500,000 Public Sector Workers Culled

bendix

shortchanged wrote: »

Where do you think banks etc get their money from? Taxpayers. Me, you and everyone else.

So whether or not their money comes directly from taxes or from another means, it is yours, mine and everyone elses money that they are creaming off to line their pockets.

Where do you think the money they pay each other these lovely fat bonuses comes from? The money tree at the bottom of the garden.

Really?

Could you explain in more detail, so us more simple folk get the benefit of your wisdom?

Did the government hand over taxpayer's money to banks to spend on bonuses, and - if so - how much?

Because, !!!!!! me if I didn't think (obviously wrongly) that all the government did was buy significant stakes in those banks at a time when their shareprices were very low, bringing confidence back, and that the government still owns those shares now that they are much higher, delivering a very tidy profit for the taxpayer.

So, in effect, it's the other way round. The bankers have actually paid the taxpayer because of their success, not the other way round.

Former_Spice

ILW wrote: »

I do not believe that public sector employee contributions are invested on the stock market, happy to be corrected though. If that is the case, who then would pay for any shortfall if the market does not perform to expectations?

All sorts of different schemes and arrangements. It's true for local government and some other parts of the public sector including arms length bodies such as the Environment Agency. It isn't true for other parts of the public sector such as the Civil Service.

Any shortfall, if there is one in a particular fund, can be made up by a mix of increased employee contributions (already done once), backdated cuts reducing payouts (already done once), increased retirement age (already done once) or increased taxpayer contributions.

shortchanged_2

ILW wrote: »

I pay nothing towards banking that I have not agreed to. If I disagree with a banks remuneration policy I can take my businesses elsewhere. If I was a shareholder I would have a say. With public sector I am forced by law to contribute with no choice in the matter so the situation is totally different.

Fine if you're happy to pay for private healthcare, private education and keep your own little private armed forces at the bottom of your garden you do that.

Why do some people think that the private sector is the answer to everything?

shortchanged_2

bendix wrote: »

Because, !!!!!! me if I didn't think (obviously wrongly) that all the government did was buy significant stakes in those banks at a time when their shareprices were very low, bringing confidence back, and that the government still owns those shares now that they are much higher, delivering a very tidy profit for the taxpayer.

It's called bailing out the greedy fat cats I believe.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Did the government hand over taxpayer's money to banks to spend on bonuses, and - if so - how much?

Because, !!!!!! me if I didn't think (obviously wrongly) that all the government did was buy significant stakes in those banks at a time when their shareprices were very low, bringing confidence back, and that the government still owns those shares now that they are much higher, delivering a very tidy profit for the taxpayer.

i thought there were also costly measures like the credit guarantee scheme and special liquidity scheme where the taxpayer basically took over the risk of the badly judged deals given out by these rogues and put in the much needed 'fiscal stimulus' to keep the economy afloat. if the bonuses were for turning a profit then why did the banks which were about to go under without govt help give out any bonuses?

wherediditallgothen

shortchanged wrote: »

It's called bailing out the greedy fat cats I believe.

Carry on thinking that if it makes you feel better.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

The same applies to Mr Singh's paper shop. If he chooses to buy a nice Merc with the profits then that's his choice. However the money that comes through his tills is from taxpayers.

He should buy British! :eek:

1984ReturnsForReal_2

bendix wrote: »

Because, !!!!!! me if I didn't think (obviously wrongly) that all the government did was buy significant stakes in those banks at a time when their shareprices were very low, bringing confidence back, and that the government still owns those shares now that they are much higher, delivering a very tidy profit for the taxpayer.

Actually they also allowed the banks to borrow & lend a greater percentage against their assets & also insured against debt.

Also they upped the amount the taxpayer was covered for in the event of a bank failure, boosting confidence.

edinburgher

Anyway, this is all by the by. I see the average reduction in departmental budget announced by Osborne today is 19%, less than the 25% originally mooted and less, even, than the 20% that Darling was proposing prior to the election.

So, it's conclusive. The dastardly Tory cuts are lower than those axe-wielding Labourites would have done.

Booo Hiss.

Well, if you believe his figures, which I don't for a moment.

tesuhoha

ILW wrote: »

because they can, and as long as they are not being paid with taxpayers money, it is between them and their shareholders.

It wasn't between them and their shareholders when they needed to be bailed out though was it?