Labours legacy: 172 civil servant paid more then PM

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

He would if the people who keep moaning about how much CEOs get paid actually put their money where their mouths are and shopped with him rather than the Tescos.

It is a bit out of my way that

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

It is a bit out of my way that

I am sure he will have a cousin/brother/uncle somewhere near you.

ninky_2

i'd rather have a few civil servants paid top brass than thousands of ordinary people not even entitled to a minimum wage (tory legacy).

marklv

ILW wrote: »

All companies are not the same, Mr Patels shop does not pay its owner a £1m plus salary, you can buy direct from farm shops etc, and you a perfectly free to shop there if you wish thereby making no contribution to Tescos etc.

You are being facetious. The fact is that there will always be things that we need to buy from the big stores, insurance that we have to pay for from big insurance companies and so forth.

marklv

ILW wrote: »

He would if the people who keep moaning about how much CEOs get paid actually put their money where their mouths are and shopped with him rather than the Tescos.

But Mr Patel doesn't stock my favourite type of pasta or cuts of meat etc. The point I am trying to make is that we all have to buy at least some goods and services from the big 'blue chips' - it's inevitable. And we all have to contribute to the big CEO salaries. Just by buying a new PC you are increasing Bill Gates' pay packet as Windows software is built-in.

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

I don't actually. I blame all the voters.

A fair solution is now impossible. You have to either deny previous employees their contractual agreements, or you have to impose punitive taxation on a generation that never signed up to such agreements.

The fairest things to do would be to go back to the taxpayers of the last 40 years and say 'oops, sorry, we messed up our sums. Please pay the extra 20% bill we should have been paying all along into the pension pots'. Which of course is utterly impractical.

In many ways, it is an example of inter-generational extortion. Not dissimilar to someone signing lots of juicy contracts with related parties before selling out of a company, then threatening to sue for their 'contractual rights' when the deception is uncovered.

Of course I don't believe there was malicious intent. But it has amounted to a malicious outcome. I don't know if the younger generation will twig, but the impact of standards of life over the next 30 years will cause social strife at some level.

the next generation will also benefit from all the investment that has been paid for by these 'malicious' people... the hospitals, electricity power stations, national grid, clean water and sewerage disposal, gas supply infrastructure, roads, factories, offices, houses, theatres, universities, schools etc etc.
the next generation didn't sign up to benefit from these either... maybe we should demand they pay a special tax to recompense the older generation who paid for all this.

or maybe one has to accept what is done is done.
the major problem to be resolved isn't public pensions as such but the fact that the age structure of the population..
and anyway the new generation will be richer in real terms than the previous generation even if they have to share a larger share of that wealth with the retired people

no panick there really

ILW

marklv wrote: »

You are being facetious. The fact is that there will always be things that we need to buy from the big stores, insurance that we have to pay for from big insurance companies and so forth.

All I am saying is that for probably 75% of your day to day spend you could avoid the large corporations. Unless you are doing that you have no grounds to complain about the CEOs salaries as you are voluntarily paying them.

marklv

princeofpounds wrote: »

I don't actually. I blame all the voters.

A fair solution is now impossible. You have to either deny previous employees their contractual agreements, or you have to impose punitive taxation on a generation that never signed up to such agreements.

The fairest things to do would be to go back to the taxpayers of the last 40 years and say 'oops, sorry, we messed up our sums. Please pay the extra 20% bill we should have been paying all along into the pension pots'. Which of course is utterly impractical.

In many ways, it is an example of inter-generational extortion. Not dissimilar to someone signing lots of juicy contracts with related parties before selling out of a company, then threatening to sue for their 'contractual rights' when the deception is uncovered.

Of course I don't believe there was malicious intent. But it has amounted to a malicious outcome. I don't know if the younger generation will twig, but the impact of standards of life over the next 30 years will cause social strife at some level.

True, to a certain extent, but the same principle applies to society in general. Is it 'generational extortion' that many people are now living into their 90s and not dropping inheritances on their offspring until the latter are well into their 60s? And is it a similar form of extortion that people are having to sell their houses to pay for care as a result of this increased life expectancy? The fact is that when public sector pensions first emerged in their current forms most people lived until 70-75 and then dropped dead from one disease or another. Now, thanks to better healthcare and also greater wealth, many people are living until they practically rot. Therefore the whole argument is about how to manage the consequences of this increased life expectancy. The answer may be to provide 'timed' pensions, that run only for a set period. eg. 25 years.

marklv

ILW wrote: »

All I am saying is that for probably 75% of your day to day spend you could avoid the large corporations. Unless you are doing that you have no grounds to complain about the CEOs salaries as you are voluntarily paying them.

I don't agree. Think through what you said.

ILW

marklv wrote: »

I don't agree. Think through what you said.

Which bit dont you agree with?