The Public Sector Cuts - Anyone worried?

Golden_Anemone

saverbuyer wrote: »

At the end of the day your public sector job is paid for by private sector taxes.

Are you suggesting that the taxes paid by the public sector workers go to pay for something else saverbuyer, or that public sector workers somehow avoid paying tax as part of the "perks" you talk of?

saverbuyer

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the taxes paid by the public sector workers go to pay for something else saverbuyer, or that public sector workers somehow avoid paying tax as part of the "perks" you talk of?

No it's pretty simple really.

10 people in the private sector get paid 1000 and puts x in a pot say 100 through tax.

total pot 1000

1 person in the public sector gets paid 1000 from the pot and pays 100 in tax.

Total pot size now 100.

Not 1000

oldhand

saverbuyer wrote: »

There hasn't really been any public sector job cuts in NI. There's maybe a "freeze" on recruitment (more like slightly less recruitment) but no-one has lost their job really yet. No one who wasn't retiring anyway.

On the point about paying taxes, public sector workers don't "pay" taxes as all public services is paid through private sector taxation. You can't get paid from the tax pot and pay into it also.

many public service workers have and are losing their jobs as a result of centralization which in the case of office work is understandable as computers have allowed a lot of work which was done in outlying depots to be carried out from a central office,however many technical jobs were also lost as I said due to tendering systems which ensued that even though the tender always stipulated (the lowest or any tender may not be accepted) the lowest tender was ALWAYS accepted.Your point about us not paying taxes I find very strange as anyone receiving child benefit or tax credits are getting "paid from the tax pot" and also "paying into it"

Witless

saverbuyer wrote: »

There hasn't really been any public sector job cuts in NI. There's maybe a "freeze" on recruitment (more like slightly less recruitment) but no-one has lost their job really yet. No one who wasn't retiring anyway.

On the point about paying taxes, public sector workers don't "pay" taxes as all public services is paid through private sector taxation. You can't get paid from the tax pot and pay into it also.

Really?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/public-sector-lost-4000-jobs-in-one-year-says-report-16066341.html

A.L.D.A

I feel sorry for anyone losing their job, and certainly would not cast judgement on their motives or values. In my experience everyone's job is easy until you have to do it yourself, day in day out.

I cannot be specific, but I have, over the years, seen millions wasted by bad decisions. IMO this whole 'carry on' is the wrong way round for unless you set up a better structures where those at the 'top' can have real authority and are held accountable for their department, branch or whatever we are not making any real progress. I would very much doubt if we will see many senior civil servants losing their jobs, but one of them is worth how many clerks?

Over the years I have seen, department after department added, new rules and regulations, all ever so essential. UK public spending is about 45% of GDP and if we are going to get that down to under 35% as it was in 2000, it is going to take a lot more than belt tightening. It needs the political will to really simplify and the courage to dump legislation that will offend some strong lobby groups. A lot of this legislation not only adds to public sector costs, but also private sector costs. Our economy needs to be more efficient or we are on the road to 3rd world existence.

oldhand

A.L.D.A wrote: »

I feel sorry for anyone losing their job, and certainly would not cast judgement on their motives or values. In my experience everyone's job is easy until you have to do it yourself, day in day out.

I cannot be specific, but I have, over the years, seen millions wasted by bad decisions. IMO this whole 'carry on' is the wrong way round for unless you set up a better structures where those at the 'top' can have real authority and are held accountable for their department, branch or whatever we are not making any real progress. I would very much doubt if we will see many senior civil servants losing their jobs, but one of them is worth how many clerks?

Over the years I have seen, department after department added, new rules and regulations, all ever so essential. UK public spending is about 45% of GDP and if we are going to get that down to under 35% as it was in 2000, it is going to take a lot more than belt tightening. It needs the political will to really simplify and the courage to dump legislation that will offend some strong lobby groups. A lot of this legislation not only adds to public sector costs, but also private sector costs. Our economy needs to be more efficient or we are on the road to 3rd world existence.

I would agree about the regulations,as an example when employed with water service in the mid 90s I was on what was called a "mobile run",as part of a 2 man squad and our job was to cover the pumping stations for sewerage over a large area clearing blocked pumps and replacing where required.It was in a country area and many time over the years we would be stopped on the road by people to inform us of either burst water mains or overflowing manholes.we had in our vehicles 2 way radios which allowed us to contact the different squads responsible for particular repairs directly,they would inform their PTO (boss) who would then send them to the burst or whatever and the problem would be fixed within a few hours.Then someone in belfast came up with the idea of centralising ALL reporting and so from then on if you have a problem you ring the "waterline number"(you will see it on the sides of their vans) and someone with no knowledge whatsoever of where you live or how serious the problem could be will take your details and promise to pass it on to the department responsible and ring you back to confirm when it will be fixed.In most cases thats the last you will hear from them,your complaint will be forwarded to another department and likely sit there for a day or so before someone realises its not their department deals with it and forwards it on again.Some time in the following week AFTER someone has again rang to report the problem they will finally get the report to the proper section and send out a squad to look at it,by which time the customers it affects will be waiting to take their anger out on guess who? yes the squad who only just got informed. No matter how many people stopped us after that new system was brought in we could only tell them to ring the number on the side of the vehicle,many of those people we knew well and still because of the new edict we were not permitted to help them.So many of those new rules brought with them much more paperwork to be shifted about but no benefit to the consumers.

highrisklowreturn

oldhand wrote: »

I would agree about the regulations,as an example when employed with water service in the mid 90s I was on what was called a "mobile run",as part of a 2 man squad and our job was to cover the pumping stations for sewerage over a large area clearing blocked pumps and replacing where required.It was in a country area and many time over the years we would be stopped on the road by people to inform us of either burst water mains or overflowing manholes.we had in our vehicles 2 way radios which allowed us to contact the different squads responsible for particular repairs directly,they would inform their PTO (boss) who would then send them to the burst or whatever and the problem would be fixed within a few hours.Then someone in belfast came up with the idea of centralising ALL reporting and so from then on if you have a problem you ring the "waterline number"(you will see it on the sides of their vans) and someone with no knowledge whatsoever of where you live or how serious the problem could be will take your details and promise to pass it on to the department responsible and ring you back to confirm when it will be fixed.In most cases thats the last you will hear from them,your complaint will be forwarded to another department and likely sit there for a day or so before someone realises its not their department deals with it and forwards it on again.Some time in the following week AFTER someone has again rang to report the problem they will finally get the report to the proper section and send out a squad to look at it,by which time the customers it affects will be waiting to take their anger out on guess who? yes the squad who only just got informed. No matter how many people stopped us after that new system was brought in we could only tell them to ring the number on the side of the vehicle,many of those people we knew well and still because of the new edict we were not permitted to help them.So many of those new rules brought with them much more paperwork to be shifted about but no benefit to the consumers.

Public sector in a nutshell. I am at pains to admit though that once a compancy extends beyond employing its founder it eventually ends like this. Technology has only accelerated the process.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

*really worried*

Golden_Anemone

saverbuyer wrote: »

No it's pretty simple really.

10 people in the private sector get paid 1000 and puts x in a pot say 100 through tax.

total pot 1000

1 person in the public sector gets paid 1000 from the pot and pays 100 in tax.

Total pot size now 100.

Not 1000

Actually tax is anything but simple saverbuyer as is the relationship between public and private sector jobs.

saverbuyer

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

Actually tax is anything but simple saverbuyer as is the relationship between public and private sector jobs.

I didn't say tax was simple. The way we pay for public services is. We pay for it through private sector taxation or as the case is now, borrowing. The private sector is a net contributor and pays for the public sector and finances public sector borrowing.

You don’t save money by cutting the private sector. Have any economies grown by cutting their private sector?

Have any grown by cutting the public sector?