The Budget VAT Up - What do the LIB DEMS say to that

[bridge too far]

I went cycling with a mate who works in operating theatres. Although there is a pay freeze, he goes up a pay band for every year's service completed. So although there won't be a percentage increase in the pay bands, people will move up the pay scales. They essentially get two pay rises a year and it is only the percentage increase that is being frozen. There are many in the NHS that will earn more next year, for doing the exact same amount of work as they did this year/last year......

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world (the private sector), a pay freeze means no extra money, zero, zilch. In fact many are having their salaries reduced. Unfortunately, those in cloud cuckoo land have no concept of this.

 

And your friend should have told you (or maybe he did and you chose not to publish it) that eventually he would have reached a ceiling in the pay spine. It doesn't go on for ever and ever you know.

 

In my never-ending quest to supply you with facts JB, I've found the payscales and bands for NHS workers.

 

Everyone falls into one of these bands. They cannot move into the next band (unless they are promoted). You will see from this link that, for example, someone employed on a band 3 will start on £15,500ish and over the next 7 years will see their salary increase, year on year, to £18,500ish. Once they reach that £18,500ish they will get no more increases (apart from annual cost of living increases which have been frozen for 2 years).

 

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=766

Edited 23 June, 2010 by bridge too far

[Lord Duckhunter]

Meanwhile, back in the real world (the private sector), a pay freeze means no extra money, zero, zilch. In fact many are having their salaries reduced. Unfortunately, those in cloud cuckoo land have no concept of this.

 

Exactly.

 

I had a pay freeze and also lost a £2,000 bonus that I should have got after hitting my numbers. When I questioned it was told "bonus schemes can be withdrawn or amended at any time". My boss basically said I had two options, lump it, or leave. I didn't have a load of Lefties sticking up for me, or go on strike. I just calculated that it was better for my family to have a steady wage coming in and whilst continuing to do the job to the best of my ability, would be on the look out for other positions.The Company lost a bit of loyalty from me, but I have to keep performing otherwise I will be out. There's no excuse of "low morale", why should the Public Sector be any different?

[bridge too far]

I would be difficult for the NHS to get any less efficient. Doubling the spending on it made very little difference.

 

You obviously didn't read the article then

 

I quote:

 

"When it came to efficiency, the UK and Australia ranked first and second, respectively.

Efficiency was measured by looking at total national spending on health as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), as well as the amount spent on health administration and insurance"

[JackFrost]

George Osborne says his top priority is cutting the deficit. But in order to get the deficit down, you need to keep economic growth up and you need to keep unemployment down. You don’t get borrowing down by pulling the plug on support for business, throwing people out of work and stifling economic growth.

 

The Chancellor delivered a budget that will throw people out of work, hold back economic growth and damage the public services we all rely on – and increased VAT from 17.5% to 20%, so that higher prices will be paid in the shops by everyone, from pensioners to the unemployed

 

The Tories’ cuts are unfair to families and older people: cuts to the disability living allowance, cuts to help for the jobless, cuts to tax credits, cutting back free school meals, and cuts to Child Benefit, which they have frozen for the next three years.

 

What the country needed was a Budget to support economic growth, protect jobs and cut the deficit fairly. Instead the Tories gave us a reckless Budget that pulls the rug out from under the recovery. And they couldn’t have done it without the support of the Lib Dems, who have let down everyone who voted for them in the election just a few weeks ago.

 

Are you Harriet Harman?

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

And they couldn’t have done it without the support of the Lib Dems, who have let down everyone who voted for them in the election just a few weeks ago.

 

Labour talked a load of rubbish yesterday, but this took the biscuit. Even with a Tory minorty govt, they would have got their budget through.Under a “confidence and supply" agreement the budget would not have been voted down. So the 2 choices, had there not been a coalition, would have been this budget going through or another election. Labour did not want or could not afford another election, an election which would almost certainly result in a Tory majority.

[Whitey Grandad]

You obviously didn't read the article then

 

I quote:

 

"When it came to efficiency, the UK and Australia ranked first and second, respectively.

Efficiency was measured by looking at total national spending on health as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), as well as the amount spent on health administration and insurance"

 

That's a very peculiar definition of efficiency.

[buctootim]

That's a very peculiar definition of efficiency.

 

The NHS is very efficient. It may not be the best in all places - but thats down to the fact that the UK spends only two thirds to one half what other developed nations spend on healthcare. Then when people realise its not always as good as France or Germany - they blame the NHS. Its a great British pastime.

[bridge too far]

Hmmm - it's just been reported that the government has admitted that families with an income of £30K will lose out on child tax credits and not £40K as they claimed!

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (a highly regarded independent think-tank) has opined that there is some debate as to whether the budget is as fair as the government is claiming!

 

Incidentally a number of respected economists are saying that the VAT rise will disproportionally affect the poor. Apparently the poorest 10% pay 14% of their disposable income on VAT whereas the richest pay only 5% of their disposable income on VAT.

 

Something else I learned today that surprised me. Oranges are VAT free but orange juice isn't. Digestive biscuits are VAT free but chocolate biscuits aren't!

 

I have too much time on my hands

[JackFrost]

Hmmm - it's just been reported that the government has admitted that families with an income of £30K will lose out on child tax credits and not £40K as they claimed!

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (a highly regarded independent think-tank) has opined that there is some debate as to whether the budget is as fair as the government is claiming!

 

Incidentally a number of respected economists are saying that the VAT rise will disproportionally affect the poor. Apparently the poorest 10% pay 14% of their disposable income on VAT whereas the richest pay only 5% of their disposable income on VAT.

 

Something else I learned today that surprised me. Oranges are VAT free but orange juice isn't. Digestive biscuits are VAT free but chocolate biscuits aren't!

 

I have too much time on my hands

 

That's because chocolate biscuits fall under the "luxury biscuit" bracket which VAT is paid on. McVities went a long way to prove that Jaffa Cakes were in fact cakes and not biscuits just because they didn't have to pay the VAT. The technical difference between a biscuit and a cake, is a biscuit will eventually go soft and cake will eventually go hard. McVities ended up having to spend quite a bit of dosh designing Jaffa Cakes so they went hard when uneaten.

[Pancake]

Something else I learned today that surprised me. Oranges are VAT free but orange juice isn't. Digestive biscuits are VAT free but chocolate biscuits aren't!

 

"Essential" - no VAT, "Luxury" - VAT.

 

A simple way to avoid paying VAT (apart from being an employee of PFC) is to pull in your spending; or at least on items you pay VAT on.

[Whitey Grandad]

Lesson 1: Life's not fair. The richest might only pay 5% on Vat but that 5% is a much higher value so they make a greater contribution to society's costs and make less demands on its services. And what's fair about one person paying over 60% of their earnings in tax and somebody else paying nothing?

[Whitey Grandad]

That's because chocolate biscuits fall under the "luxury biscuit" bracket which VAT is paid on. McVities went a long way to prove that Jaffa Cakes were in fact cakes and not biscuits just because they didn't have to pay the VAT. The technical difference between a biscuit and a cake, is a biscuit will eventually go soft and cake will eventually go hard. McVities ended up having to spend quite a bit of dosh designing Jaffa Cakes so they went hard when uneaten.

 

There was also the business about VAT on fish & chips. If you stayed in the shop and ate them you were supposed to pay VAT. I have no idea what the situation is now, and I've got a lot to do before the footie.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Hmmm - it's just been reported that the government has admitted that families with an income of £30K will lose out on child tax credits and not £40K as they claimed!

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (a highly regarded independent think-tank) has opined that there is some debate as to whether the budget is as fair as the government is claiming!

 

Incidentally a number of respected economists are saying that the VAT rise will disproportionally affect the poor. Apparently the poorest 10% pay 14% of their disposable income on VAT whereas the richest pay only 5% of their disposable income on VAT.

 

 

"The high debt levels going into crisis meant the UK would have one of the weakest fiscal positions in 2010" after a deterioration in public finances only exceeded by Ireland and Iceland over the past three years" That's what your independent highley respected think tank said of Labour's economic management.

 

Basic goods and essentials are VAT free.

 

People on £30,000 should not be getting benefit. Millionaires should not be getting child benefit

[badgerx16]

There was also the business about VAT on fish & chips. If you stayed in the shop and ate them you were supposed to pay VAT. I have no idea what the situation is now, and I've got a lot to do before the footie.

It's all to do with the 'added value', hence the chocolate biscuits case - it's not that they are a 'luxury', it's that adding chocolate adds 'value'. The same with the orange juice, the act of squeezing it counts as performing an additional service, and renders it VAT liable. Therefore, by eating in the shop you are liable for VAT, because the shop is providing it's additional facilities for your use, ( though in effect the price is no different, they just have to account for 'eat-in' or 'take-away' on their till rolls, which is why Rotten Ronnie's and Kentucky Fried Rat ask you whether you are eating 'in' or 'out' ).

[bridge too far]

Basic goods and essentials are VAT free.

 

Like sanitary towels, you mean?

 

People on £30,000 should not be getting benefit. Millionaires should not be getting child benefit

 

My daughter, through no fault of her own, has to bring up my granddaughter on her own. She earns a shade over £30K but nursery charges are £60 a day. I look after my granddaughter one day a week and my daughter squeezes 5 days work into 4 days so she can save a day's nursery fee. It therefore costs her £180 a week or £800 or so a month all year round before she can even start to work.

 

She has a mortgage of £1K a month and a small car to run. Add in her utility and food bills and, well, she's struggling big style. She doesn't smoke, she doesn't drink, her only socialising is her church and a choir. Her daughter's father pays nothing towards her upkeep and my daughter has taken in a lodger to help out with the bills.

 

So a child tax credit enables her, just, to be better off at work. Maybe she should jack it all in and live on benefits?

 

But hey, the banker's will still get their bonuses so that's all right then.

[Lord Duckhunter]

My daughter, through no fault of her own, has to bring up my granddaughter on her own. She earns a shade over £30K but nursery charges are £60 a day. I look after my granddaughter one day a week and my daughter squeezes 5 days work into 4 days so she can save a day's nursery fee. It therefore costs her £180 a week or £800 or so a month all year round before she can even start to work.

 

She has a mortgage of £1K a month and a small car to run. Add in her utility and food bills and, well, she's struggling big style. She doesn't smoke, she doesn't drink, her only socialising is her church and a choir. Her daughter's father pays nothing towards her upkeep and my daughter has taken in a lodger to help out with the bills.

 

So a child tax credit enables her, just, to be better off at work. Maybe she should jack it all in and live on benefits?

 

But hey, the banker's will still get their bonuses so that's all right then.

 

There are plenty of people who would love to earn a shade over £30,000 a year. If you are defining people on a shade over £30,000 as poor, then I suggest you come and join the Tory party.

 

The bankers you speak of, they are able to claim Child Benefit, is that all right then?

[Whitey Grandad]

My daughter, through no fault of her own, has to bring up my granddaughter on her own. She earns a shade over £30K but nursery charges are £60 a day. I look after my granddaughter one day a week and my daughter squeezes 5 days work into 4 days so she can save a day's nursery fee. It therefore costs her £180 a week or £800 or so a month all year round before she can even start to work.

 

She has a mortgage of £1K a month and a small car to run. Add in her utility and food bills and, well, she's struggling big style. She doesn't smoke, she doesn't drink, her only socialising is her church and a choir. Her daughter's father pays nothing towards her upkeep and my daughter has taken in a lodger to help out with the bills.

 

So a child tax credit enables her, just, to be better off at work. Maybe she should jack it all in and live on benefits?

 

But hey, the banker's will still get their bonuses so that's all right then.

 

And there you have the problem.

[bridge too far]

There are plenty of people who would love to earn a shade over £30,000 a year. If you are defining people on a shade over £30,000 as poor, then I suggest you come and join the Tory party.

 

A single person on £30K? No probably not poor. But a single person responsible for the upbringing of a small child and wanting to support herself and her child without recourse to unemployment benefit, housing benefit - yes poor. It all depends on circumstances - you can't make sweeping judgements.

 

The bankers you speak of, they are able to claim Child Benefit, is that all right then?

 

Child benefit is, and always has been, paid to the mother of the child (or, where a man is the sole parent, then to the father). It's a throw-back to the days when only men worked and many of them drank their wages instead of giving the children's mother money for food and clothes.

 

That's what happened to me. Even though my then husband earned a good salary, I didn't get much money from him for necessities. It does still happen now and it's a lifeline for some mothers.

 

Oh - and I left him, dear reader

[OldNick]

Child benefit is, and always has been, paid to the mother of the child (or, where a man is the sole parent, then to the father). It's a throw-back to the days when only men worked and many of them drank their wages instead of giving the children's mother money for food and clothes.

 

That's what happened to me. Even though my then husband earned a good salary, I didn't get much money from him for necessities. It does still happen now and it's a lifeline for some mothers.

 

Oh - and I left him, dear reader

BTF, it is never good using your own situation to try and make a point.

Im sorry your daughter had a no good husband, but Im sure if she has your brain and knowing her rights etc,Im surprised you/she has allowed this to happen.

I also suggest she must have a large mortgage, especially as the rates are low at present.

As for £60 a day nursery fees, is that standard money these days or is it a fancy dan one?

[bridge too far]

BTF, it is never good using your own situation to try and make a point.

Im sorry your daughter had a no good husband, but Im sure if she has your brain and knowing her rights etc,Im surprised you/she has allowed this to happen.

I also suggest she must have a large mortgage, especially as the rates are low at present.

As for £60 a day nursery fees, is that standard money these days or is it a fancy dan one?

 

No that's a standard rate in her neck of the woods.

 

As for knowing her rights - yes she does / we do but you can't stop a self-employed wastrel wriggling his way out of his obligations, can you.

 

She does have a large mortgage (again, in her area that gets her a very modest little house) but she had that before she met her ex-partner. She knows life would be easier for her in some ways on benefits but a) she does a very worthwhile job in terms of providing a service to others less fortunate than her and b) she's highly educated and feels it would be a waste of her abilities to live off the state as well as being morally wrong.

 

People like her need support (and we do as much as we are able) - they don't need what little extra help the state provides taken away from them.

[OldNick]

No that's a standard rate in her neck of the woods.

 

As for knowing her rights - yes she does / we do but you can't stop a self-employed wastrel wriggling his way out of his obligations, can you.

 

She does have a large mortgage (again, in her area that gets her a very modest little house) but she had that before she met her ex-partner. She knows life would be easier for her in some ways on benefits but a) she does a very worthwhile job in terms of providing a service to others less fortunate than her and b) she's highly educated and feels it would be a waste of her abilities to live off the state as well as being morally wrong.

 

People like her need support (and we do as much as we are able) - they don't need what little extra help the state provides taken away from them.

From what the little i know of you from here BTF I expect she would be brought up correctly (not necessarily politically of course) I realise that she would not leech from the system.

I would respectfully suggest to you that if things are tough now, she should perhaps look to move down, as if things are as they are now with low interest rates what happens when they start their slow climb.?

It is terrible how property prices have risen so much in the last 15 or so years that we as a nation are looking down the barrel, and what will happen when they start to creep up again!!!

[bridge too far]

Thanks for your advice, Nick. She will be downsizing in a couple of years, once her daughter is at 'big school'. However, she bought a house that needed a lot of work doing on it. At the moment, with a 2 year old and working full-time hours, she doesn't have a lot of time to get it into a saleable condition.

 

She's done a lot - refitted and retiled her kitchen and bathroom on her own (well, with help from us and her sister and brother) but she still has a lot to do.

 

She'll be OK, I'm sure - we're tough females in my family:). But taking away even a few quid just makes her life that little bit more difficult.

 

She's been raised in the right political household too - she was so angry at the ConDem 'victory' that she's joined the Labour Party

[Lord Duckhunter]

They say you shouldn't make law on the basis of indivdual cases and I think the same applies to Welfare reform. There is always going to be losers in any budget or reform. Look at Labour and the 10% tax rate. On the whole I find it bizzare that millionaires get child benefit. How much does Karen Brady earn, yet she gets it?

 

People are being taxed at 50% and then handed a benefit back. My personal belief is that welfare should be a safety net for the very poorest people, and yes there will be other deserving cases where people struggle and have to go without. But £30,000 a year is 2.5 times what some people earn.

[bridge too far]

They say you shouldn't make law on the basis of indivdual cases and I think the same applies to Welfare reform. There is always going to be losers in any budget or reform. Look at Labour and the 10% tax rate. On the whole I find it bizzare that millionaires get child benefit. How much does Karen Brady earn, yet she gets it?

 

People are being taxed at 50% and then handed a benefit back. My personal belief is that welfare should be a safety net for the very poorest people, and yes there will be other deserving cases where people struggle and have to go without. But £30,000 a year is 2.5 times what some people earn.

 

OK - she obviously needs to sell her house, pay off the mortgage and then apply for social housing. She'll be bottom of the list because she will be deemed to have made herself intentionally homeless.

[CB Saint]

Some of these cuts chould be fairly straight forward. The Telegraph have printed a list today of each departments savings and then equated it to the number of teachers / firemen / embassies etc. One thing that caught my eye was the Department of Culture who have to save £688m or as they put it 17 years of subsidies to the Royal Opera House. Seeing as the oprea is a pretty niche activity does it deserve a £40m pa subsidy from the tax payer? So that is the first 6% of their savings right there

[OldNick]

Some of these cuts chould be fairly straight forward. The Telegraph have printed a list today of each departments savings and then equated it to the number of teachers / firemen / embassies etc. One thing that caught my eye was the Department of Culture who have to save £688m or as they put it 17 years of subsidies to the Royal Opera House. Seeing as the oprea is a pretty niche activity does it deserve a £40m pa subsidy from the tax payer? So that is the first 6% of their savings right there

40m pa subsidy?????? That is scandalous, 800k a week. Im all for arts and culture but subsidising that at that cost is a nonsense

[Whitey Grandad]

40m pa subsidy?????? That is scandalous, 800k a week. Im all for arts and culture but subsidising that at that cost is a nonsense

As a comparison, what does the Mayflower receive in subsidies? This money would be better spent in the regions. Too much of this country is dominated by London.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I think some people just don't understand how much work is given to private companies by the public sector. I'm talking about large construction contracts (I bet the likes of Bovis, McAlpine are shi**ing themselves at the prospect of schools and hospitals development programmes being curtailed) and small supply contracts.

 

Rumour, amongst maintenance craftsmen who know NHS maintenance employees, is that capital expenditure, locally, has been cut by in excess of 30%. That's the budget for projects like refurbishing wards, back up equipment (boilers, air compressors) etc. That will mostly now be left to run on a wing and a prayer. Plus the spare parts,if the suplier has been paid for his previous order!

 

So much for the NHS having their budget 'ringfenced'!

[OldNick]

Rumour, amongst maintenance craftsmen who know NHS maintenance employees, is that capital expenditure, locally, has been cut by in excess of 30%. That's the budget for projects like refurbishing wards, back up equipment (boilers, air compressors) etc. That will mostly now be left to run on a wing and a prayer. Plus the spare parts,if the suplier has been paid for his previous order!

 

So much for the NHS having their budget 'ringfenced'!

RUMOUR, sums it up

[$$$]

My daughter, through no fault of her own, has to bring up my granddaughter on her own. She earns a shade over £30K but nursery charges are £60 a day. I look after my granddaughter one day a week and my daughter squeezes 5 days work into 4 days so she can save a day's nursery fee. It therefore costs her £180 a week or £800 or so a month all year round before she can even start to work.

 

She has a mortgage of £1K a month and a small car to run. Add in her utility and food bills and, well, she's struggling big style. She doesn't smoke, she doesn't drink, her only socialising is her church and a choir. Her daughter's father pays nothing towards her upkeep and my daughter has taken in a lodger to help out with the bills.

 

So a child tax credit enables her, just, to be better off at work. Maybe she should jack it all in and live on benefits?

 

But hey, the banker's will still get their bonuses so that's all right then.

 

At 5% interest, £1000 a month on a mortgage is roughly £170k. Someone earning £30k would have to borrow over five times their salary which is pretty stupid. Self cert mortgage was it? People like your daughter are just as much to blame for the global banking crisis by over borrowing and artificially inflating house prices by throwing easy money around.

[CB Saint]

At 5% interest, £1000 a month on a mortgage is roughly £170k. Someone earning £30k would have to borrow over five times their salary which is pretty stupid. Self cert mortgage was it? People like your daughter are just as much to blame for the global banking crisis by over borrowing and artificially inflating house prices by throwing easy money around.

 

I am not familiar with circumstances but it could just be that when the mortgaged was obtained the Father was on the scene so their combined salaries met sensible lending criteria. Perhaps you should get all the facts before criticising people.

[toofarnorth]

campaigned against by the Liberal Democrats

 

I swa Vince cable on Question time before the election and he said he could not rule out putting up VAT. I heard this and still voted lib dems and therefore do not feel they went back on any promises. I actually am for it, although I would like to have heard a plan to try and bring it back down in the long term.

[Scummer]

I am not familiar with circumstances but it could just be that when the mortgaged was obtained the Father was on the scene so their combined salaries met sensible lending criteria. Perhaps you should get all the facts before criticising people.

 

BTF already said her daughter bought the place before the father was around.

[CB Saint]

BTF already said her daughter bought the place before the father was around.

 

Perhaps I should read the thread properly before chastising people.

 

Still think the comments were harsh though

[Gemmel]

BTF's example raises some interesting questions and scenarios and as any (Or certainly most) Mums would want to do the best for their children, they will (And should) actively do that.

The problem is the "Crutch" that the benefit system has provided is no longer sustainable and the balance of responsibility will move from Goverment, to families and maybe rightly so.

I have every confidence that the scenario painted by BTF of her daughter being better of giving up work and living on benefits, will no longer be relevant within a year. The cuts will come thick and fast, loopholes closed and benefits slashed. The surprise is the benchmark of where this becomes viable. I had assummed (Wrongly) the "Better off not working" argument was based on salaries of around 10k. The fact it holds water at over 30k, gives us some idea how out of control the whole system is and ultimately how essential these lastest cuts are.

So whilst it is just at the very tip of the iceberg, I suspect that someone with a nice house and car, working a 4 day week, earning over 30k a year, is an appropriate starting place to make cut backs and remove benefits. Whilst I do not doubt that this may impact her lifestyle, (May be one night out less a month) , it can hardly be argued that these people are the most needy and desparate.

 

The pain will be felt by all of us and we will all have our lifestyles impacted in one way or another.

[John B]

I swa Vince cable on Question time before the election and he said he could not rule out putting up VAT. I heard this and still voted lib dems and therefore do not feel they went back on any promises. I actually am for it, although I would like to have heard a plan to try and bring it back down in the long term.

 

So putting up a poster highlighting the fact that the Tories would have a VAT TimeBomb is not campaigning against VAT

[Whitey Grandad]

Raising VAT was a cast-iron certainty whoever got elected. I ams surprised that anybody should be surprised.

[John B]

Raising VAT was a cast-iron certainty whoever got elected. I ams surprised that anybody should be surprised.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7625873/General-Election-2010-Cameron-dismisses-claim-Tories-would-put-up-VAT.html

 

Not according to Cameron before the Election - Once in he changes his mind

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268370/General-Election-2010-David-Cameron-reveals-Tories-target-north-east-Northern-Ireland-cuts.html

[Whitey Grandad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7625873/General-Election-2010-Cameron-dismisses-claim-Tories-would-put-up-VAT.html

 

Not according to Cameron before the Election - Once in he changes his mind

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1268370/General-Election-2010-David-Cameron-reveals-Tories-target-north-east-Northern-Ireland-cuts.html

 

'We have no plans to...' is not the same as 'we shall not'. It is a classic line, like 'I have no recollection'. We all knew that taxes would have to rise and VAT was the obvious target. There are plenty of manifesto promises that weren't kept, but I don't see raising VAT as breaking any of them.

[John B]

'We have no plans to...' is not the same as 'we shall not'. It is a classic line, like 'I have no recollection'. We all knew that taxes would have to rise and VAT was the obvious target. There are plenty of manifesto promises that weren't kept, but I don't see raising VAT as breaking any of them.

 

I disagree he tried to give the impression that VAT would not go up

 

"David Cameron last night dismissed claims the Tories would put up VAT "

 

 

unlike Vince Cable who after the Issue with The Tories Timebomb Poster did admit that VAT could go up.

 

 

Of course cuts and Tax increases are needed but it is when and how they happen which is key.

 

 

If you do not work in the Public Sector probably you may think cutting hard is good but it does mean less Tax income from the people who have no jobs .

 

 

I doubt whether the 500000 or so people forced out of a job or school/university leavers will think cuts are a good thing.

 

 

The economy needs to grow before the major cuts take place otherwise things will be grim.

 

 

Putting up VAT again in January may have reduced the Debt but may have contributed to low growth in 2010

[CB Saint]

If we are talking about broken manifesto promises - check out this site

 

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/04/labours-27-broken-manifesto-promises.html

[OldNick]

I disagree he tried to give the impression that VAT would not go up

 

"David Cameron last night dismissed claims the Tories would put up VAT "

 

 

unlike Vince Cable who after the Issue with The Tories Timebomb Poster did admit that VAT could go up.

 

 

Of course cuts and Tax increases are needed but it is when and how they happen which is key.

 

 

If you do not work in the Public Sector probably you may think cutting hard is good but it does mean less Tax income from the people who have no jobs .

 

 

I doubt whether the 500000 or so people forced out of a job or school/university leavers will think cuts are a good thing.

 

 

The economy needs to grow before the major cuts take place otherwise things will be grim.

 

 

Putting up VAT again in January may have reduced the Debt but may have contributed to low growth in 2010

John, you I assume work in the public sector.You will have first hand knowledge of waste. If the public sector workers got a grip and pointed out waste and stopped it.Whether it be not using so much stationary,taking sickies then there would be less job reductions. it is in your hands.

Phone one of the planning offices or any other service before 10 on a monday or after 3 on a friday and the majority of time you get a secretary who will say they are at a meeting etc.Bad practices are rife IMo and I feel that many do not work as hard as the private sector.

[GenevaSaint]

John, you I assume work in the public sector.You will have first hand knowledge of waste. If the public sector workers got a grip and pointed out waste and stopped it.Whether it be not using so much stationary,taking sickies then there would be less job reductions. it is in your hands.

Phone one of the planning offices or any other service before 10 on a monday or after 3 on a friday and the majority of time you get a secretary who will say they are at a meeting etc.Bad practices are rife IMo and I feel that many do not work as hard as the private sector.

 

Nick, going to have to agree with you here. I feel the pain of the public sector workers, I really do. That said though, they need to be leaner. Most companies in the private sector have been making efficiecy savings for since late 2007 when the **** hit the fan. Efficiency savings mean a whole load of things as well, it's not just cutting jobs. I fear the public sector have not.

 

In regards to the politicians though, they need to look long and hard at themselves. Glad to see 1st class rail travel has been cut. They need to set better examples. Ministerial cars. 1st class rail travel. I wonder how many travel economy when they fly for offical engagements/meetings? In my company a flight has to be more than 4 hours to fly business class, think it's 8 hours in IBM.

[CB Saint]

Nick, going to have to agree with you here. I feel the pain of the public sector workers, I really do. That said though, they need to be leaner. Most companies in the private sector have been making efficiecy savings for since late 2007 when the **** hit the fan. Efficiency savings mean a whole load of things as well, it's not just cutting jobs. I fear the public sector have not.

 

In regards to the politicians though, they need to look long and hard at themselves. Glad to see 1st class rail travel has been cut. They need to set better examples. Ministerial cars. 1st class rail travel. I wonder how many travel economy when they fly for offical engagements/meetings? In my company a flight has to be more than 4 hours to fly business class, think it's 8 hours in IBM.

 

I think you need board approval

[OldNick]

Nick, going to have to agree with you here. I feel the pain of the public sector workers, I really do. That said though, they need to be leaner. Most companies in the private sector have been making efficiecy savings for since late 2007 when the **** hit the fan. Efficiency savings mean a whole load of things as well, it's not just cutting jobs. I fear the public sector have not.

 

In regards to the politicians though, they need to look long and hard at themselves. Glad to see 1st class rail travel has been cut. They need to set better examples. Ministerial cars. 1st class rail travel. I wonder how many travel economy when they fly for offical engagements/meetings? In my company a flight has to be more than 4 hours to fly business class, think it's 8 hours in IBM.

The politicians and top civil servants/mandarins dont live in the real world. They come from a breed that feels it is superior and wouldn't wish to travel with the great unwashed.

I dont see why a civil servant traveling to europe needs to go in any better grade than economy. They after all are representing the people from economy and so should mix and feel as one.

For decades the top civil servants have been fighting to stop US (the people) finding out about their perks, now it has been found out they don't like it.

The masses have had to pull their belts in and so so should whitehall.

The majority of the low paid public sector workers work hard and I was delighted that they were specifically given tax breaks and a rise. I watched in amazment the French civil servants marching yesterday as they are now expected to work until they are 62!! If they wish to retire early then they should pay higher proportions of their salary into a pension that supports them,not expect the general workforce to pay their retirement.

[GenevaSaint]

.

 

Bloody name changes, how is anyone going to get you confused with NickG now!

[John B]

John, you I assume work in the public sector.You will have first hand knowledge of waste. If the public sector workers got a grip and pointed out waste and stopped it.Whether it be not using so much stationary,taking sickies then there would be less job reductions. it is in your hands.

Phone one of the planning offices or any other service before 10 on a monday or after 3 on a friday and the majority of time you get a secretary who will say they are at a meeting etc.Bad practices are rife IMo and I feel that many do not work as hard as the private sector.

 

Seems to be a quote from A Daily Mail Reader who has a bigotted idea of how the Public Sector works

 

 

No I have never worked in the Public sector but have been involved in supplying IT Products and Services to both Central and Local Government and found little evidence of widescale waste.

 

 

Just normal people doing a good job in difficult circumstances and getting value for money out of a wide range of products and services.

 

 

It is just a myth put round by people like you that there is wide spread skiving in the National Health Education and Local Government .

 

In fact you last sentence is one of the most ridiculous I have seen posted on this forum as well as the suggestion that I work in the Public Sector

[OldNick]

Bloody name changes, how is anyone going to get you confused with NickG now!

 

It's a cunning plan, I said I was resigning as one of the Forum match managers before the last game.I was Nickh then. After our magnificent victory i was having second thoughts!!!

Also if i decided to put my boots on and played people may have forgotten my posts from before, but then I notice my name changes on all those old ones

[John B]

The politicians and top civil servants/mandarins dont live in the real world. They come from a breed that feels it is superior and wouldn't wish to travel with the great unwashed.

I dont see why a civil servant traveling to europe needs to go in any better grade than economy. They after all are representing the people from economy and so should mix and feel as one.

For decades the top civil servants have been fighting to stop US (the people) finding out about their perks, now it has been found out they don't like it.

The masses have had to pull their belts in and so so should whitehall.

The majority of the low paid public sector workers work hard and I was delighted that they were specifically given tax breaks and a rise. I watched in amazment the French civil servants marching yesterday as they are now expected to work until they are 62!! If they wish to retire early then they should pay higher proportions of their salary into a pension that supports them,not expect the general workforce to pay their retirement.

 

I think you make a good point.

 

The main difference between the two parties is that Labour likes Taxes the Tories dont

 

You get nothing without paying for it

 

Obviously there is a general problem with Pensions which has to be addressed but I think it would be better to pay more tax and retire at 65 than pay less and retire at 70

Edited 25 June, 2010 by John B

[CB Saint]

Perhaps there should be a choice on pensions - retire at 65 and get £40wk retire at 70 and get £80wk