Forum menu
The pay maybe the same but the NHS can't make a profit
But if you want a soap dispenser on the wall equals to £ 65.00p Each.
and this would normally be Two items per room and how many rooms
in a Hospital ? But the Public sector person would be on an average
£ 180.00p per week.
Put it this way a friend of mine whom works for an East London NHS trust
Gets £ 180.00p per week He was told to fit the above soap dispensers
to every room in a Care Centre.
This had taken him 8 days and cost to us £ 288.00p
Private sector cheapest quote for same job £ 3,300.00p
This goes on day after day now re do your maths fella 😉
Regarding Pensions No one should have the right to tap into nor change
someones pension.
As this is whats left for you in your final years and being the average pay
in a Public pension is £ 7,500.00p per year and you think this is a tidy sum
to live on !
And the fact that the more money they are to pay in is not any finical gain to them
But to pay off the deficit ? Government needs to grow balls and get it back from the
banks, being thats where the debt lies!
LHS - its not unaffordable - Its because they can get away with it.
Who is they? What is this them and us attitude that you have?
Public sector pensions are not banckrupting the government - its perfectly affordable as the real numbers show.
Proof?
You need to get away from your fixation of FTSE 100 bosses and their salaries. You do know that these people account for less than 0.0001% of the population don't you?
One of the main reasons why the public sector pension scheme needs to change is to stop the corrupt behaviour of many who are "promoted" just before they retire so they can sit on a bigger salary for their final salary pension! The new scheme of your pension calculated over your average earnings is much fairer and stops the blatent corruption.
In fact, from a work-life balance this is much better, it enables people in their 60's to apply for less stressful jobs for the last few years before their retirement without forfitting lots of pension.
They - the board of the various companies
Thy may be a tiny % of the population but they take a large % of the profits of companies taht could be used to pay decent pensions
Proof for the affordability of public sector pensions - its been shown many times. Its a decreasing amount of GDP. Reducing public sector pension will increase benefits bills. Most schemes are either fully funded or have a taxpayer contribution cap.
I know you and others don't want to hear this but its the truth. Its a far greater cost to the taxpayer allowing the private sector to get away without providing decent pensions as all those workers will have to get benefits instead.
There is plenty of money in the private sector - just the board members take it all 'cos they can. They also pay less tax that the workforce 'cos they tax avoid. the top 1% take 21% of the nations wealth. The top 5% 40% of the nations wealth.
Even if they did have to put up prices there would be no competitive disadvantage as everyone would have to.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866 ]Directors' pay rose 50% in past year, says IDS report[/url]
LHS - MemberOne of the main reasons why the public sector pension scheme needs to change is to stop the corrupt behaviour of many who are "promoted" just before they retire so they can sit on a bigger salary for their final salary pension
Nonsense - this is not a major issue. Do you have any evidence for your assertions?
I thought you would be able to see beyond the propaganda. clearly not
LHS - its not unaffordable - Its because they can get away with it.
I could probably afford a Porsche and a much bigger house
I'm not entirely sure that it's a good idea to sign on the dotted line for them though
So yes, it's not unaffordable they just don't fancy committing to that spend right now
I think it's a bit disingenuous of the unions to claim they're fighting for everyone's pension though, I'd like to see some evidence of that
I have to fully fund my own pension but I'm also a member of Unite
As I'm pretty much a lone member [AFAIK] in my company, they really aren't interested in my situation and they certainly won't fight or throw any resource at changing it.
I can't imagine that they'll continue with their action until all their members have a settlement whatever industry they're in.
So fine, the unions should fight for their members in a particular corner of industry but say it as it is and don't pretend that they're doing it for anyone other than one sector.
Do you have any evidence for your assertions?
I have plenty of proof, friends from various areas who boast about how good they have it. Don't keep your blinkers on, its very evident within both the public and private sector. Difference is that private companies have got rid of it over the last 10-15 years, time for the public sector to follow suit.
the top 1% take 21% of the nations wealth. The top 5% 40% of the nations wealth.
The top 5% also pay for the bottom 30% of the population. Don't kid yourself!
Right - so what you have is hearsay not proof. I have never heard or seen of it happening and frankly don't believe it is possible in the public sector. Now do you actually have any evidence let alone proof?
It time that private sector was forced to give decent pensions so the taxpayer does not have to provide the massive subsidy buy providing the pensions for the private sector workers.
Its a far far greater cost to the taxpayer of the lack of decent private sector pensions that the small cost of public sector ones.
Right - so what you have is hearsay not proof.
Nope, I have proof. I have a good number of friends who it has happened to.
Right - so what you have is hearsay not proof.
Nope, I have proof. I have a good number of friends who it has happened to.
You can't argue with that TJ 😆 😛
I thought you were a scientist and would understand the difference between hearsay, anecdote,evidence and proof
You know large numbers of people in the public sector who are now retired and who corruptly were promoted in the last years of their work to get a higher pension?
personally I have never heard of this happening at all and in the NHS it would be virtually impossible as promoted posts are scarce and the promotion process is transparent and open.
Thy may be a tiny % of the population but they take a large % of the profits of companies taht could be used to pay decent pensions
A few million in a FTSE company is pretty much irrelevant. Money purchase pensions should be compulsory for all, that way there are no future problems for anyone - companies or the state which our children will have to pay for. Or do those without children care less about that?
mudshark - 1% of the population owning 21% of the nations wealth is a huge problem.
Its a direct cause of much of this nations ills. The more equal a society is the more happiness there is -for the rich as well. Because this small group take so much of the nations wealth the rest of us are impoverished - there is your private sector pension - being stolen by those with power.
"We support a system where pension payments are linked to career average earnings. It addresses the inherent inequalities of the current final salary arrangements which favour those who progress through the salary scales and, in particular, those who get a promotion just before retirement."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/10/trade-unions-attack-pension-reforms
mudshark - 1% of the population owning 21% of the nations wealth is a huge problem.
Note to self- must work harder-
Right - so what you have is hearsay not proof.
Nope, I have proof. I have a good number of friends who it has happened to.
lol
lol
Laugh all you want, you're the mugs who are striking for this to continue! 🙄
You bleat on about FTSE 100 bosses who are keeping the nation running, and yet the managers within the public sector are all patting themselves on the back 12 months before retirement with a quick promotion and an extra £10k for their pension. I'm not surprised they're upset, I would be if I someone was taking that con away!
1% of the population owning 21% of the nations wealth is a huge problem
If it wasn't for that 1% the bottom 30% wouldn't have any money for the benefits they are claiming.
That is so ass backwards. if the 1% didn't take all the money there would be more to go around and people could have higher wages and pensions.
More likely if it wasn't for the next 10-20% that'd be the case. That top 1% avoid a significant amount of the taxes they 'should' pay.
That is so ass backwards. if the 1% didn't [s]take[/s] [b]make[/b] all the money there would be [s]more[/s] [b]less[/b] to go around and people [s]could[/s] [b]would[/b] have [s]higher wages and pensions[/s] [b]higher taxes and lower pensions as a result[/b].
FTFY
Take a look at the graph at the bottom of the page here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966
Yep, that's deciles which was my point. You can't see the top 1% can you?
you're the mugs who are striking for this to continue!
Am I?
EDIT: I see JY post was removed, thanks.
A good graph showing the tax burden breakdown here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm
For those who want to continue with adult conversation a good graph showing the tax burden breakdown here.
That shows the [i]income[/i] tax burden as a total of income tax paid rather than e.g. income tax paid as a proportion of income or tax paid as a proportion of income.
If you watch the BBC2 program from last night on iplayer, regarding how they spend your money it goes into some good detail on this. They also have a good calculator on the web page which shows where you sit.
Its all irrelvant - the capture of vast swathes of the nations wealth by asmall group impoverishes us all. Fair taxation on them would mean plenty of money for decent pensions all round.
Its nothing to do with wealth creation- of else they would not be increasing their remuneration when share prices and profits were not increasing.
Im a registered nurse working in the nhs. I have 14 years experience, a degree, and various courses that are more specific to my role. I also have my pension that ive paid into for eleven of those years. I didnt pay into it while i was a student nurse. Im still friends with most of my group of mates from school. A couple of them work in engineering, one in construction and one for a large car manufacturer. They all earn more than me but none of them have a pension because they say they cant afford one. If these nhs pension reforms are the start of preparing the nhs for privatisation, as myself and many of my colleagues think, i suspect they wont be able to afford health insurance either!
Once its gone its gone.
Right - so what you have is hearsay not proof.Nope, I have proof. I have a good number of friends who it has happened to.
hear·say
? ?A
noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:So lets just say you were wrong then
Fair taxation on them would mean plenty of money for decent pensions all round.
50% of earnings not enough?
ar·gu·men·ta·tive? ?[ahr-gyuh-men-tuh-tiv]
adjective
1. fond of or given to argument and dispute; disputatious; contentious: The law students were an unusually argumentative group.
They avoid that - have you not looked at the numbers? the top 1% hide their incomes take it in shares / bonuses etc. they pay less than the middle earners as %.
Anyway for the superrich 50% is no where near enough. Its immoral that we can have pensioners dying for lack of money to pay for heating and people taking vast sums out of the economy simply because they have the power to do so without any merit or rationale at all.
many on here are argumentative and at times I can be as can you and obvioulsty TJ- does this alter the fact you were wrong?
Unfortunately very few are capable of admitting an error even blatantly obvious ones [ one wonders why they choose to debate if they will always just be right/ refuse to aknowledge error].
Serioulsy why debate if you are not willing to change your mind or accept you got things wrong. It is an exchange of ideas not just a soapbox for your own views or it is not really a debate.
Your reply is a really gracious and succesful way for you to save face and retain your credibility though , well done..I am sure it will work
So for people who earn over £150k a year, what percentage do you think they should be taxed at?
£150 000 are not the super rich - merely the rich - its the top 1% I am concerned with.
Personally I think the fairest way is to have a multiplier - so in any company or organisation the best paid can only be a certain multiplier of the lowest paid. 20 times perhaps?
do you think a million a week is ever fair recompense?
I'm ok with 50% for that as it goes. What I'm not ok with is the ones who earn that but don't pay 50%.
do you think a million a week is ever fair recompense?
I do actually. So long as that person is truly delivering value to the company that outweighs the cost (eg salary and benefits).
Very few people can, mind but then how many people actually earn a million a week?
do you think a million a week is ever fair recompense?
Yep, for some jobs definitly.
When you are leading a multi-national company, delivering Billion Dollar profits to shareholders and keeping 250,000 people employed. Sounds like a fair wage to me.
Your reply is a really gracious and succesful way for you to save face and retain your credibility though , well done..I am sure it will work
I've seen a lot of your argumentative posts and refuse to get drawn into the you're wrong, you're an idiot, tedium that you degenerate most threads you touch into, so lets just move on.
I'm ok with 50% for that as it goes. What I'm not ok with is the ones who earn that but don't pay 50%.
For me this is key, along with the big businesses turning over multi-million profits, and getting away with not paying what tax they should be paying.
When you are leading a multi-national company, delivering Billion Dollar profits to shareholders and keeping 250,000 people employed. Sounds like a fair wage to me.
Of course, it's actually those 250k people are keeping that person employed... (I'll accept that it can be reasonably argued both ways though)
And of course the question is hard to answer objectively but is that particular person definitely providing that value to the company? Some no doubt do, others, I'll bet don't and that's where there may well be an issue as it typically means then that the people lower down the ladder are effectively underpaid for their contribution to the company.
but is that particular person definitely providing that value to the company? Some no doubt do, others, I'll bet don't
Its a very good question however they don't elect themselvesto that position, they are voted in and retained there when they deliver the results. When they don't they are booted out. If anyone could do it, the wages would be a lot lower.
If you took the money of the top 1% and shared it out, how long do you think it'd be before they had it back again?