Cuts n' Bonuses

AndyF16

I know it's an oft trotted out whinge subject ATM, but watching a piece on ITV news about cuts to bus services (which are after all, part of a greener, more sensible transport policy) countrywide by county councils

The saving for depriving pensioners, the young, and other non-drivers of a lifeline in rural areas? £35.4m - this will be earned by a group of probably 25 or fewer chinless public school idiots employed by one of the taxpayer owned financial farces called banks this year - they have a LOT to answer for :evil:

Stick8267

Oh good another thread about bankers and their bonuses. :roll:

Bottom line there are three options.

1. Do something about it, either within the system or through revolution.

2. Live with it.

3. Leave and go somewhere else where they don't have bankers, like Bhutan.

There is no 4th option of whinging.

Btw anybody who gleefully borrowed money to purchase non-essentials or houses beyond their means are at the root of this problem quite as much as the bankers.

2nd btw nobody is stopping you pursuing a career in banking or finance!

northernneil

its scandalous that in this country we withdraw services to public transport which are "not economically viable"

if you said this to someone in Holland or Switzerland they you look at you like you were mad and then ask a very simple question - how are people going to get around then ?

northernneil

its scandalous that in this country we withdraw services to public transport which are "not economically viable"

if you said this to someone in Holland or Switzerland they you look at you like you were mad and then ask a very simple question - how are people going to get around then ?

Stick8267

Absolutely, so become a councillor or an MP or start a revolution and change it.

Or move to Holland.

Or accept it.

spen666

its scandalous that someone earns more than someone else who may or may not be economically active

Shark Sandwich

Stick8267 wrote:

Absolutely, so become a councillor or an MP or start a revolution and change it.

Or move to Holland.

Or accept it.

You sir, Are a dick

Stick8267

Because I believe people should do something rat.her than just whinge about it?

Politics and social change is an active process. Sitting in front of a computer and posting on a forum is not action.

If you don't like something set about changing it or shut up!

mattsaw

£35.4m - this will be earned by a group of probably 25 or fewer chinless public school idiots employed by one of the taxpayer owned financial farces called banks this year

To be fair, doing the maths on these individuals,

£1,416,000 each p/a would mean,

£685,520 paid in tax each year
£17,919 NI contributions

I'm not quite sure what you're proposig though? Maing them live in cardboard boxes and paying their full wage directly bus drivers?

Nuggs

Shark Sandwich wrote:

Stick8267 wrote:

Absolutely, so become a councillor or an MP or start a revolution and change it.

Or move to Holland.

Or accept it.

You sir, Are a dick

Great to see that intelligent debate is alive and well :roll:

Pep

Jake151 wrote:

Its not about being green its about getting more money to spend on bird houses...

+1

Cuts to public services so there'll be more money in the tresures to pay millionare bankers, bombing other countries, and duck houses.

AndyF16

Mattsaw wrote:

I'm not quite sure what you're proposig though? Maing them live in cardboard boxes and paying their full wage directly bus drivers?

Yes, that's it mate - exactly what I was proposing :roll:

MattC59

spen666 wrote:

its scandalous that someone earns more than someone else who may or may not be economically active

Nuggs

The problem is that public sector spending doesn't create money. It takes money that's already been created (some of it by the "chinless wonders" you refer to) and redistributes it.

One of the key problems seems to be that the previous government didn't leave anything in the war chest for a stormy day, spending pretty much every last penny during the good times.

The consequent cuts in public spending will have a massive effect on the economy though and create a real barrier to the recovery. As Keynes said, a recession is no time for austerity in the public sector.

inkyfingers

Nuggs wrote:

As Keynes said, a recession is no time for austerity in the public sector.

True, under normal circumstances a government would look to increase public sector spending during a downturn to stimulate growth, the problem is that the previous government spent too much during the good times, meaning that the current government doesn't have that luxury.

Also, for all those banging on about how much better public service are on the continent, one reason is that in most countries they pay higher taxes than we do. Do you really want to pay more tax, just so that councils can run uneconomic bus routes?

Anonymous

I'm glad I'm not involved in this.

daviesee

Shark Sandwich wrote:

Stick8267 wrote:

Absolutely, so become a councillor or an MP or start a revolution and change it.

Or move to Holland.

Or accept it.

You sir, Are a dick

He may very well be. But he is still technically correct. Whining solves nothing.

morstar

inkyfingers wrote:

Nuggs wrote:

the problem is that the previous government spent too much during the good times, meaning that the current government doesn't have that luxury.

That's not quite correct though is it! I'm not arguing against the fact that Labour did spend too much while we all basked in the glow of perpetual growth.

However,

They then spent a lot more money after October 2008 trying to keep the boat afloat. I think GB was praised by people with more knowledge than you or I for his actions during this particular period. It is this spending that leaves things as tight as they are now.

Shark Sandwich

Stick8267 wrote:

Because I believe people should do something rat.her than just whinge about it?

Politics and social change is an active process. Sitting in front of a computer and posting on a forum is not action.

If you don't like something set about changing it or shut up!

No you are right, but even just whinging about is better than shuting up and accepting it and the OP shouldnt be challanged for piping up his opinions.

shouldbeinbed

cut

Tom Butcher

Shark Sandwich wrote:

Stick8267 wrote:

Because I believe people should do something rat.her than just whinge about it?

Politics and social change is an active process. Sitting in front of a computer and posting on a forum is not action.

If you don't like something set about changing it or shut up!

No you are right, but even just whinging about is better than shuting up and accepting it and the OP shouldnt be challanged for piping up his opinions.

No he's not right. Part of doing something about it is creating some kind of consensus that it is wrong - at it's lowest level that includes arguing the point whether that is on forums, with friends or a letter to the local paper.

Of course it's not doing much about it - but it is doing something - and it's not mutually exclusive with doing other things about it such as becoming a councillor, direct action or whatever.

If it's whinging then whinging has a purpose.

Shark Sandwich

Isnt that what i just said?

Tom Butcher

Except you started by saying "no you are right" - and then argued he wasn't.

Nuggs

morstar wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

Nuggs wrote:

the problem is that the previous government spent too much during the good times, meaning that the current government doesn't have that luxury.

That's not quite correct though is it! I'm not arguing against the fact that Labour did spend too much while we all basked in the glow of perpetual growth.

However,

They then spent a lot more money after October 2008 trying to keep the boat afloat. I think GB was praised by people with more knowledge than you or I for his actions during this particular period. It is this spending that leaves things as tight as they are now.

Look at the PSBR without the State Aid taken into account and it still paints a bleak picture.

johndoran

Some banks like the Bradford and Bingley spent billions of pounds to take over subprime loans from banks in America who must have seen them coming and couldn't wait to get rid.
Nobody succeeds like a failed and crooked banker even the ones that had to go have sidled into other overpaid positions.
Really if capitalism is what this country really wants then we should have just let all of the banks stand or fall by their own efforts and not paid one penny to bail them out.

Frank the tank

Part of me would agree with that, but I can't help but think it would have resulted in even more pain and suffering for the ordinary joe than we're currently suffering.

Philby

A large part of the deficit - approx £75 IIRC - was used to bail out HBOS, Lloyds etc, so exacerbated an already difficult financial situation.

However the public sector does create commercial income and profits and therefore tax - the public sector is the biggest purchaser of private sector goods and services, so cuts in public sector budgets will feed through into the private sector soon leading to reduced profits, reduced tax income for the government and increased unemployment (higher expenditure for the government in terms of benefits and reduced income tax). Already some major programmes have been cut back such as the school building programme and undoubtedly more will follow soon.

tebbit

Read John Lanchester's book "Whoops" about the crash, arch stupidity by some supposed geniuses.

Nuggs

Philby wrote:

the public sector is the biggest purchaser of private sector goods and services

But what does it pay for them with?

rick_chasey

Nuggs wrote:

The problem is that public sector spending doesn't create money. It takes money that's already been created (some of it by the "chinless wonders" you refer to) and redistributes it.

.

Incorrect.

Anything anyone ever does economically, whether working in public sector, or private, or for free, adds value. That value is represented by money.

The only difference between public and private sector, is that we are forced to spend on the public sector by the state, who spends our tax on their behalf whereas the private sector needs to compete for their revenue. It's like me taking 40% of your earnings and deciding you're going to spend it all on sweets and haircuts.

That, according to basic free market economics makes the private sector more efficient than the public sector - who don't feel the heat of competition to provide a good service.

The only difference in terms of private and public is the process of how their value is attributed to them . The creation of value still occurs. It's just perhaps less efficiently done.

rick_chasey

Out of interest. Has anyone considered going into banking because of the very high renumeration involved?

Especially if those of you claim they were all stupid to cause the crash? Surely you'd do a better job in that case...