Cameron Tax Dodger

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

TBH I don't think anyone begrudges many state workers the money they get, especially doing jobs like being a gaoler that most people just wouldn't do.

I think they do. The vilification of public servants and their "gold plated" pensions, laziness etc has been quite appalling over the past five years. Characterising them as "pen pushers" is commonplace although many people in the public sector as you say do jobs that many people would not be willing to do. I am perhaps more sensitive to this because I spent 10 years of my early career in the public sector doing something that was about as far from the concept of pen pushing as one could get.

mwpt

BobQ wrote: »

But ending that situation requires economic planning rather than a wait and see approach by Government. The negative effects of austerity] are public sector job cuts that affect skills that they actually need (often replaced by more expensive agency substitutes), pay suppression (creates retention problems and skill shortages), and lack of investment (eg not training enough nurses, teachers, GPs). You can argue over the necessity but the effects encourage immigration which most people would like to curtail to a degree.

In my field in the private sector, we also have austerity. Except we don't get to call it that and brand the market as evil. Pay is suppressed as we import external talent or simply offshore the roles. Onshore hiring is being frozen and jobs are being lost at an extraordinary rate as we strive to compete with developing countries. Austerity is not a choice.

BobQ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Paying high rates for agency staff is nothing to do with funding or who is in Westminster that is down to poor management (arguably as not paying the ludicrous unfunded public sector pensions is probably a net saving)

In some senses I agree, but a private company faced with falling demand for its products would reduce the workforce by keeping its best people and keeping those in areas that were profitable. Parts of the public sector are often subject to arbitrary headcount restrictions which are only loosely connected to the allocated budgets or the demand for the services. Also they sometimes do not even get clear direction of which services they should reduce or stop. In some areas they have budgets they must spend in the private sector but do not have the internal staff to define the work and place the contracts because they have retired (no replacements allowed) or left (recruitment ban).

So if you have funding for a service and no direction that it should be stopped but need to reduce your headcount by 15% what do you do? Suppose you have £2m to contract some public funded project, but lack the staff to specify it and assess the tenders what do you do? Often the short term solution is to take on agency staff.

BobQ

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

To have a country prosper you need people that want to prosper, that means there has to be a reasonable reward for working very hard in some very challenging roles.

I think your problem is that you equate being rich with being entrepreneurial. I have no problem with people being rewarded for working hard or for taking on challenging roles in any business. But there is also a notion of fairness and equality of opportunity which appear not to feature in your analysis.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

Am I surprised that you're revealing yourself to be hypocritical about more things? No.

The thing that I like about many socialists is that while I think they're misguided they are at least coming from a good place. For you it's all about you. You hate Mr Cameron for not giving you a pay rise, you call people out for evading tax while evading taxes yourself.

Just remember that while people are out sleeping rough you have to look in the mirror each morning and someone that has added to their problems is staring back.

Can you point out to me how I am evading tax?

BobQ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

See the bit in brackets. Public sector pensions are massively expensive - I suspect paying more per hour to agency staff is more than offset by the saving in pension costs

It is not what the agency staff are paid directly that matters it is what the agency charges the customer. That really depends on how much of a shortage you have in the job type, how many are competing for a job and how the agency prices the staff available. In some cases the cost of employing agency staff is as little as about a 25% mark up but many are 40-60% and a proportion more than this. There is no standard it is just what the market will sustain. But you also have to factor in the costs of contracting such staff on a relatively short term basis. Either way it will be as much and most likely significantly more than the costs of employing a public sector worker.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

Wage growth hasn't slowed, it increased in the last release.

OK. I was referring to this.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/17/uk-wage-growth-slows-as-employment-rises

antrobus

Mistermeaner wrote: »

See the bit in brackets. Public sector pensions are massively expensive - I suspect paying more per hour to agency staff is more than offset by the saving in pension costs
...

It's possible.

See below, the example quoted of Coventry CC shows the cost of the LGPS rising to 47% of conolidated pay. Which is a lot.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2015/03/lgps-emperor%E2%80%99s-new-pension-scheme

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

It's possible.

See below, the example quoted of Coventry CC shows the cost of the LGPS rising to 47% of conolidated pay. Which is a lot.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2015/03/lgps-emperor%E2%80%99s-new-pension-scheme

There is a short term funding issue for the LGPS which a Thatcherite think tank like the CPS is likely to use as means of advocating change. However, pension funds by their nature need long term thinking. The following link is more constructive in my view.

http://www.citynoble.com/current-key-challenges-to-the-future-sustainability-of-lgps-funds-the-investment-weather-is-set-for-stormy-even-without-government-proposals-william-bourne/

chewmylegoff

Moby wrote: »

Can you point out to me how I am evading tax?

Why? It wasn't necessary for you to be able to explain how Cameron supposedly did so. You concluded that Cameron is an immoral tax avoider on the basis that you don't like his politics so he must be one. On that basis it seems perfectly reasonable to draw a conclusion that you are an immoral tax avoider on the basis of exactly the same "logic"; no evidence is necessary.