Public Sector Strike(s)

real1314

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

Right public sector, whilst you are moaning about a slight change to an already very generous pension look at the news today in the brutal private sector

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15935608

3000 job cuts from a bank, not high end bankers, the average joe trying to make a living.


So whilst you are on strike please take time to think of those in far worse positions for yourself and hopefully you will see how sicking and selfish your views really are.

Haven forbid if the public sector announced 300 job losses...

300 job losses? Do you live in the real world?

Try 300 job losses times 2367. Of which over 100 times the RBS cuts are in today's announcement.

"Haven" forbid indeed. :cool:

dtsazza

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne wrote: »

No. It is not our money. You payed tax to the government and it became the state's money for the state to spend as it sees fit. This is not the fault of public sector workers. The notion of 'taxpayer's money' is convenient only to justify one's moral outrage.

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.

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

each member of the electorate is entitled to express their views about how money raised in taxes should be spent, and vote accordingly.

The trouble is to the average Joe it makes not one Jot of difference who we vote in.

Politicians of any persuasion just can't be trusted.

Smashing the public sector will not reduce the tax take, the services will still have to be paid for or it just means I will have to pay out again.

Whilst a privatised dustbin collector may be paid less individually and have less benefits I doubt it actually saves any money to the tax payer it just jettisons the responsibility.

Instead of occupational pension payments now we will just pick up the long term pension guarantee/benefit payment in due course and have lower consumption.

That may well be the desired outcome to have all prols begging for handouts but they should be honest about that strategy and not tax them more now for false promise.

dtsazza

pillion wrote: »

I believe this government has deliberately set out to turn the private sector against the public sector.

I don't think that's true, or even strictly necessary. If anything the media's done a more effective job via the labelling strategy of "X vs Y".

I have no problem with the public sector per se, and certainly wouldn't take prejudice against every individual involved in it. However, I have no sympathy for those that refuse to accept macroeconomic reality, be they in the private sector or public sector. Anyone that effectively throws a tantrum over their salary and benefits adjusting to realistic levels is going to earn my scorn, whether they're the director of a FTSE 100 company or a binman.

I suppose the fact that I'm in effect a minority employer of the public sector in that my taxes fund it gives me some skin in the game, but I wouldn't support anyone in that situation regardless of the nature of their employment.

As I see it the government haven't done anything to specifically turn people against the public sector, they're simply balancing the books according to economic necessity. The public sector (or more accurately, their union chiefs) have demonstrated their unreasonableness all of their own volition.

Graham_Devon

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.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, it doesn't work, because you can't actually do that.

You are not free to quit your job and keep your home and everything else.

However, you are free to move, as you wish, between working in the public and private sectors. There is nothing illegal about this, unlike what you have described above.

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.

"oh look - there's a massive unfunded liability, that's an issue isn't it, it looks like we can't really afford that, i think we should sort it out".

"no, you are not allowed to say that or suggest any changes. instead, the only acceptable solution is to join the bandwagon and make it even worse".

will you also be arguing that no public sector employee should moan about their pay being frozen because they have the option to move to a private sector organisation where pay is not frozen?

chewmylegoff

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.

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...

grizzly1911

dtsazza wrote: »

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. Dream on :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

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.

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.

In many cases it is the managerial tiers that are in place, to prove that hour money is being well spent, that are probably the least good value in £ for actual result. They cost the most and are less likely to remove themselves.

mr-angry

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

Right public sector, whilst you are moaning about a slight change to an already very generous pension look at the news today in the brutal private sector

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15935608

3000 job cuts from a bank, not high end bankers, the average joe trying to make a living.


So whilst you are on strike please take time to think of those in far worse positions for yourself and hopefully you will see how sicking and selfish your views really are.

Haven forbid if the public sector announced 300 job losses...

You would have done well to had a longer look at that website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15931086

dtsazza

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Whilst a privatised dustbin collector may be paid less individually and have less benefits I doubt it actually saves any money to the tax payer it just jettisons the responsibility.

Instead of occupational pension payments now we will just pick up the long term pension guarantee/benefit payment in due course an have lower consumption.

That's an interesting viewpoint - if I understand it correctly, you're more or less saying that the current rate of pay is the bare minimum that's socially acceptable.

In that if we replaced, say, a £15/hour binman with a £10/hour one, the latter will ultimately over the course of their lifetime get their effective pay topped back up to £15/hour anyway through benefits/tax credits/etc. (And implicitly that it's right to perform this top-up).


I'm not sold on that argument, partly because I disagree with that specific assessment, but mainly because the big potential area for savings in the public sector is in operational efficiencies (i.e. getting rid of bureaucracy), not in paying the actual rank-and-file less.

That may well be the desired outcome to have all prols begging for handouts but they should be honest about that strategy and not tax them more now for false promise.

There's a big leap from "your employer is spending money unwisely" to "we want you to be impoverished".