Public Sector Strike(s)

sheffield_lad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've just read a humbling comment from a nurse. She says she didn't become a nurse for the money. She became a nurse to help people and because she had an interest. She's been put in life threatening circumstances more times than she cares to remember, and takes abuse constantly from the public, while trying her best to make sure they are safe and aided.

She states she understands the reasons for her pay freeze for 2 years, and understands the need to save money.

However, she states she may have to give up, because ultimately, she still needs to pay for her train which has increased massively over the last 2 years and is due to go up another 6% next year, and at the end of the day needs to feed and clothe her children and while putting her own life at risk is something she does as part of her job, she will not see her own kids suffer from a dwindling income and increasing costs from every direction. She can't afford to pay into the pension so thats a non starter.

I know it's only one comment from one nurse. But I do wonder just how many across the country are feeling the same. I don't think it achieves anything to be labelling people like her as freeloading lazy scumbags.

I don't think anyone here would want to call her anything like that, but...... this is a reality for us all we have all had to cut our cloth accordingly. Maybe this nurse will need to seek a promotion, retrain or specialise in an area where there is a demand in a more senior role. What me and millions of others in the private sector want is just a bit of fairness over pensions. Millions don't have any form of pension yet they are being asked to subsidise someone else's pension in the form of tax.

Cleaver

julieq wrote: »

Enjoy your day off, public sector. We'll still be here to pick up the tab for your pension when you retire, no worries.

I work in the public sector and I'm not striking tomorrow. I don't agree with all the cuts (I do agree with others), but the one thing I understand is that we can't have 3% payrises at present and our pensions are incredibly generous as it is.

And anyway, without me going in tomorrow we'd never get our equality and diversity consultation diagram finished as planned by April.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

there's nothing illegal about it, it's just ridiculous to state that people cannot complain about unfunded pension liabilities accruing at unsustainable rates, just because they could apply for a public sector job themselves.

That's not what I suggested.

I suggested it's ridiculous to lambast the whole of the public sector and all of the workers in it, because of a pension scheme. A pension scheme which has, now been changed.

The current workers, and any new entrants cannot do anything about what has happened in previous years with the pension. Many many of the normal every day folk don't even have the pension.

You are criticising the workers, rather than those right at the top creaming everything they can from the system.

There could be so much money saved, JUST by targetting a handful of the entie public sector workers. The old adage "but they will find work elsewhere" always comes up when trying to tackle this. But as with bankers....let them. What great wonders have all these grossly overpaid, expenses leaching public servants actually done for us?

I only found out the other day that Tony Blair, and any other ex prime minister still takes roughly 7 "normal" public salaries, simply because of an age old rule about outgoing MPs. And thats the very basic. Blair of course took nearly a million in one single year (partly because of the war trials - how many of us would get PAID to appear in a court situation!?!) They can, because the system has been created so that they can.

There really needs to be a divide drawn when attacking the public sector workers....and indeed, the pension. I'd love to see figures, but I would be willing to bet, the majority of the pension finances are being swallowed by the few.

This top end individuals are akin to bankers. Every disaster they create sees them rewarded higher than they were rewarded for their last disaster.

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

dtsazza wrote: »

The Government are also our servants, not our masters (technically if not in practice).

We (the people/society) elect a government to run the affairs of state for us, including financing and overseeing collective projects. As part of this, we give them the power to raise taxes in order to pay for the expense of those activities.

All public expenses come from past, present or future taxation; and likewise, all taxation goes to fund public expenses. All things being equal, if the government spends £5bn a year less/more, then it must tax the public £5bn a year less/more in order to pay for it. You can disguise the immediate impact of this through stealth taxes, or through borrowing i.e. spending future tax revenues now, but ultimately public expenditure == taxes == money taken from taxpayers' own funds.

So in that sense it is most definitely our money. If the government didn't spend it we'd be able to keep it via less taxation.

The question is whether we feel that the benefits we derive from the government spending our money on our behalf collectively, are more than the benefits we could obtain spending that money ourselves.

No. Money taken by taxation is not your money. Taxation is taken by force and not given voluntarily and you have no say in how it is spent other that putting a cross in a box next to a name. You do not give the government the power to raise tax, if you did not live in a democracy you would still pay tax, but if it makes you happy to believe that you bestow the power with your X in a box then do. If government makes a direct tax cut to you then, yes, you benefit. If we payed no tax, however, then we would truly decide where we wanted our money spent by deciding where and how to spend it. Otherwise, you have no say; tax is taken from you, becomes the money of the state and is spent by the state how it sees fit. It may not need to spend the money it has taken from you to buy your vote, when spending it in an area that you disapprove of will buy somebody elses.

Graham_Devon

howee wrote: »

I don't think anyone here would want to call her anything like that, but...... this is a reality for us all we have all had to cut our cloth accordingly. Maybe this nurse will need to seek a promotion, retrain or specialise in an area where there is a demand in a more senior role. What me and millions of others in the private sector want is just a bit of fairness over pensions. Millions don't have any form of pension yet they are being asked to subsidise someone else's pension in the form of tax.

I completely and utterly agree with the pensions part.

One simple correction would be to say "look, if you have a pension pot of x, were gonna have to reduce it". They seem able to freeze wages and change contracts and laws for the lower end individuals without a problem. They seem able to mess around with private sector pensions with a smile on their face.

Trouble is, who in the lords is going to vote to make themselves, their families and their colleagues, hundreds of thousands of pounds worse off? None of them. The country can go to hell in a handcart before that will happen.

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

The average public sector pension is lower than the average private sector pension.

dtsazza

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If the government was well run then it should be able to provide services more effectively and at a lower cost.

Lower borrowing costs, the ability to self insure due to portfolio size, the ability to provide benefits including pensions due to having such a large workforce, actuarial in house. All this without after to make a profit at each point in the system.

I completely agree, the government definitely has the potential to deliver massive economy-of-scale savings. Especially in areas such as law and order.

The crux of the matter hangs on your first and last words. Firstly, is the government well run? It is de facto a monopoly; I can't choose to pay my taxes to a competing government who I feel can give me a more effective return, nor am I free to opt out of paying taxes (and receiving public services) in order to fund those services myself if I feel that's more effective.

And while it gets economies of scale it suffers the opposite effect in terms of the information it has available; an individual knows what would have the most impact on their happiness (be it more libraries, more funds for bin collection, more road repairs, etc.). A central government won't have this kind of insight but instead has to make aggregate decisions for 70 million people. Of course, you can start to devolve in order to increase the relevance of information, but then you also get more layers of management and less economies of scale...

Finally as for your closing words - I believe the profit motive is probably the best way to align incentives in a general case. A crucial government department that knows it will get tax money need not be too bothered about its total expenses and efficiency, because it's not picking up the tab. A company on the other hand which will benefit "personally" from any lowering of expenses or increase in output, and will feel the pain for inefficiencies, has absolutely the right incentives to provide their service as effectively as possible for the lowest cost.

That's why private companies are broadly considered to be more effective than public sector counterparts - because the public sector company has no incentive to be. (Or if it does it's because of arbitrary "targets" cooked up by one department, measured by another, and overseen by a third, all detached from the reality of how good the service provision is from those receiving it.)

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

really, she shouldn't be allowed to make these comments because she could apply for a job in the private sector and get paid more.

oh wait a minute, that's a stupid argument...

Doesn't really matter (well it does but not for this purpose) wherever she works as in the current model we will still pay her wage one way or the other.

Even if she can't get paid more the bill to the taxpayer won't really change and certainly not for the next generation or so until the "paid out of current taxation" pensions reduce.

Even in the longer term providing her with a "reduced nominal pension" now will only result in lower consumption in the future and potentially a pension guarantee/benefit burden too.

As another poster has said on another thread, may have been you, perhaps it is time for a radical pension remodeling for all perhaps with an upper ceiling.

Personally I have never relied solely on pension but most these days don't even have that choice. The position will only get worse when student loan increase start kick in.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

really, she shouldn't be allowed to make these comments because she could apply for a job in the private sector and get paid more.

oh wait a minute, that's a stupid argument...

I agree, it's a stupid argument.

She's already stated shes having to re-think. So she is doing exactly what you suggest she should be doing. She's not just moaning about it, infact she isn't really moaning, just making a simple point about increasing expenditure in getting to work, and looking after her family, as apposed to a falling (for 3 years, will be four) income. Theres only so far people can go, and that's entirely dependant upon personal circumstances. But the fact she's only now coming to this juncture after however many years, to me, states that there is a potential issue here....and it's not the lower end you should have a vengence for.

dtsazza

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne wrote: »

No. Money taken by taxation is not your money. Taxation is taken by force and not given voluntarily and you have no say in how it is spent other that putting a cross in a box next to a name.

That's just the nature of a representative democracy, and while I understand your cynicism the government is in principle put in place by the will of the people. And certainly from a democratic theory perspective, it's allowed to collect taxes in order to spend them efficiently for the public good.

To put it another way - if the government waved a magic wand and halved expenditure, it would have to halve the tax intake over the long run.

(You might say they'd pay themselves greater salaries, or fund more white elephants, or something similar; but that means that they wouldn't have halved expenses. You might also argue that they'd build up a big war chest - which would be prudent at first - but they'd then either spend the war chest (so expenses haven't halved), or have to say "enough" and reduce tax intake.)

The government only takes money from us to finance its expenses; reducing its expenses directly means it takes less money from us. (Else where does it go?)