41 to 44 of 44rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don’t think (though cannot be sure) that Mr Hammond used the term “overpaid”. I believe he suggested that public sector workers are paid more compared to their private sector counterparts doing similar work. Just a few points of clarification:

“ ( I think ) Not much, if any tax to pay.”

A person earning £297pw (gross) would pay £15pw income tax and £17pw National Insurance. To achieve £297pw Net they would have to earn £344pw and pay £25 income tax and £22 NI.

“Its worth remembering, that without the minimum wage legislation, brought in, in 1999, these workers would probably get paid even less.”

It’s unlikely since even on the lower of the two figures above they are earning £8.49 per hour (assuming a 35 hour week). The current minimum wage (which many of their private sector counterparts would find themselves subject to) is £7.50.

The biggest factor in this debate which has only been touched on in earlier is the question of in work benefits. Mr Brown determined that the taxpayer would subsidise the wages of the lower paid by the use of Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits. (I’ll leave aside Housing Benefit and Child Allowance for the purposes of this argument). This meant that many low paid people with a couple of children who were earning around the minimum wage would see their wages virtually doubled under this scheme. Of course the downside is that a person doing the same job but with no children does not benefit from Mr Brown’s largesse.

The situation now is that employers (including the government) know that those low paid in most need will enjoy the safety of the Tax Credit schemes (but of course those in not so much need but doing the same job can fend for themselves). The country needs to decide whether it prefers the low wages of some of these people to be topped up according to need or whether everybody doing the same work should receive the same (ehannced) pay. It can’t have it both ways.

The main issue with public sector pay is not with cleaners and nurses (who undoubtedly are underpaid). It is with the armies of unnecessary scribes and wallahs who perform no useful work whatsoever. There are many examples, too numerous to mention, but if some of these jobs were ditched there would be more money for the people who clean the bogs out at your local A&E.
I haven't read of the answers but personally speaking -

money couldn't pay for cleaning other people's crap that includes nurses etc.
the answer is you can't survive on that, after exorbitant rents, food etc.
Question Author
Cassa....."There are benefits to being employed that lots of people forget about. Pension, holiday and sick pay"

Can I suggest that when your Landlord comes looking for his rent, waving a bit of paper in front of him, saying what a wonderful pension you have and all that lovely sick and holiday pay, won't cut the mustard....he will still want his money.

The central point here is that, in this day and age, paying such low wages, in Central London, just isn't good enough.

Hammond is said to have remarked, in Cabinet, that the Public Sector Workers are "overpaid"

In the case of these cleaners at Barts, that is patently not true.

41 to 44 of 44rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

Public Sector Workers Are Overpaid Apparently

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.