Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Can't privatise private companies.

Anyway him and his boss have proposed seizing private property so if you use that as a benchmark anything is up for grabs

That is concerning - not just nationalisation but now the expropriation of private property. It's good they know what is good for us :roll:

All three of you are just talking about compulsory purchase powers, no? Why all the hyperventilation?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Big 4 accountant partner laughs at McD article... outrageous who d have thought such a thing????? i hope you walked straight out of the room in disgust ?

As seen in the Carillion debacle, they are not innocuous, they do certainly seem to wield alot of power/influence.

Sure rules are tighter, but i lived with an accountant, one of my best friends is married to one, both spend a heck of alot of time advising clients how to reduce their tax bill, often to single digit levels, no doubt all within the rules but as i said McD is just tapping into public opinion, cynical? of course, thats politics unfortunately.

See my points above - what period are you talking about and did these people in your anecdotal evidence work for the big 4?

He laughed because it was leftiebollox. Just as I did. If you think you have a point, come up with some figures for how much of the big 4 revenue is from 'aggressive tax avoidance' and then explain how this would work given the DOTAS regs that apply to any tax 'scheme'.

we ve alredy been around the houses on tax before, in the Panama thread.... she worked for KPMG at the time before going to the NHS, i ve still got the Blue and Orange sports bag she had from them.

as i said, KPMG is being investigated for giving a clean bill of health, over a 3 year period, then went bust, leaving a 1 billion pensions hole.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Big 4 accountant partner laughs at McD article... outrageous who d have thought such a thing????? i hope you walked straight out of the room in disgust ?

As seen in the Carillion debacle, they are not innocuous, they do certainly seem to wield alot of power/influence.

Sure rules are tighter, but i lived with an accountant, one of my best friends is married to one, both spend a heck of alot of time advising clients how to reduce their tax bill, often to single digit levels, no doubt all within the rules but as i said McD is just tapping into public opinion, cynical? of course, thats politics unfortunately.

See my points above - what period are you talking about and did these people in your anecdotal evidence work for the big 4?

He laughed because it was leftiebollox. Just as I did. If you think you have a point, come up with some figures for how much of the big 4 revenue is from 'aggressive tax avoidance' and then explain how this would work given the DOTAS regs that apply to any tax 'scheme'.

we ve alredy been around the houses on tax before, in the Panama thread.... she worked for KPMG at the time before going to the NHS, i ve still got the Blue and Orange sports bag she had from them.

as i said, KPMG is being investigated for giving a clean bill of health, over a 3 year period, then went bust, leaving a 1 billion pensions hole.

And as I said, it's still not a reason to nationalise. Failings of individual organisations will never be eliminated - and definitely not by nationalisation.

Then lets revisit the public sector pensions hole mentioned a few pages back, which is around £1.8 trillion (trillion, not billion). Failings on a truly huge scale, so what's the solution there?

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Big 4 accountant partner laughs at McD article... outrageous who d have thought such a thing????? i hope you walked straight out of the room in disgust ?

As seen in the Carillion debacle, they are not innocuous, they do certainly seem to wield alot of power/influence.

Sure rules are tighter, but i lived with an accountant, one of my best friends is married to one, both spend a heck of alot of time advising clients how to reduce their tax bill, often to single digit levels, no doubt all within the rules but as i said McD is just tapping into public opinion, cynical? of course, thats politics unfortunately.

See my points above - what period are you talking about and did these people in your anecdotal evidence work for the big 4?

He laughed because it was leftiebollox. Just as I did. If you think you have a point, come up with some figures for how much of the big 4 revenue is from 'aggressive tax avoidance' and then explain how this would work given the DOTAS regs that apply to any tax 'scheme'.

Oh come on now - stop it with the "leftibollox" stuff. It's just deliberately irritating, makes it sound like you are Coopster (and you're better than that!) and it detracts from the points you are making.:)

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Can't privatise private companies.

Anyway him and his boss have proposed seizing private property so if you use that as a benchmark anything is up for grabs

That is concerning - not just nationalisation but now the expropriation of private property. It's good they know what is good for us :roll:

All three of you are just talking about compulsory purchase powers, no? Why all the hyperventilation?

In as way - I'm talking about both nationalisation (compulsory purchase on a national scale and we probably don't disagree that is a bad idea) and the compulsory purchase of private property (presumably from the wealthy) without any mention of how to tackle the underlying issues such as mental health.

On the latter point above, there's also the law of unintended consequences - if word got around that someone could get a smart city flat to live in paid for by the state if they are homeless, what do you think might happen in terms of abuse of that system? (While you're thinking about that, I'm off to find my sleeping bag).

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Big 4 accountant partner laughs at McD article... outrageous who d have thought such a thing????? i hope you walked straight out of the room in disgust ?

As seen in the Carillion debacle, they are not innocuous, they do certainly seem to wield alot of power/influence.

Sure rules are tighter, but i lived with an accountant, one of my best friends is married to one, both spend a heck of alot of time advising clients how to reduce their tax bill, often to single digit levels, no doubt all within the rules but as i said McD is just tapping into public opinion, cynical? of course, thats politics unfortunately.

See my points above - what period are you talking about and did these people in your anecdotal evidence work for the big 4?

He laughed because it was leftiebollox. Just as I did. If you think you have a point, come up with some figures for how much of the big 4 revenue is from 'aggressive tax avoidance' and then explain how this would work given the DOTAS regs that apply to any tax 'scheme'.

Oh come on now - stop it with the "leftibollox" stuff. It's just deliberately irritating, makes it sound like you are Coopster (and you're better than that!) and it detracts from the points you are making.:)

i may have made light of it, but factually what I said about the activities of the Big 4 is true.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Big 4 accountant partner laughs at McD article... outrageous who d have thought such a thing????? i hope you walked straight out of the room in disgust ?

As seen in the Carillion debacle, they are not innocuous, they do certainly seem to wield alot of power/influence.

Sure rules are tighter, but i lived with an accountant, one of my best friends is married to one, both spend a heck of alot of time advising clients how to reduce their tax bill, often to single digit levels, no doubt all within the rules but as i said McD is just tapping into public opinion, cynical? of course, thats politics unfortunately.

See my points above - what period are you talking about and did these people in your anecdotal evidence work for the big 4?

He laughed because it was leftiebollox. Just as I did. If you think you have a point, come up with some figures for how much of the big 4 revenue is from 'aggressive tax avoidance' and then explain how this would work given the DOTAS regs that apply to any tax 'scheme'.

we ve alredy been around the houses on tax before, in the Panama thread.... she worked for KPMG at the time before going to the NHS, i ve still got the Blue and Orange sports bag she had from them.

as i said, KPMG is being investigated for giving a clean bill of health, over a 3 year period, then went bust, leaving a 1 billion pensions hole.

And as I said, it's still not a reason to nationalise. Failings of individual organisations will never be eliminated - and definitely not by nationalisation.

Then lets revisit the public sector pensions hole mentioned a few pages back, which is around £1.8 trillion (trillion, not billion). Failings on a truly huge scale, so what's the solution there?

McD NEVER suggested nationalizing any accountancy firms... you made that up... rightybollox!!

the tories are in power, so ask them about the public sector pensions hole?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

McD NEVER suggested nationalizing any accountancy firms... you made that up... rightybollox!!

the tories are in power, so ask them about the public sector pensions hole?

He has proposed nationalising PFI and whole swathes of the economy - when will they learn?

Who do you think expanded the public sector payroll and handed final salary pensions to go with them in an attempt to create the 'client state'. At least the current is trying to close off defined benefit schemes and bring this under control. If And New Old Labour got in, what do you think they would do?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

McD NEVER suggested nationalizing any accountancy firms... you made that up... rightybollox!!

the tories are in power, so ask them about the public sector pensions hole?

He has proposed nationalising PFI and whole swathes of the economy - when will they learn?

Who do you think expanded the public sector payroll and handed final salary pensions to go with them in an attempt to create the 'client state'. At least the current is trying to close off defined benefit schemes and bring this under control. If And New Old Labour got in, what do you think they would do?

yep privatisation is the answer...yeah right...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/m ... y-11936026

what you dont seem to able to accept that sometimes public ownership is the right way forward and sometimes its privatisation, its not either or, well, it shouldnt be.

Taking pensions away from low paid workers, isnt the way forward, especially as they been hit with either zero or 1% pay rises.
so, we need many more nurses and HCA's, do you think we ll attract them with shitte wages and a poor pension?

as i sadi earlier, many public sector pensions are small, its just that we ve got a heck of alot of them and incidentally, numbers of civil servants are on the rise.

final salary pensions have been about for decades and extremely popular in the private sector too, supported by both parties and both have ripped of the punter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... -1874.html

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

McD NEVER suggested nationalizing any accountancy firms... you made that up... rightybollox!!

the tories are in power, so ask them about the public sector pensions hole?

He has proposed nationalising PFI and whole swathes of the economy - when will they learn?

Who do you think expanded the public sector payroll and handed final salary pensions to go with them in an attempt to create the 'client state'. At least the current is trying to close off defined benefit schemes and bring this under control. If And New Old Labour got in, what do you think they would do?

yep privatisation is the answer...yeah right...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/m ... y-11936026

what you dont seem to able to accept that sometimes public ownership is the right way forward and sometimes its privatisation, its not either or, well, it shouldnt be.

Taking pensions away from low paid workers, isnt the way forward, especially as they been hit with either zero or 1% pay rises.
so, we need many more nurses and HCA's, do you think we ll attract them with shitte wages and a poor pension?

as i sadi earlier, many public sector pensions are small, its just that we ve got a heck of alot of them and incidentally, numbers of civil servants are on the rise.

final salary pensions have been about for decades and extremely popular in the private sector too, supported by both parties and both have ripped of the punter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... -1874.html

Why should people in the private sector pay more taxes so that those in the public sector can have vastly superior pensions?

mamba80

last time i checked people in the public sector paid taxes at the same rate as folk in the private sector.

as has been pointed out, the days of retiring at 50 with a 2/3rd's FS pension are gone but if we want public sector workers than we have to pay for them, one way or another, by definition, they dont make a profit.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

last time i checked people in the public sector paid taxes at the same rate as folk in the private sector.

as has been pointed out, the days of retiring at 50 with a 2/3rd's FS pension are gone but if we want public sector workers than we have to pay for them, one way or another, by definition, they dont make a profit.

They still need to be affordable for those of us that pay the bills.

There are still a lot of historic liabilities for public sector pensions out there, hence the £1.8 trillion liability. That's 1.8 thousand billion pounds, or an amount equal to the entire national debt. Absolutely astonishing. And Labour want to make this worse...

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

last time i checked people in the public sector paid taxes at the same rate as folk in the private sector.

as has been pointed out, the days of retiring at 50 with a 2/3rd's FS pension are gone but if we want public sector workers than we have to pay for them, one way or another, by definition, they dont make a profit.

Or they could pay in more to fund their own pensions - how in God's name can that be unreasonable?

BelgianBeerGeek

Seems you just have to work in the public sector and you'll be minted. Easy as that. Wonder why everyone isn't doing it?

tangled_metal

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Seems you just have to work in the public sector and you'll be minted. Easy as that. Wonder why everyone isn't doing it?

In some areas it almost feels as if everyone is working for the public sector! Certainly a very high percentage of working people in some areas.

Although I doubt anyone outside of the public sector in Westminster swamp is going to be that loaded unless at the very top. University chancellors, nhs trust bosses, etc excepted. Of course they're worth the money.

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

last time i checked people in the public sector paid taxes at the same rate as folk in the private sector.

as has been pointed out, the days of retiring at 50 with a 2/3rd's FS pension are gone but if we want public sector workers than we have to pay for them, one way or another, by definition, they dont make a profit.

Or they could pay in more to fund their own pensions - how in God's name can that be unreasonable?

yes but they do, i said that pages ago! unless you are expecting those already retired to collect less/pay in?

What you ve not addressed is that unless we make careers in health care and teaching more attractive and that inc remuneration as well as sustainable work load, we ll continue to lose staff.

i dont know about you, but inho a nurse with a family should nt be claiming in work benefits, we are currently spending almost 50billion on in-work benefits and that doesnt inc housing.... starting pay is 22k the UK average for a nurse is 24k, a healthcare assistant is barely above min wage and you want them to pay in more to their relative meagre pensions, low pay is the issue.

rolf_f

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Seems you just have to work in the public sector and you'll be minted. Easy as that. Wonder why everyone isn't doing it?

Because most people look at the basic salary first - go public sector and the basic salary looks woeful and everyone knows that career progression is increasingly difficult to due to ever flatter organisational structures. In contrast, a private sector job tends to have a significantly higher basic salary and more progression opportunities. But the private sector salary really does need to be a lot greater to make up for the pension issue - and usually it is. Only those that take the private sector jobs feel much richer and instead of stuffing all the extra cash into pensions p1ss it against the wall on new cars and kitchens.

Sweeping generalisation of course and specific industry dependent but probably a reflection of what commonly happens.

ballysmate

Strangely enough, I agree with Mamba. :shock:

People have this misunderstanding that everyone in the public sector is a Sir Humphrey Appleby. Most of the CS is low paid.

rick_chasey

My mate at the civil service is so busy he can fit in a full time PhD on the side.

37.5 hours a week is f@ck all. Per hour the pay is fine. Good, even.

But they ain’t gonna pay ya a penny more for any extra work, nor do they expect you to work more than that.

It’s partly lifestyle right?

I have days where I drop everything and come home at 11pm at night because I get a “must be done by tomorrow morning” on my desk at 5pm.

*shrugs*

BelgianBeerGeek

Rolf F wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Seems you just have to work in the public sector and you'll be minted. Easy as that. Wonder why everyone isn't doing it?

Because most people look at the basic salary first - go public sector and the basic salary looks woeful and everyone knows that career progression is increasingly difficult to due to ever flatter organisational structures. In contrast, a private sector job tends to have a significantly higher basic salary and more progression opportunities. But the private sector salary really does need to be a lot greater to make up for the pension issue - and usually it is. Only those that take the private sector jobs feel much richer and instead of stuffing all the extra cash into pensions p1ss it against the wall on new cars and kitchens.

Sweeping generalisation of course and specific industry dependent but probably a reflection of what commonly happens.

I know, Rolf. I do work in the public sector, I was being flippant. Slightly annoys me that those working for private companies are quite keen to snipe at us when the answer is simple - work for the Government and enjoy an easy ride!

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

My mate at the civil service is so busy he can fit in a full time PhD on the side.

37.5 hours a week is f@ck all. Per hour the pay is fine. Good, even.

But they ain’t gonna pay ya a penny more for any extra work, nor do they expect you to work more than that.

It’s partly lifestyle right?

I have days where I drop everything and come home at 11pm at night because I get a “must be done by tomorrow morning” on my desk at 5pm.

*shrugs*

And what grade is he?

rick_chasey

Pfft no idea.

He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.

Fast track innit.

bondurant

Middle and senior managers in the Whitehall departments at least work far far more than 37.5 hours a week. I don't think you can generalise so easily.

rick_chasey

Fair enough.

Have 3 mates who work there.

2 of them barely work more than their contracted hours.

2 of them are in the middle of PhDs. (Not the same pair).

So that’s my very small sample.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

My mate at the civil service is so busy he can fit in a full time PhD on the side.

37.5 hours a week is f@ck all. Per hour the pay is fine. Good, even.

But they ain’t gonna pay ya a penny more for any extra work, nor do they expect you to work more than that.

It’s partly lifestyle right?

I have days where I drop everything and come home at 11pm at night because I get a “must be done by tomorrow morning” on my desk at 5pm.

*shrugs*

Well, two things here.

Firstly, I don't know a lot of public sector workers in my line - i.e. teachers - who work less than about a fifty hour week. And management might or might not expect you to work more than that but they expect you to do the job, and it's impossible to plan, deliver and assess lessons, never mind cope with a curriculum that changes continuously*, without that. It's perfectly possible, of course to work less - you just have to have the brass neck and thick skin to shrug off everyone knowing you're not pulling your weight. Quite a few manage this, I simply couldn't.
Secondly, I presume you're posting from work? Of course, I'm not exactly off duty now either...

*Did I mention the paperwork?

rolf_f

I know someone who is an accountant (not in that London) - no idea what he earns but it must be getting on for £100k if not more. He works a good 80 hour week. The question is why on earth would a company pay one person that salary and run them ragged when two people for half the money could have a far higher standard of living and certainly be more effective.

It does irritate when people like, in this case Rick, go on about the high number of hours they work as though somehow it is anything other than idiocy on the part of their employers (and maybe themselves for being dumb enough to put themselves in this position). 37 hours a week is not "f@ck all" and if you think it is then the problem is at your end - 37 hours is about the right amount of time to work and if you are doing more than that then if you have any sense you'll be looking for ways to stop it. And if you can't stop it then you made a crap career choice. Sorry!

surrey_commuter

why does raising the public sector pension deficit count as sniping? nobody is suggesting taking away accrued benefits because that is illegal

It is a colossal issue - what happens when 25% of council budgets are being spent on pensions?

With pension liabilities of £1.8trn how does anybody think that it should be funded? surely beneficiaries should be first in line?

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

I know someone who is an accountant (not in that London) - no idea what he earns but it must be getting on for £100k if not more. He works a good 80 hour week. The question is why on earth would a company pay one person that salary and run them ragged when two people for half the money could have a far higher standard of living and certainly be more effective.

It does irritate when people like, in this case Rick, go on about the high number of hours they work as though somehow it is anything other than idiocy on the part of their employers (and maybe themselves for being dumb enough to put themselves in this position). 37 hours a week is not "f@ck all" and if you think it is then the problem is at your end - 37 hours is about the right amount of time to work and if you are doing more than that then if you have any sense you'll be looking for ways to stop it. And if you can't stop it then you made a crap career choice. Sorry!

I just said it was a lifestyle choice. Chill.

My job is an annoying one where I have to do long hours, but I spend a lot of time waiting for people to pick up the phone (ergo, have time to be on here).

Most of my friends in London all works similar hours 50-60. Our mates in Whitehall always bitch & moan they have to kill 2-3 hours before we can meet them after work.

I never said it's not a choice. But, certainly for central London career job, 37hrs per week isn't normal.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pfft no idea.

He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.

Fast track innit.

considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pfft no idea.

He'll be paid somewhere between £35-45k.

Fast track innit.

considerably more than most council workers, teachers, nurses, HCA's and TA's get, which make up the vast majority of public sector workers.

It's not that far off the average for the public sector:
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-public-sector-salary
I think you are underestimating things.

On the point about hours, I can never get a response my 'customer compliance manager' in HMRC after 4pm. And they're meant to be understaffed?