO! Categorically.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

by accepting salaries should be linked to market rate in some form you have accepted the supply and demand argument in principle already. it is not about profit making businesses, it is a general principle that is applicable to any market, including the labour market.

I have only accepted this principle on a very broad and loose basis, to ensure that there is a link in labour markets betwene the two sectors. The difference is that you are using this principle as a justification for lowering public sector salaries to the lowest level any government could get away with. This is what I do not and will not accept. It is a fact that here are large disparities between the same job in the private sector - so how do you account for that? There is no fixed 'market rate' for any job, but there is a broad market rate, a wide pay band into which the jobs fall into. You are trying to use economic semantics to justify your immoral and wrong argument that public sector staff should be paid at the lowest possible level.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

thank you for admitting that you have lost this argument.

marklv

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Which would be ?

VAT ?

What else ?

Just looking to satisfy my curiosity.

Yes, VAT, capital gains tax, taxes on investment income, business rates, etc.