Strikes among public sector workers begin

[stokes234]

The government could levy a tax on space aliens if they want, but it won't generate a single cent for the treasury.

Maybe the riches 1,000 could be taxed more, but if you think you can eliminate your deficit by taxing them it will not happen. They'll move to the US or some other place that doesn't tax 95% of their income.

Who suggested 95%? I've heard some people describe using an exaggerated version of someone else's stance as "extreme man", like a subset of strawman. I think that's what you're doing here.

Taxing the Richard Bransons of your country won't make your deficit go away. You could probably generate more money by auctioning off all the royal properties...

I'm in favour of opening all of them up as tourist attractions.

 

[geni]

So the richest 1,000 UKers cannot be taxed any more, as stokes wants to do?

They could be taxed more through various mechanisms (making the overseas territories and crown dependencies part of the UK proper for example) however that would also increase the taxes paid by senior members of the conservative party (the Chancellor of the Exchequer for one) .

 

[geni]

Maybe the riches 1,000 could be taxed more, but if you think you can eliminate your deficit by taxing them it will not happen. They'll move to the US or some other place that doesn't tax 95% of their income.

There are no proposals for 95% taxation. The top rate of US federal income tax appears to be 35%. Getting even 10% out of the top earners would be quite a trick though.

 

[WildCat]

Who suggested 95%? I've heard some people describe using an exaggerated version of someone else's stance as "extreme man", like a subset of strawman. I think that's what you're doing here.

I think if you are to balance the books of the UK on the backs of those 1,000 the tax will have to be in that ballpark, yes?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

and as soon as I realised that the statistics concerned average pay I withdrew that claim. You have not withdrawn yours.
Not so much laughable but disappointing.

You have withdrawn your claim that public sector pay is lower I assume, as you have provided no evidence to support it?

And from this report:

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/im...tions_and_the_issue_of_fairness_-_May__11.pdf

It is clear that a public sector pay freeze does not mean there are no pay rises because:

"It is also worth pointing out that it is unlikely that many public sector workers will actually see their pay no higher in cash terms in April 2013 as in April 2011. Most public workers are on pay spines which ensure automatic increases regardless of the headline ‘zero’ rate."

So if its all the same with you, I will not be withdrawing my claim because, unlike yours, I have got the evidence to support it.

It was not misleading when I have consistently pointed out how public sector pensions are comparatively good. I simply provided balance to your claim that they are vastly better. Not all of them are.Can you point out the data showing the public sector wage bias in the report?

It was absolutely misleading because you completely ignored the fact that the pension scheme you quoted is one of a CHOICE of schemes available in the public sector. And that the other choices are vastly better than what is available in the private sector. It is wholly misleading to choose only the worst of a number of options in the public sector and compare it to the average in the private sector.

Here are a couple of quotes to help you with your reading issues:

From the IFS report:

"In the long run, a big anomaly remains the pension provision enjoyed by public sector workers. With salaries broadly in line with their private counterparts, the large pension advantage they enjoy translates into a total package that is substantially more generous."

From the Policy Exchange report:

"Since the start of the recession, the pay premium for the typical public sector worker has increased by around 4 percentage points to 24% (or 43% when pensions are taking into account). When controlling for the differences like age, experience and qualifications, the hourly pay premium for a public sector worker was 8.8% as of December 2010. This almost doubled from 4.3% two years earlier."

Take of your blinkers and look at the evidence, it does not support your "view".

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Who suggested 95%? I've heard some people describe using an exaggerated version of someone else's stance as "extreme man", like a subset of strawman. I think that's what you're doing here.



I'm in favour of opening all of them up as tourist attractions.

Well you suggested we deal with the deficit by taking the superrich, which you then defined as the top 1000.

As the deficit grew by c£140bn last year and is expected to go up by c£120bn or so this year, and using your figure of the increase in wealth of the superrich over a two year period of £130bn, then what you actually appear to be proposing is a rate of somewhere around 200%.

Of course even that ignores the fact that much of the increase in wealth is not income, but a paper increase in the value of shareholdings in the companies they own. So it isn't actually taxable in any event and even if it was, you could never actually get the same value for them as the price in a forced sale situation, to pay a tax bill, would be a lot lower.

 

[Lothian]

You have withdrawn your claim that public sector pay is lower I assume, as you have provided no evidence to support it?

No because I have made clear that it is an opinion not evidence based. If you can show it is wrong I will revisit it.

And from this report:

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/im...tions_and_the_issue_of_fairness_-_May__11.pdf

It is clear that a public sector pay freeze does not mean there are no pay rises because:

"It is also worth pointing out that it is unlikely that many public sector workers will actually see their pay no higher in cash terms in April 2013 as in April 2011. Most public workers are on pay spines which ensure automatic increases regardless of the headline ‘zero’ rate."

So if its all the same with you, I will not be withdrawing my claim because, unlike yours, I have got the evidence to support it.

Your claim was "growth in the private sector stood at 1.8 per cent compared with 2.4 per cent in the public sector. So the public sector pay freeze turns out to have involved pay growth at a rate FASTER than the private sector." I pointed out those were based on averages and why using averages is misleading. The figures you quoted do not stand up to the claim you make for them. They do not show that the average job in the public sector got a 2.4% pay rise. You have not evidenced that the public sector experienced higher pay rises than the private sector.

It was absolutely misleading because you completely ignored the fact that the pension scheme you quoted is one of a CHOICE of schemes available in the public sector. And that the other choices are vastly better than what is available in the private sector. It is wholly misleading to choose only the worst of a number of options in the public sector and compare it to the average in the private sector.

Here are a couple of quotes to help you with your reading issues:

From the IFS report:

"In the long run, a big anomaly remains the pension provision enjoyed by public sector workers. With salaries broadly in line with their private counterparts, the large pension advantage they enjoy translates into a total package that is substantially more generous."

From the Policy Exchange report:

"Since the start of the recession, the pay premium for the typical public sector worker has increased by around 4 percentage points to 24% (or 43% when pensions are taking into account). When controlling for the differences like age, experience and qualifications, the hourly pay premium for a public sector worker was 8.8% as of December 2010. This almost doubled from 4.3% two years earlier."

Take of your blinkers and look at the evidence, it does not support your "view".

I asked of the data comparing like for like. The policy exchange report says "It is, however the case that the above figures can only be indicative since they do not account for compositional differences in the work force between the private and public sector. For instance they do not take account of average qualifications or productivity. They do, however, provide useful markers, especially on direction of travel in the public sector pay premium." Same problem with your last data. looking at how averages change over time does not mean they started at the same place or compare the same jobs. There were two great graphs in your last link. One showed Public sector pay rising at a rate consistently above public sector pay. The other exactly the same, apart from an earlier start date, showed private sector pay rising faster than that in the public sector. Nothing shows that job for job the public sector is consistently higher than the private sector. I believe that over the last few decades (the time people who are losing their pension benefits have been working) public sector pay has been lower on a like for like basis. No I still have no evidence but don't pretend what you have brought in any way refutes my view.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No because I have made clear that it is an opinion not evidence based. If you can show it is wrong I will revisit it.

The evidence is there and you have not done so.

Here is what it says in the Executive Summary of the Policy Exchange report (emphasis added):

This note examines the evolution of pay and conditions during 2010 and what the prospects are for these moving forward. It shows that public sector pay is higher and continued to grow faster than private sector pay during 2010

It is no good trying to pretend the report shows anything other than what it quite clearly states it does - higher public sector pay and public sector pay growing faster than private sector pay.

Take the blinkers off.

 

[Lothian]

The evidence is there and you have not done so.

Here is what it says in the Executive Summary of the Policy Exchange report (emphasis added):



It is no good trying to pretend the report shows anything other than what it quite clearly states it does - higher public sector pay and public sector pay growing faster than private sector pay.

Take the blinkers off.

The report does not show historic higher public sector pay for like for like jobs.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The report does not show historic higher public sector pay for like for like jobs.

I give up. You are unwilling to even consider the possibility that your belief is wrong.

 

[funk de fino]

I give up. You are unwilling to even consider the possibility that your belief is wrong.

Anecdotal - All people in public sector jobs I know are geting less pay increase % over the last three years than me. By a long shot.

All of them pay more to their pension than I do. By at least double. And now some are being asked to increase it again - considerably.

Forgive me if I rail against a bunch of hooray henry millionaires trying to kid us these people are well off and deserve to be brought down peg or two so that they can try and cut spending.

 

[WildCat]

Anecdotal - All people in public sector jobs I know are geting less pay increase % over the last three years than me. By a long shot.

All of them pay more to their pension than I do. By at least double. And now some are being asked to increase it again - considerably.

You think your anecdotal evidence trumps all the actual evidence so far in this thread?

You do realize this is a skeptic's board?

 

[Mikemcc]

I have to disagree almost 100% with this. Sure, if we have a situation of long-term, rolling strikes then that would be different - but we have 1 day of strikes - the first major co-ordinated public sector strikes of a generation - so it's hardly a regular occurrance. So yes, the country should be behind it. maybe your bin will go an extra day without being emptied, but if that has the slightest impact on the inexorable neo-liberal corporate take-over of the country then it will be in your benefit too.

If i was living in the UK at the moment (which i'm not ) I would definitely be striking - not for personal benefit, but to make at least some attempt to stand against the dismantling of the state....

viva la revolucion.

Any suggestions on HOW the state pays the pensions of more folk living longer then?

 

[Mikemcc]

Well, the way the public pension system works is for current workers paying into the scheme to fund those that have already retired. By increasing contributions and raising the retirement age, the government is making the public scheme less attractive, which will mean fewer people will opt to pay into the system in the first place. If the number paying in goes low enough, then there won't be enough money to fund those that have already retired, giving the tories an excuse to scrap the whole thing and bring in the private sector. Scrapping public funding and services and replacing them with the private sector is often referred to as dismantling the state.

You don't have a choice, you pay income tax and NI. The only thing you can opt out of is SERPS.


Not saying to do so or not - get advice from folks who know the details!

 

[Mikemcc]

They can't, their public sector jobs are now a much better package than anything you can get in the private sector.

Hang on, I thought that it was supposted to be the other way around, that was the reasoning behind gold-plated pensions for public service workers. Oh silly me...

 

[Lothian]

You think your anecdotal evidence trumps all the actual evidence so far in this thread?

You do realize this is a skeptic's board?

You do realise that the 'evidence' does not support the claims made for it. A skeptic would spot this.

 

[Mikemcc]

The claim was for anything the private sector offers. The CEO of my previous company left with a payoff of $25M so you'll need to show me a pretty hefty pension to match that.

My CEO is on £250k, median wage is £30k. No bonuses, hidden perks or sod all like that. Its great when the public sector keep comparing themselves to the banks, completely forgetting the 40% odd of the workforce that are in neither and hate both for being arses when they are getting stung.

 

[Mikemcc]

Anecdotal - All people in public sector jobs I know are geting less pay increase % over the last three years than me. By a long shot.

All of them pay more to their pension than I do. By at least double. And now some are being asked to increase it again - considerably.

Forgive me if I rail against a bunch of hooray henry millionaires trying to kid us these people are well off and deserve to be brought down peg or two so that they can try and cut spending.

Then you are possibly being a fool by not paying in enough to make your pension significant when you retire.

 

[Mikemcc]

I think if you are to balance the books of the UK on the backs of those 1,000 the tax will have to be in that ballpark, yes?

We shouldn't give a damn about the top 1000. They are rich enough to find alsorts of tax avoidance schemes. If we tax them till they bleed and they bugger off, so what? It's not as if they were paying that much anyway. The problem is the 100k to 500k bracket. Tax them overly and they will find ways to avoid paying and there are enough of them that it will hurt the country.

Best approach as far as I'm concerned is a flat tax (initially with a rebate for low tax earners - say over a 30 year time frame that it gets phased out) get rid of all the loop holes. Make the system simple enough that 5 year old can understand it. If it makes accountants unemployed - boo hoo, lucky they aren't bankers when it comes to facing the wall.

 

[funk de fino]

You think your anecdotal evidence trumps all the actual evidence so far in this thread?

You do realize this is a skeptic's board?

You do realize I was not trying to argue against anyones facts. It was my anectodal experiences and was posted as such. It was a comment. You need to get a grip. As if you would have the slightest clue about any of this.