Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Public Sector 1% Pay Rise Cap - Why Are There No Protests?

135

Posts

  • Not really, the Tories all did as they were told, and so did the DUP. The whip said No so they said No.
    Its the ones who come out after saying "I actually agree but..." that pi$$ me off. They have been voted into position to represent their constituents, if its best for those who put you there them you vote Yes. But then, what do you expect from them considering whats happened over the last 12 months!
  • john80john80 Posts: 1,250
    The Nurses as with other public services have their own pay award reviews and this has been controlled by a 1% cap from the MP's. Whilst I may think that if MP's had included themselves in this 1% pay cap then they may have had a more moral standpoint I do agree with the country balancing the books as an overall objective. Every employee thinks that they should get more money as humans are programmed to think this way and only people really milking their employer tend to step back and think they are lucky. Public sector pay restraint is partly about the balance from private to public had become skewed in the Labour years and the Conservatives have tried to address this and the country needing to balance the books.

    You have three main choices as a government if you want to increase public sector workers pay across the board. Tax more, employ less people or run a higher deficit. We do need balance as whilst Nurses and other professions do good work they are in the main not saints and certainly no more saint like than a guy who works in a car plant on shifts paying his taxes and stimulating the economy whilst looking after his family. They both need each other and this is the balance.

    For example since 2010 the government has increased the minimum wage, increased the lower threshold for paying tax to benefit the real low earners. This costs money and frankly they can't do everything. Christ we can't even suggest older people with massive housing wealth should shoulder some burden for their care or that people on 30k pensions maybe don't need a winter fuel allowance for their typically well insulated and well modernised houses. Who would want to be a politician when the bulk of the population cannot think of the bigger picture.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 12,081
    john80 wrote:
    For example since 2010 the government has increased the minimum wage, increased the lower threshold for paying tax to benefit the real low earners.

    Being pedantic, increasing the lower threshold does not benefit the very lowest earners at all.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 42,256

    Personally, I've just written to my MP to tell him that I'd happily pay an extra penny in the pound for a better NHS.
    Move back to Scotland then and you can pay more income tax right now.
    Or vote for Jeremy and he'll fix it for you...

    Interestingly there is no legal mechanism to make 'charitable donations' to the Inland Revenue. I think they are missing a trick here given the number of people who say they want to pay more tax - all you need is a little check box on your tax return with the option 'I want to make a voluntary contribution' and blank space for the amount you want to pay. Bingo, free money for the state and no moaning about it as it's purely voluntary.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • cyclecliniccycleclinic Posts: 6,865
    that reply from boris on the first page is unmnisterial in its language. It is fine to critise the opposition but to do so in the way he did is unproeessional. He is not a proffesional though.

    I am not sure the government truly get ecomonics. They do seem to have a fetish over debt and spending. Raising public pay will cost alot of money. 3% is approxiatley £6 billion but some of that will come back in direct taxes (income tax, nics VAT, fuel duties, alcohol duties e.t.c) probably around 40%. The extra wages will get spent boosting profits of companies and demand which in turn means more employhment and direct taxes and more VAT paid as well as more corporation tax. So much of the pay increase will come back to the government.

    Then there is the knock on effects on private sector pay. If public pay rises there may be increasing pressure on private sector pay which in turn rises tax revenue.

    The goverment will have to make up the short fall in extra taxation but the net cost of a 3% across the board pay rise is not £6 billion it is alot less.

    The standard of debate from all side at PM'Qs is deporable. I could do a better job. Most of here could.
    http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.
  • BelgianBeerGeekBelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,230
    Hmmm...giving people money so they can spend more money which raises more money. Stevo will be along shortly to explain why that doesn't necessarily work. After all, we would already be doing it if it did :)
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    Hmmm...giving people money so they can spend more money which raises more money. Stevo will be along shortly to explain why that doesn't necessarily work. After all, we would already be doing it if it did :)

    Although Stevo works in accountancy which is a zero sum world, whereas the government works in the macro economic world which isn't zero sum.

    Obviously there is a balance to be struck here. Despite their constant PR of austerity, under George Osborne we did a fair bit of borrowing and QE (or printing money to give it a less technical term).

    To me It's looking increasingly like the tories didn't really beleive in 'austerity', but thought it a useful vote winner.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    Unless the Gov gets a grip, then with Brexit and the pay cap, we will all suffer very quickly.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40476867

    i would suggest a 5% immediate payrise, for front line nursing staff & scrap the 9k fees... the costs would be far far less than the 1 billion given to NI, failure to do so, will mean people are going to die through lack of care.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 18,279
    Saw this earlier.
    George Eaton
    (@georgeeaton)
    #PMQs review: May confirms that to end austerity, voters will need to end Conservative government. https://t.co/L1uiyoQZCI pic.twitter.com/vjQDWsFiTY

    July 5, 2017
    Given the way the public mood seems to be going this would seem to be quite a brave position to take
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 11,493
    Hmmm...giving people money so they can spend more money which raises more money. Stevo will be along shortly to explain why that doesn't necessarily work. After all, we would already be doing it if it did :)

    keep up at the back

    He explained why they are not already doing it - they don't understand economics.
  • cyclecliniccycleclinic Posts: 6,865
    Well that thing about government finances it is not like managing our own bank account. The government spends and then borrows to fund it. It then uses tax revenues to pay that debt. If tax revenues to not meet that need then spending either has to fall which has knock on effects or you raise your revenue and the government has more than one way off increasing its revenue. The government is thinking 1D on economics trim spending to balance the books whereas the nations finances are more 3D and changing one thing affect a bunch of other things which in turn changes revenue. Raising pay for public servants is a bit like but not quite like spending on infrastructure. Spending on infrastructure when done right not only generates jobs and therefore tax revenue but stimulates growth which in turn generates tax revenue. Increasing public sector pay should not be done in isolation it must be part of a co-ordinated policy of investment across the economy. Of course that require a policy and less in fighting alas we dont have either from the tories.

    This is an old debate there have always been politicans on one side and the other but one thing is quite clear the current course in a democracy will lead the tories to loose power in the end. So they have to change, the question is which levers will they pull and will they pull the right ones in the right order or in there bickering will they pull them at random and get undesired effects. I fear the latter.

    Oh beligianbeergeek I did say that a shorfall in revenue generated from raise public sector pay will have to be funded. In no way did I imply it will pay for itself. Just the cost of a 3% rise on a current public sector pay bill of £180 billion = £6 billion wont be £6 billion. it will be less due to the extra taxes taken.
    http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 11,493
    Well that thing about government finances it is not like managing our own bank account. The government spends and then borrows to fund it. It then uses tax revenues to pay that debt. If tax revenues to not meet that need then spending either has to fall which has knock on effects or you raise your revenue and the government has more than one way off increasing its revenue. The government is thinking 1D on economics trim spending to balance the books whereas the nations finances are more 3D and changing one thing affect a bunch of other things which in turn changes revenue. Raising pay for public servants is a bit like but not quite like spending on infrastructure. Spending on infrastructure when done right not only generates jobs and therefore tax revenue but stimulates growth which in turn generates tax revenue. Increasing public sector pay should not be done in isolation it must be part of a co-ordinated policy of investment across the economy. Of course that require a policy and less in fighting alas we dont have either from the tories.

    This is an old debate there have always been politicans on one side and the other but one thing is quite clear the current course in a democracy will lead the tories to loose power in the end. So they have to change, the question is which levers will they pull and will they pull the right ones in the right order or in there bickering will they pull them at random and get undesired effects. I fear the latter.

    Oh beligianbeergeek I did say that a shorfall in revenue generated from raise public sector pay will have to be funded. In no way did I imply it will pay for itself. Just the cost of a 3% rise on a current public sector pay bill of £180 billion = £6 billion wont be £6 billion. it will be less due to the extra taxes taken.

    This is known as Keynesian Economics or to it's detractors tax and spend ( or more accurately borrow and spend.

    So the UK economy is worth £1.8 trillion.

    So 1% is £18bn. If you are going to tax half of it back so you would have to double to get your fiscal boost to the economy. So to boost the economy by 2% you need to borrow £36bn (paying for it through taxation is obviously pointless).

    Now UK national debt is £1.7bn which is 90% of GDP. It is increasing at 3% a year already and we are going to up it to 5%. After 5 years we will be well over 100%.

    Current interest payments are £50bn a year but that is with very low interest rates. Market sentiment will worsen and these payments will increase faster than the rate you are borrowing.

    Anyway in the end those kind souls in the bond market will stop buying your debt and we will be the new Greece.
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    Fundamentally we would seem to explain fairly different to Greece. We don't have the Euro.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • ProssPross Posts: 24,284
    I did quite like Corbyn's dig at May that she can't find £1 billion for public sector pay but managed to find it to keep her own job.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 11,493
    Jez mon wrote:
    Fundamentally we would seem to explain fairly different to Greece. We don't have the Euro.

    I have no idea why it is accepted that they would have been fine outside the Euro. Fine they could literally print money to pay public sector but how would they pay for imports such as drugs and energy? Also their currency would have collapsed so massively pushing up borrowing costs.

    Anyway how about Thailand and Argentina or even the UK in 1974? Or check out where Venezuela is heading.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    Jez mon wrote:
    Fundamentally we would seem to explain fairly different to Greece. We don't have the Euro.

    I have no idea why it is accepted that they would have been fine outside the Euro. Fine they could literally print money to pay public sector but how would they pay for imports such as drugs and energy? Also their currency would have collapsed so massively pushing up borrowing costs.

    Anyway how about Thailand and Argentina or even the UK in 1974? Or check out where Venezuela is heading.

    yeah but all these countries came out of recession... Greece is stuck permanently in one! Venezuela is only going back to where it was for many years before its oil boom under Chaves
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    Jez mon wrote:
    Fundamentally we would seem to explain fairly different to Greece. We don't have the Euro.

    I have no idea why it is accepted that they would have been fine outside the Euro. Fine they could literally print money to pay public sector but how would they pay for imports such as drugs and energy? Also their currency would have collapsed so massively pushing up borrowing costs.

    Anyway how about Thailand and Argentina or even the UK in 1974? Or check out where Venezuela is heading.

    Apologies, I'm not saying they'd be fine without the Euro. More that it took a bad situation, and made it a lot worse. But then again I'm reading the Yanis book about his dealings with the EU atm so am slightly biassed towards his views.

    Ultimately once things started to go wrong for Greece they were stuck to the whim of the other Eurozone countries, who don't seem more interested in punishing Greece than working together to form a coherent plan to get their money back.

    To go further off topic, I think comparing the UK and Greek economies, shows a) we don't really have proper hardcore austerity and b) hardcore austerity really doesn't help a country.

    To try and turn it back around and go back on topic! Many of the austerity measures which are meant to assist future generations just seem to have shifted the debt from public finances to private finances. I think you could argue , either debt is a bad thing, in which case the government offloading it on to their citizens seem like a negative, or debt isnt necessarily bad, in which case why are we shifting it from public to private.

    I do realise its a lot more nuanced than that though!
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 50,743 Lives Here
    Stevo 666 wrote:

    Personally, I've just written to my MP to tell him that I'd happily pay an extra penny in the pound for a better NHS.
    Move back to Scotland then and you can pay more income tax right now.
    Or vote for Jeremy and he'll fix it for you...

    Interestingly there is no legal mechanism to make 'charitable donations' to the Inland Revenue. I think they are missing a trick here given the number of people who say they want to pay more tax - all you need is a little check box on your tax return with the option 'I want to make a voluntary contribution' and blank space for the amount you want to pay. Bingo, free money for the state and no moaning about it as it's purely voluntary.

    Charities would be very upset.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 42,256
    Jez mon wrote:

    Although Stevo works in accountancy which is a zero sum world, whereas the government works in the macro economic world which isn't zero sum. .
    Easy assumption to make if you don't really understand. And wrong.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 42,256
    Stevo 666 wrote:

    Personally, I've just written to my MP to tell him that I'd happily pay an extra penny in the pound for a better NHS.
    Move back to Scotland then and you can pay more income tax right now.
    Or vote for Jeremy and he'll fix it for you...

    Interestingly there is no legal mechanism to make 'charitable donations' to the Inland Revenue. I think they are missing a trick here given the number of people who say they want to pay more tax - all you need is a little check box on your tax return with the option 'I want to make a voluntary contribution' and blank space for the amount you want to pay. Bingo, free money for the state and no moaning about it as it's purely voluntary.

    Charities would be very upset.
    They could register HMRC as a charity then tax payer could gift aid their contributions and the charity would get an extra 25% from the tax man.

    Oh hang on...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 42,256
    Hmmm...giving people money so they can spend more money which raises more money. Stevo will be along shortly to explain why that doesn't necessarily work. After all, we would already be doing it if it did :)
    Why has nobody thought of this before? We could just borrow to the hilt, spend like water and we'll all be rich. What could possibly go wrong?

    I'm guessing you're not an economist :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 42,256
    mamba80 wrote:
    Unless the Gov gets a grip, then with Brexit and the pay cap, we will all suffer very quickly.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40476867

    i would suggest a 5% immediate payrise, for front line nursing staff & scrap the 9k fees... the costs would be far far less than the 1 billion given to NI, failure to do so, will mean people are going to die through lack of care.
    We'd better get that law change through pdq so you can make charitable contributions to HMRC. Then you can pay for what you want. :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 11,493
    mamba80 wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    Fundamentally we would seem to explain fairly different to Greece. We don't have the Euro.

    I have no idea why it is accepted that they would have been fine outside the Euro. Fine they could literally print money to pay public sector but how would they pay for imports such as drugs and energy? Also their currency would have collapsed so massively pushing up borrowing costs.

    Anyway how about Thailand and Argentina or even the UK in 1974? Or check out where Venezuela is heading.

    yeah but all these countries came out of recession... Greece is stuck permanently in one! Venezuela is only going back to where it was for many years before its oil boom under Chaves

    Greece is not in recession
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 11,493
    Jez mon wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    Fundamentally we would seem to explain fairly different to Greece. We don't have the Euro.

    I have no idea why it is accepted that they would have been fine outside the Euro. Fine they could literally print money to pay public sector but how would they pay for imports such as drugs and energy? Also their currency would have collapsed so massively pushing up borrowing costs.

    Anyway how about Thailand and Argentina or even the UK in 1974? Or check out where Venezuela is heading.

    Apologies, I'm not saying they'd be fine without the Euro. More that it took a bad situation, and made it a lot worse. But then again I'm reading the Yanis book about his dealings with the EU atm so am slightly biassed towards his views.

    Ultimately once things started to go wrong for Greece they were stuck to the whim of the other Eurozone countries, who don't seem more interested in punishing Greece than working together to form a coherent plan to get their money back.

    To go further off topic, I think comparing the UK and Greek economies, shows a) we don't really have proper hardcore austerity and b) hardcore austerity really doesn't help a country.

    To try and turn it back around and go back on topic! Many of the austerity measures which are meant to assist future generations just seem to have shifted the debt from public finances to private finances. I think you could argue , either debt is a bad thing, in which case the government offloading it on to their citizens seem like a negative, or debt isnt necessarily bad, in which case why are we shifting it from public to private.

    I do realise its a lot more nuanced than that though!

    Agreed that we have nothing close to austerity. We are closer to having a structural deficit.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 50,743 Lives Here
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:

    Although Stevo works in accountancy which is a zero sum world, whereas the government works in the macro economic world which isn't zero sum. .
    Easy assumption to make if you don't really understand. And wrong.

    Which bit? ;).
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 11,493
    I have an idea

    TV licence fee amounts to £3.7bn a year. This is a ludicrous anachronism and the money could be still collected and channeled to the NHS. People who did not pay could be named and shamed and they could include an option for people to pay more.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    the recent CQC report into care homes etc shows what happens when there are too few staff, under paid and demotivated and this in the private sector,
    in time this situation will become the norm in our hospitals too.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 42,256
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:

    Although Stevo works in accountancy which is a zero sum world, whereas the government works in the macro economic world which isn't zero sum. .
    Easy assumption to make if you don't really understand. And wrong.

    Which bit? ;).
    I thought you would take issue with Jez' stereotypical, zero sum view of accountants. Unless of course you have a similar view? :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:

    Although Stevo works in accountancy which is a zero sum world, whereas the government works in the macro economic world which isn't zero sum. .
    Easy assumption to make if you don't really understand. And wrong.

    Which bit? ;).

    I forgot the likes of Enron had elevated the field of accountancy to a level of creativity only previously seen during the Renaissance.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 42,256
    Jez mon wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:

    Although Stevo works in accountancy which is a zero sum world, whereas the government works in the macro economic world which isn't zero sum. .
    Easy assumption to make if you don't really understand. And wrong.

    Which bit? ;).

    I forgot the likes of Enron had elevated the field of accountancy to a level of creativity only previously seen during the Renaissance.
    See my point above about ill-informed stereotyping :)

    I rest my case...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
Sign In or Register to comment.