300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

marklv

Harry_Powell wrote: »

THere speaks a man who applied to and was rejected by a big 5 consultancy company. I can see the HR psyche file now...

"Do not employ, emotionally unstable with narcisistic tendancies". :easter_os

Not true - I have worked for one of these firms in the past, so I speak from experience. I'll say no more than that.

marklv

kennyboy66 wrote: »

National Insurance increases hurt mainly low and low to middle income taxpayers as well. In fact more so, as you pay it at only 1% above the upper earnings threshhold.
So moving the burden of tax from income tax to National insurance actually favours the wealthy. A pity this is another of Gordon Browns legacies.

By next year, the employees NI rate will have increase from 10% (in 1997) to 12%, whilst income tax will have fell from 23% to 20%.

Well done Labour, another demonstration of penalising the working low - middle paid and favouring the well off. At least it generated some cheap headlines about cutting income tax to its lowest rate for x years.

You are correct to a certain extent, but in truth all tax hurts the low paid. The tax I hate the most is council tax, as it has not linked to ability to pay. I would bring back the old rates, where tax depended on size of the house, not cost.

marklv

treliac wrote: »

It depends where you personally sit, I'd say. What someone might call their profession, someone else would call their job.

I'm not bothered either way. The term 'profession' smacks of snobbery to me and is an outdated concept anyway. What matters is how much you earn, ultimately.

marklv

donaldtramp wrote: »

I'd agree. But there is a far larger problem. The sheer number of public sector posts and their pensions. Now theres a parasite.....
The consultants costs become a drop in the ocean compared to the trillions of pounds worth of debts our bloated public sector is building up.

Let's not try to steer the thread towards talking about a tiny, miniscule part of our countries problem eh?

The public sector was much bigger in the 1950s, 60s and 70s and we all survived that. The world didn't end. There is no need for knee jerk reactions - reform, yes, but mutilation, no. Definitely not.

Alan_Cross

marklv wrote: »

The public sector was much bigger in the 1950s, 60s and 70s and we all survived that. The world didn't end. There is no need for knee jerk reactions - reform, yes, but mutilation, no. Definitely not.

How dare you mention such matters.

'Reactionary' is the name of the game here. Pounds of flesh are required, irrespective of endangerment to life.

Alan_Cross

marklv wrote: »

I'm not bothered either way. The term 'profession' smacks of snobbery to me and is an outdated concept anyway. What matters is how much you earn, ultimately.

Actually I'm all for a little 'snobbery' if the alternative is to accept that red-bracered, City idiots have 'jobs', let alone a profession.

I would have thought that the concept of a 'job' has at least something in it of doing a worthwhile occupation which produces goods or some service of material/spiritual value to others.

Speculative money shuffling at the end of telephones, which is all these prats do at the end of the day for their absurdly inflated remuneration, most assuredly does not attract such a definition and never will.

They are a form of parasite whose existence is a poor comment on the society which we accept.

marklv

Alan_Cross wrote: »

How dare you mention such matters.

'Reactionary' is the name of the game here. Pounds of flesh are required, irrespective of endangerment to life.

Not sure what you mean, sorry.

marklv

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Actually I'm all for a little 'snobbery' if the alternative is to accept that red-bracered, City idiots have 'jobs', let alone a profession.

I would have thought that the concept of a 'job' has at least something in it of doing a worthwhile occupation which produces goods or some service of material/spiritual value to others.

Speculative money shuffling at the end of telephones, which is all these prats do at the end of the day for their absurdly inflated remuneration, most assuredly does not attract such a definition and never will.

They are a form of parasite whose existence is a poor comment on the society which we accept.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Most of these ultra-high paid financial services 'professionals' are nothing but glorified salespeople. Even fund managers, whose performance is often routinely beaten by the FTSE All Share index, are just self-important upstarts with opprobriously high incomes.

donaldtramp

but in truth all tax hurts the low paid.

Not true! Some of the tax pays for them to exist in the first place.
Housing them, feeding them, heating them, clothing them, providing social services for them, providing health care for them,
and then paying for them to have children and start the cycle all over again.
All without them contributing anything to our society.

custardy

donaldtramp wrote: »

Not true! Some of the tax pays for them to exist in the first place.
Housing them, feeding them, heating them, clothing them, providing social services for them, providing health care for them,
and then paying for them to have children and start the cycle all over again.
All without them contributing anything to our society.

how exactly do the low paid not contribute?