benefits and public sector pay

[Deleted User]

Hi grizzly1911.

I'm afraid that you can't argue with someone like Mr Horsey. He is clearly of the Private Sector good, Public Sector bad mindlock.

Clapton's idea.... well....maybe it has some attraction .
WR

The_White_Horse

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

as long as the taxes were also scrapped, this could be a good idea.

i would be happy to pay for private schools, i have private medical and dentist. i could pay far less for my bins to be collected than i pay in council tax. they turn the street lights off at night anyway - to be "green" hahahaha.

The_White_Horse

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Hi grizzly1911.

I'm afraid that you can't argue with someone like Mr Horsey. He is clearly of the Private Sector good, Public Sector bad mindlock.

Clapton's idea.... well....maybe it has some attraction .
WR

actually i am not. i only believe in privatisation where there is genuine competition. therefore, i wouldn't encourage private railways.

what I am against is the group of people in the public sector demanding huge pensions and pay that is in excess of what the country generates to pay for it, without having to borrow billions.

if that is the case, then they all need to be paid less or there needs to be redundancies. if we get less service, so be it. that is the price we need to pay.

grizzly1911

The_White_Horse wrote: »

actually i am not. i only believe in privatisation where there is genuine competition. therefore, i wouldn't encourage private railways.

what I am against is the group of people in the public sector demanding huge pensions and pay that is in excess of what the country generates to pay for it, without having to borrow billions.

if that is the case, then they all need to be paid less or there needs to be redundancies. if we get less service, so be it. that is the price we need to pay.

On the basis we are out of balance and paying out too much. Then fine trim back the services for those that can afford to provide for themselves like TWH. You and your ilk then pay for your own services and everything is balanced again.

Sorry no tax reductions otherwise you are unbalanced again.

I find it interesting that you are happy to pay extra privately, and be ripped off by insurance companies, but not for taxes to be increased?

I am not advocating any tax increase BTW. Removal of the odd relief maybe.

I am curious as to what kind of haircut you think the public sector should face and just wonder what impact this would have on the quality of service delivered. Any haircut would have to apply from Queen and PM downwards of course..

[Deleted User]

The_White_Horse wrote: »

actually i am not. i only believe in privatisation where there is genuine competition. therefore, i wouldn't encourage private railways.

what I am against is the group of people in the public sector demanding huge pensions and pay that is in excess of what the country generates to pay for it, without having to borrow billions.

if that is the case, then they all need to be paid less or there needs to be redundancies. if we get less service, so be it. that is the price we need to pay.

I am quite happy for you to live in your wee independent republic when you can rely on all your private insurances. I too have a reasonably comfortable standard of living, but am not so selfish as some - I realise that not everyone can afford the choices that you have made and that they need state support. They don't all need the support because they have selected your favourite "layabout/beggar" lifestyle - many actually NEED it. Nobody likes paying tax, but it is the price of your right to live in a caring society. If you don't fancy a caring society, you are free to hold that opinion, but I'm glad I don't personally know you, (or hope I don't) as I'd hate to spend much time in your "me me me" company.

Reform, yes - blitz on the poor and poorest, no.

WR

sheffield_lad

Silly season is approaching with public sector slackers sorry workers demanding pay rises and/or strikes.

How dare teaching unions complain about their pensions when compared with the rest of us they look fantastic.

ummm, maybe they need their 13 weeks holidays to consider this grrrr.

grizzly1911

howee wrote: »

Silly season is approaching with public sector slackers sorry workers demanding pay rises and/or strikes.

How dare teaching unions complain about their pensions when compared with the rest of us they look fantastic.

ummm, maybe they need their 13 weeks holidays to consider this grrrr.

Yes their pensions are good but they do contribute to them and like the NHS will be paying even more from April for poorer benefits. The fact that governments choose to use that contribution to fund their cashflow isn't the contributors fault.

The_White_Horse

are you mental? I am happy to pay for things privately, but my tax would have to be reduced accordingly. I am not paying twice. laughable public sector mentality.

the answer is easy. the haircut has to be the difference between income and borrowing. Let's say income is £20bn and the cost are £30bn so the Govt has to borrow £10bn. You have to cut out £10bn. easy. You do that by cutting everyone's salary on a pro-rata basis or if they won't agree, you sack people. Yes, of course services will drop, but the public at large can only the get the services they can pay for. If I want to stay in a hotel, I might want the Dorchester, but I have to put up with the Premier Inn. I will get less service, but I am paying less. Alternatively, I can do what the Govt does and scream and stamp my feet and put it on a credit card instead, for ever and ever and never pay it off - until one day, I have to. That is today.

chucknorris

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Yes their pensions are good but they do contribute to them and like the NHS will be paying even more from April for poorer benefits. The fact that governments choose to use that contribution to fund their cashflow isn't the contributors fault.

That's right, I'm in the teachers' pension fund, the changes have come in various forms:

Increased contribution
2 years ago the contribution was 6.4% of salary, for me it went up to 8% last year, and I think (I did know but I've forgotten) that it is about to go to 10.1%. Next year it will most likely to go to about 12%.

Average career salary
From final salary

3% CPI inflation
From 3.5% RPI

Later retirement
For me it is now a year later when I can take the pension at 66, it is linked to the state pension now. It used to be 60 years old a few years ago.

[Deleted User]

The_White_Horse wrote: »

are you mental? I am happy to pay for things privately, but my tax would have to be reduced accordingly. I am not paying twice. laughable public sector mentality.

the answer is easy. the haircut has to be the difference between income and borrowing. Let's say income is £20bn and the cost are £30bn so the Govt has to borrow £10bn. You have to cut out £10bn. easy. You do that by cutting everyone's salary on a pro-rata basis or if they won't agree, you sack people. Yes, of course services will drop, but the public at large can only the get the services they can pay for. If I want to stay in a hotel, I might want the Dorchester, but I have to put up with the Premier Inn. I will get less service, but I am paying less. Alternatively, I can do what the Govt does and scream and stamp my feet and put it on a credit card instead, for ever and ever and never pay it off - until one day, I have to. That is today.

Mental? I'm not the one suggesting the sudden, immediate destruction of the country's social fabric. If you are looking for someone who is mental, look in a mirror. I'm sure the Chancellor will be happy to take your suggestions on board. I suggest you take your ideas up with him.

I suggest that you visit your GP to try to give you something for your foaming at the mouth, but he/she may be public sector, so presumably you won't go anywhere near him/her. If you do go, you might want to get your blood pressure checked while you are at it. You are clearly very angry, but if you want anyone to enter into a genuine debate with you, I suggest that you calm down, and stop ranting at and against people - you might need them one day!

WR