benefits and public sector pay

The_White_Horse

why can't they just be adjusted monthly in accordance with how much money the govt had. Like most businesses, if they are losing money each month, they will cut peoples pay, or sack people.

as for layabout benefit claimants, who cares. you get what you are given. beggars can't be choosers and these people are indeed beggars.

so, there you have it, radical thoughts. you pay out what you have. not billions more. easy.

[Deleted User]

Has your village appointed a temporary idiot while you are on leave?:D

WR

ILW

I have my own micro company and do work on a basis of getting paid being linked to how much is coming in. I would not take out a loan to give myself a pay rise.

The_White_Horse

ILW wrote: »

I have my own micro company and do work on a basis of getting paid being linked to how much is coming in. I would not take out a loan to give myself a pay rise.

that's the point isn't it.

why can't the govt say "we have raised 6bn in taxes this year so you will get £x"

why do they feel they can just borrow more and more and more to pay these cretins???? it doesn't happen in the real world (yes i know real companies do borrow for various reasons but not indefinitely against nothing) so why should it in the public sector? the only reason is that greedy public sector workers want more and more. it is them that has pushed this country to the brink.

hateful greedy people who by and large are massive hypocrites and see themselves as benevolent lefty types when in fact they are mostly self righteous greedy tories.

The_White_Horse

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Has your village appointed a temporary idiot while you are on leave?:D

WR

i presume you are a public sector worker. why is it stupid to pay people what you have received in income rather than billions more????

this is your typical ignorant lefty moron with no idea on how things work.

they think it all falls from the magic money tree.

[Deleted User]

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i presume you are a public sector worker. why is it stupid to pay people what you have received in income rather than billions more????

this is your typical ignorant lefty moron with no idea on how things work.

they think it all falls from the magic money tree.

first point - no, your presumption is as faulty as your original post was.

second point - public services such as the NHS, police, fire, consumer protection, customs, and dozens others are too important to be left to the kind of financial arrangements (if the chaos proposed by you could be called an arrangement) proposed by you.

third point - nice effort, but I have never voted "lefty" in my life, and am quite well educated, than you very much.

So all in all, your response is exactly what I would expect from someone who describes public sector workers as "cretins/greedy people/massive hypocrites" and benefit claimants as "layabouts" and "beggars".

Typical keyboard warrior.

WR

grizzly1911

The_White_Horse wrote: »

why do they feel they can just borrow more and more and more to pay these cretins????

hateful greedy people who by and large are massive hypocrites .

Some things in life don't stop because there is insufficient money in the pot.

These cretins being doctors, surgeons, oncologists, nurses, radiographers, dentists, paramedics, fire and rescue, police (you might want to stoop some one mugging your granny or saving you from the abattoir), armed forces, coastguards, teachers, refuse collectors, care for the elderly etc. etc. etc.

It would be really good if they just stopped working when you stopped paying them. Well just cancel your cancer treatment for a couple of months, or we will not attend that burning house etc.


Top up the kids ISA from child benefit you've retained because you have just put a bit more in your pension, claiming maximum tax relief. You are the greedy hypocrite. There are loads more extras that could be removed before further cutbacks. Those are just three of the benefits/reliefs.

The_White_Horse

you seem to still miss the point - if there is no money, there is no money. why do the employers think they can just keep borrowing to fund the madness.

they all need to be paid less. if they don't like it, work in the private sector. it is that simple.

why on earth should benefit claimants get a bigger "pay rise" than those actually working???

the public sector needs to realise it is funded by the private sector and taxes raised from the private sector (tax on the public sector is just a shame, paying lip service to them to make them feel important - empowering them they call it) and if only £x is raised, you can't be paid £y - no matter how much you cry and rant and stamp your little public sector feet.

look at the teachers - about to go on strike again for yet more money. so predictible.

[Deleted User]

The_White_Horse wrote: »

no matter how much you cry and rant and stamp

With the greatest possible respect, there is only one poster on this thread who is crying, ranting and stamping. It's you.

By all means have a debate about the funding of public services, but calm down and be rational.

WR

grizzly1911

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you seem to still miss the point - if there is no money, there is no money. why do the employers think they can just keep borrowing to fund the madness.

they all need to be paid less. if they don't like it, work in the private sector. it is that simple.

why on earth should benefit claimants get a bigger "pay rise" than those actually working???

the public sector needs to realise it is funded by the private sector and taxes raised from the private sector (tax on the public sector is just a shame, paying lip service to them to make them feel important - empowering them they call it) and if only £x is raised, you can't be paid £y - no matter how much you cry and rant and stamp your little public sector feet.

look at the teachers - about to go on strike again for yet more money. so predictible.

OK stop paying whatever % of GDP out, by removing all the public sector spend in it's entirety and see what happens. Remove all the props to the private sector, all the underwritten projects, all that bank support, all the research and development projects, all the drug purchases. all the IT hardware and software purchases and contracts, all MOD spend etc etc.

If you still have a job at the end of that you can then start funding everything you and your family need yourself. It will be much cheaper so you can then spend the extra money on all the more expensive unsubsidised goods and services you need, from drugs, school fees through to IT hardware /software, banking etc. Without the crutch of government spending to cross subsidise the production of those products and services suppliers would need to increase prices to compensate.

No doubt there would be lots of insurance companies vying for your business to protect you from the unexpected to mop up your residual cash.

CLAPTON

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you seem to still miss the point - if there is no money, there is no money. why do the employers think they can just keep borrowing to fund the madness.

they all need to be paid less. if they don't like it, work in the private sector. it is that simple.

why on earth should benefit claimants get a bigger "pay rise" than those actually working???

the public sector needs to realise it is funded by the private sector and taxes raised from the private sector (tax on the public sector is just a shame, paying lip service to them to make them feel important - empowering them they call it) and if only £x is raised, you can't be paid £y - no matter how much you cry and rant and stamp your little public sector feet.

look at the teachers - about to go on strike again for yet more money. so predictible.

I think it's an idea worth considering.

Like minded people could volunteer to forgo NHS teatment, police services, fire services, rubbish collection, street lighting, schooling, public transport etc until the budget is properly balanced.

It could be called the White Horse Party and members could be made into lasange
a win win policy.