News0 min ago
Is this Brilliant or Wot ;
Tory idea - Sack 2000 Council Workers in Manchester, they can then go on the Dole,so you Pay 'em for NOT working. Tory economics. Brilliant or Wot ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. 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.
It's not as simplistic as that - and i am sure you know that.
The current salaries for the workers are paid for out of the Council's budget - so they save money.
Benefit comes out the national budget - and will hopefully only last as long as it takes for them to find new jobs.
It;s not ideal - but a defecit is not ideal for anyone.
The current salaries for the workers are paid for out of the Council's budget - so they save money.
Benefit comes out the national budget - and will hopefully only last as long as it takes for them to find new jobs.
It;s not ideal - but a defecit is not ideal for anyone.
I think it's ideal for the bankers who got 850 billion and are now paying themselves 7 figure bonuses.
Ah but that's OK because those investments are now in profit - they tell us
Well they are if you don't count all the bad debts that were split out into "bad banks" - how stupid do these people think we are?
Ah but that's OK because those investments are now in profit - they tell us
Well they are if you don't count all the bad debts that were split out into "bad banks" - how stupid do these people think we are?
It’s unfortunate or maybe even disastrous for those affected.
However, the root cause of this is the ridiculous expansion of the public sector headcount over which the previous government presided. The level of public sector employment was clearly unsustainable and has to be tackled.
The trick will be for local authorities to make the cuts by minimising the effect on essential services. The “Diversity Advisers” and “Five-A-Day Ccoordinators” should go, but I doubt they will.
Incidentally, jake, you may find that the money paid to bankers in bonuses is actually better value for the taxpayer. These bonuses will attract 50% Income Tax, 10% National Insurance and 20% VAT on most of the rest as it is spent. If it is retained in the companies as profits it will only be taxed at the 24% Corporation Tax rate. Just a thought.
However, the root cause of this is the ridiculous expansion of the public sector headcount over which the previous government presided. The level of public sector employment was clearly unsustainable and has to be tackled.
The trick will be for local authorities to make the cuts by minimising the effect on essential services. The “Diversity Advisers” and “Five-A-Day Ccoordinators” should go, but I doubt they will.
Incidentally, jake, you may find that the money paid to bankers in bonuses is actually better value for the taxpayer. These bonuses will attract 50% Income Tax, 10% National Insurance and 20% VAT on most of the rest as it is spent. If it is retained in the companies as profits it will only be taxed at the 24% Corporation Tax rate. Just a thought.
I think New Judge you will find that the 50% rate was introduced as a one off by the Labour Government and has not been extended by this administration.
The argument is still fairly innumerate.
You'll have to see an awful lot of bank bonuses taxed at those rates to reach the 850 Billion that they've cost us.
Nice try though
The argument is still fairly innumerate.
You'll have to see an awful lot of bank bonuses taxed at those rates to reach the 850 Billion that they've cost us.
Nice try though
The trouble with the coalition tax on banks is that it will hit all banks not just the big bonus tax payers. At least the extra 50% bonus tax hits only those banks paying it out and i believe there only a handful doing so and in the long run the taxpayer will gain more even though the banker will receive those higher rewards.
Why should the good banks subsidise these multi glomerates.
Why should the good banks subsidise these multi glomerates.
Now lets' see, who pays public sector workers? Take your time!
Now if we don't pay them 30k a year to be Gay outreach workers against the bomb and instead pay them 10k until they get another job, we are 20k a year up. Geddit?
I know arithmetic is not the strong suit of yer lefty.
It's Noo Labour creating 600,000 non jobs that is now being reversed.
Now if we don't pay them 30k a year to be Gay outreach workers against the bomb and instead pay them 10k until they get another job, we are 20k a year up. Geddit?
I know arithmetic is not the strong suit of yer lefty.
It's Noo Labour creating 600,000 non jobs that is now being reversed.
I was not talking about the one-off tax, jake. I was talking about income tax. From April 6th this year income above £150k will be taxed at 50%:
Further, I was not suggesting that such a tax would recover all of the sums that taxpayers had paid to bail out the banks. I was suggesting that the money spent on bankers’ bonuses would be better value for the taxpayer as around 80% of it would be returned to the Exchequer whereas, only 24% of it would be returned if the same sums were kept with the banks as profits.
I hope that is a little less innumerate, but in any case methinks we digress a little.
Further, I was not suggesting that such a tax would recover all of the sums that taxpayers had paid to bail out the banks. I was suggesting that the money spent on bankers’ bonuses would be better value for the taxpayer as around 80% of it would be returned to the Exchequer whereas, only 24% of it would be returned if the same sums were kept with the banks as profits.
I hope that is a little less innumerate, but in any case methinks we digress a little.
R1Geezer - “Now if we don't pay them 30k a year to be Gay outreach workers against the bomb and instead pay them 10k until they get another job, we are 20k a year up. Geddit?”
Yes I do. Whilst your stereotyping of public sector workers is amusing, it's also inaccurate. I would agree that while there are a tiny amount of 'non-jobs' such as the fictitious one you mentioned, the vast majority of public sector workers do actually carry out important work that benefits the community – most of which the public don't see and therefore don't appreciate. There is always some 'dead-wood' in the public sector but they have almost been eradicated due to years of cut-backs. It is now not uncommon for one person to be carrying out the duties of two or more people.
Yes I do. Whilst your stereotyping of public sector workers is amusing, it's also inaccurate. I would agree that while there are a tiny amount of 'non-jobs' such as the fictitious one you mentioned, the vast majority of public sector workers do actually carry out important work that benefits the community – most of which the public don't see and therefore don't appreciate. There is always some 'dead-wood' in the public sector but they have almost been eradicated due to years of cut-backs. It is now not uncommon for one person to be carrying out the duties of two or more people.
Continued...
The real tragedy in all this is that it won't be your 30k plus non-jobs that get wiped out. It will be your 14k – 20k people providing essential services that get the axe. It's pretty easy to work out why – if you're the manager of a department and you have to find 'efficiency savings' (ie. sack people) then it will be a very selfless individual indeed who looks at himself and says, “You know what? I'm pretty useless, so I'll make myself redundant”. It is far more likely that he will look at people and services that are as far removed from him as possible and cut those instead.
And this is exactly what we're now seeing – services for the elderly, disadvantaged, disabled – all being cut. I work in the private sector which operates within the public sector and I can honestly say that those managers (ie. people on 30k plus per year) are pretty safe. It's the low paid that are looking down the barrel.
The real tragedy in all this is that it won't be your 30k plus non-jobs that get wiped out. It will be your 14k – 20k people providing essential services that get the axe. It's pretty easy to work out why – if you're the manager of a department and you have to find 'efficiency savings' (ie. sack people) then it will be a very selfless individual indeed who looks at himself and says, “You know what? I'm pretty useless, so I'll make myself redundant”. It is far more likely that he will look at people and services that are as far removed from him as possible and cut those instead.
And this is exactly what we're now seeing – services for the elderly, disadvantaged, disabled – all being cut. I work in the private sector which operates within the public sector and I can honestly say that those managers (ie. people on 30k plus per year) are pretty safe. It's the low paid that are looking down the barrel.
