I am going by what I have been told by very high performing staff in the civil service, and I can assure you their unions are fighting the performance management system and have done so for years.
I am going by what I have been told by very high performing staff in the civil service, and I can assure you their unions are fighting the performance management system and have done so for years.
I'm sure that is correct, which is what I said to varying degrees of success (as unions have lost that battle in some areas), so as long as staff doing the same job whether under performing, average performance or very high performing are all happy to earn the same salary the unions can keep fighting for non performance related pay.
Personally (and this doesn't apply to all professions) I find it odd that people will earn the same regardless of their performance, just seems unfair and demotivating ....... if you can't reward the very high performing staff what is the incentive to do so?
I was really disappointed to read @stonemuse echoing Gove's argument that people who don't go to uni shouldn't "subsidise" those who do, through their taxes.
What a sad, selfish argument. What a country the UK has become if reasonable people (of course I don't mean Gove) can seriously buy it.
It's the same bollocks that some people use to justify the outrageous cost of rail travel. Those who cruise everywhere in their 5 litre SUVs should not "subsidise" rail travel because they don't use trains, the argument goes. The UK used to be a country which believed in solidarity, where you could have access to the best healthcare and education regardless of whether you are rich or poor. Health because no one wants to be sick and it can strike at random. Education, because the more educated a society the better that society functions, as well as increasing the life options for individual citizens. Investment in education gives countries a competitive advantage.
I keep reading the debt isn't an issue because you only start paying off once you earn over £21k a year. Well tell me this then; what kind of life will you lead in London if you don't earn more than £21k for the next 20 years after graduating?
The issue is not so much that students have to make a financial contribution. It is the size of it, and the complete lack of transparency in how the fees are concocted. We are told that without these fees the unis cannot function. Really? So they all need the same amount then? A former polytechnic like Portsmouth has the same cost base as a famous old red-brick like Manchester? Really? Has anyone stopped to ask where all that money really goes? And what the cost base is when compared with famous and well regarded European unis like Leuven or Maastricht (to name two that are no further from London than a Scottish one). What about the issue of the obviously lower educational standards needed, both to get in, and to achieve a degree level, compared with when I was at Uni? How does making students pay, address that? It seems to me to cement the level of mediocrity we have settled for.
It seems to me that a lot of people on here who argue that the debt isn't a problem, never shouldered that debt themselves. In fact it must be true, because the 9k a year level only kicked in last year. I am clear that my nephew, and especially my niece (who is now one of those 9k'ers) would have thought long and hard about going to Uni had I not stepped in to offer financial support. My nephew was always a super smart kid, but my niece was a late developer, and I can already see the benefits.
The more I see of the direction the UK is heading, the more I keep remembering @Off_it 's only contribution to the Brexit thread, on 24.6.16. He wrote, simply: "This is not the country i thought it was".
It's not about a race to the bottom @ShootersHillGuru when it comes to pensions, it's fact that pensions today are far more expensive compared to yester year simply we are living longer and to a lesser extent lower returns.
In 2009 a basic pension (non index linked, single life) for £100k would have bought around 8k per annum pension. That £100k now buys a little over £5k, a 35%+ drop for those in a money purchase scheme. How many in a defined benefit scheme have seen their pension reduce 35%, especially those nearing retirement?
Despite the increased cost and a move away in some aspects to average earnings rather than final salary, public sector pensions are still very good, just not as good as they once were and cost the individual a little more.
You don't address the salary anomaly in your argument though. As I posted earlier, the trade off was always lower salary and benefits versus security and decent pension.
Well I can tell you that for many public sector workers, job security is no longer assured and now the pension is worse too.
No real surprise after 10 years of wage cuts that people are moaning and voting with their feet.
I thought I had if you are comparing public v's private, but more specifically then the public sector pension may be worse than it once was but it is in the main still far superior to the private sector and hasn't reduced to the same extent as the private sector has. Therefore if you look at the numbers the gap has actually widened on pensions between the public and private sector. How many public sector workers have seen their pension reduce by 35% almost over night or been moved to defined contribution schemes in the last 7 years? I'd put my neck on the line and say none or almost none.
Pensions have nothing to do with austerity etc, the Hutton report was 2010/2011 wasn't it?
Do you really believe that the private sector has somehow seen huge pay rises? I can show you many people in the private sector who since 2010 have seen lower pay rises (or none at all) than the public sector in those 7 years, those that still have their jobs anyway. How much has the minimum wage increased in that period? How much has the average salary in Supermarkets, Costa Coffee, Pret etc increased since 2010? All those people have additionally seen a considerable decrease in their pension value, far greater than the public sector and for many approaching retirement it's been a huge hit that they can never recover from.
@MuttleyCAFC The unions have fought performance related pay for years in the public sector to varying successful degrees, which personally I think was always a little naïve in some aspects. The same teachers who were on strike a few years back over this were also the same one's who subsequently moaned to me that they were a much better teacher and worked much harder than their colleague in the classroom next door and it was unfair they earned the same or sometimes less!
I thought I heard on the wireless yesterday that average private sector pay has risen by about 3% a year whilst there has been the cap on public sector pay. Public sector pensions no longer track inflation either. The cap on public sector pay has helped the country get the deficit under more control (allegedly) in terms of the private sector similarly pitching in it comes down to tax.
I was really disappointed to read @stonemuse echoing Gove's argument that people who don't go to uni shouldn't "subsidise" those who do, through their taxes.
What a sad, selfish argument. What a country the UK has become if reasonable people (of course I don't mean Gove) can seriously buy it.
It's the same bollocks that some people use to justify the outrageous cost of rail travel. Those who cruise everywhere in their 5 litre SUVs should not "subsidise" rail travel because they don't use trains, the argument goes. The UK used to be a country which believed in solidarity, where you could have access to the best healthcare and education regardless of whether you are rich or poor. Health because no one wants to be sick and it can strike at random. Education, because the more educated a society the better that society functions, as well as increasing the life options for individual citizens. Investment in education gives countries a competitive advantage.
I keep reading the debt isn't an issue because you only start paying off once you earn over £21k a year. Well tell me this then; what kind of life will you lead in London if you don't earn more than £21k for the next 20 years after graduating?
The issue is not so much that students have to make a financial contribution. It is the size of it, and the complete lack of transparency in how the fees are concocted. We are told that without these fees the unis cannot function. Really? So they all need the same amount then? A former polytechnic like Portsmouth has the same cost base as a famous old red-brick like Manchester? Really? Has anyone stopped to ask where all that money really goes? And what the cost base is when compared with famous and well regarded European unis like Leuven or Maastricht (to name two that are no further from London than a Scottish one). What about the issue of the obviously lower educational standards needed, both to get in, and to achieve a degree level, compared with when I was at Uni? How does making students pay, address that? It seems to me to cement the level of mediocrity we have settled for.
It seems to me that a lot of people on here who argue that the debt isn't a problem, never shouldered that debt themselves. In fact it must be true, because the 9k a year level only kicked in last year. I am clear that my nephew, and especially my niece (who is now one of those 9k'ers) would have thought long and hard about going to Uni had I not stepped in to offer financial support. My nephew was always a super smart kid, but my niece was a late developer, and I can already see the benefits.
The more I see of the direction the UK is heading, the more I keep remembering @Off_it 's only contribution to the Brexit thread, on 24.6.16. He wrote, simply: "This is not the country i thought it was".
Where's that nail
This for me. I was reading a very interesting article the other day about profit per equity partner at Clifford Chance hitting £1.5m for the first time
They also highlighted the generous salaries for newly qualified lawyers after their training contracts were completed. Very healthy at about £80k a year
Of course this is an extreme example, but what if you're not on the Clifford Chance gravy train. Yes, I get the argument about not having to pay back the loans until a certain threshold is reached etc, but I truly fear for the levels of debt and potential lack of opportunity for the next generation
@WattsTheMatter gave us a very good first hand account of his situation, others have intimated at their offspring's struggles
This country just kicks the can down the road. Always. That's all we do. And we pretend it's okay and not as bad as it is because consumerism brings iPads and car finance deals to the masses
@seth plum A number of things will have helped bring down the deficit, public sector pay will be one, higher taxes another as well as I'm sure other things.
Public service pensions increase in line with CPI each year. Many private pension don't increase at all (unless you pay extra).
For instance at aged 60 with £100k you can buy an annual pension of £4,268 which will remain at that level for as long as you live, no increase. The same £100k can buy you a pension linked to RPI but only buys you initially £2,362. Neither provide any form of spouse pension which would reduce the amounts further.
Not sure on 'average' increase in the private sector, can only go by my industry which has seen huge job cuts and very little if any pay rises.
I was really disappointed to read @stonemuse echoing Gove's argument that people who don't go to uni shouldn't "subsidise" those who do, through their taxes.
What a sad, selfish argument. What a country the UK has become if reasonable people (of course I don't mean Gove) can seriously buy it.
It's the same bollocks that some people use to justify the outrageous cost of rail travel. Those who cruise everywhere in their 5 litre SUVs should not "subsidise" rail travel because they don't use trains, the argument goes. The UK used to be a country which believed in solidarity, where you could have access to the best healthcare and education regardless of whether you are rich or poor. Health because no one wants to be sick and it can strike at random. Education, because the more educated a society the better that society functions, as well as increasing the life options for individual citizens. Investment in education gives countries a competitive advantage.
I keep reading the debt isn't an issue because you only start paying off once you earn over £21k a year. Well tell me this then; what kind of life will you lead in London if you don't earn more than £21k for the next 20 years after graduating?
The issue is not so much that students have to make a financial contribution. It is the size of it, and the complete lack of transparency in how the fees are concocted. We are told that without these fees the unis cannot function. Really? So they all need the same amount then? A former polytechnic like Portsmouth has the same cost base as a famous old red-brick like Manchester? Really? Has anyone stopped to ask where all that money really goes? And what the cost base is when compared with famous and well regarded European unis like Leuven or Maastricht (to name two that are no further from London than a Scottish one). What about the issue of the obviously lower educational standards needed, both to get in, and to achieve a degree level, compared with when I was at Uni? How does making students pay, address that? It seems to me to cement the level of mediocrity we have settled for.
It seems to me that a lot of people on here who argue that the debt isn't a problem, never shouldered that debt themselves. In fact it must be true, because the 9k a year level only kicked in last year. I am clear that my nephew, and especially my niece (who is now one of those 9k'ers) would have thought long and hard about going to Uni had I not stepped in to offer financial support. My nephew was always a super smart kid, but my niece was a late developer, and I can already see the benefits.
The more I see of the direction the UK is heading, the more I keep remembering @Off_it 's only contribution to the Brexit thread, on 24.6.16. He wrote, simply: "This is not the country i thought it was".
Firstly, the standards have, obviously dropped. There are many going to University that wouldn't have got in 25 years ago. It could be argued that if they were to go back to the same high standards that we had in the 1980s the financial cost of a free Higher Education would be more palatable. There are many 'colleagues' that now call themselves Universities that make huge profits offering low quality degrees with outrageously low standards. My nephew managed to get on a course with something like two D's at 'A' level, had six hours of contact time a week, did virtually no other work at all and came out with a 2.1- and this was before they were about to charge £9,290 a year. I would have serious question marks about if it is worth the taxpayer paying £27,750 for a few hours a week. Frankly my nephew shouldn't' have gone to University. He used it as a three year career break and he had a great time. Now, however, he is adjusting to the fact that he is never going to get the kind of job that he thought he was guaranteed to get buy spending three years drinking and messing about with his friends.
Secondly, I believe that the fees being a deterrent for people going to University might be a good thing. Something needs to stop so many going that are just not worthy of the investment that it takes. I know that sounds elitist but I don't think there is a need for such expensive qualifications for such a large percentage of the population. The expectation for graduates is also way off now. They all expect to walk out of university and be rewarded with one of the top 5% positions, yet 40% go. 40 into 5 doesn't work - We don't need graduates costing the tax payer £50k to flip burgers in McDonalds. I'm sorry, but we just don't!
@seth plum A number of things will have helped bring down the deficit, public sector pay will be one, higher taxes another as well as I'm sure other things.
Public service pensions increase in line with CPI each year. Many private pension don't increase at all (unless you pay extra).
For instance at aged 60 with £100k you can buy an annual pension of £4,268 which will remain at that level for as long as you live, no increase. The same £100k can buy you a pension linked to RPI but only buys you initially £2,362. Neither provide any form of spouse pension which would reduce the amounts further.
Not sure on 'average' increase in the private sector, can only go by my industry which has seen huge job cuts and very little if any pay rises.
On one point you're mistaken. Teachers public sector pension increases were capped at 1%.
I was really disappointed to read @stonemuse echoing Gove's argument that people who don't go to uni shouldn't "subsidise" those who do, through their taxes.
What a sad, selfish argument. What a country the UK has become if reasonable people (of course I don't mean Gove) can seriously buy it.
It's the same bollocks that some people use to justify the outrageous cost of rail travel. Those who cruise everywhere in their 5 litre SUVs should not "subsidise" rail travel because they don't use trains, the argument goes. The UK used to be a country which believed in solidarity, where you could have access to the best healthcare and education regardless of whether you are rich or poor. Health because no one wants to be sick and it can strike at random. Education, because the more educated a society the better that society functions, as well as increasing the life options for individual citizens. Investment in education gives countries a competitive advantage.
I keep reading the debt isn't an issue because you only start paying off once you earn over £21k a year. Well tell me this then; what kind of life will you lead in London if you don't earn more than £21k for the next 20 years after graduating?
The issue is not so much that students have to make a financial contribution. It is the size of it, and the complete lack of transparency in how the fees are concocted. We are told that without these fees the unis cannot function. Really? So they all need the same amount then? A former polytechnic like Portsmouth has the same cost base as a famous old red-brick like Manchester? Really? Has anyone stopped to ask where all that money really goes? And what the cost base is when compared with famous and well regarded European unis like Leuven or Maastricht (to name two that are no further from London than a Scottish one). What about the issue of the obviously lower educational standards needed, both to get in, and to achieve a degree level, compared with when I was at Uni? How does making students pay, address that? It seems to me to cement the level of mediocrity we have settled for.
It seems to me that a lot of people on here who argue that the debt isn't a problem, never shouldered that debt themselves. In fact it must be true, because the 9k a year level only kicked in last year. I am clear that my nephew, and especially my niece (who is now one of those 9k'ers) would have thought long and hard about going to Uni had I not stepped in to offer financial support. My nephew was always a super smart kid, but my niece was a late developer, and I can already see the benefits.
The more I see of the direction the UK is heading, the more I keep remembering @Off_it 's only contribution to the Brexit thread, on 24.6.16. He wrote, simply: "This is not the country i thought it was".
Post of the thread.
The UK is a far more selfish country than it was 10 years ago. When you hear vox-pops it is always "me me me", blaming poorer people, disabled, younger folks and refugees for being thick and lazy. The Tories encapsulate this perfectly and with the help of the media continue to perpetuate the harmful myth that the poor are poor by choice and that poverty doesn't really exist. Remember Theresa May saying "There are many reasons why people use food banks"? Says it all really about the national mindset in regards to those who have been left behind by our perverse dog-eat-dog version of capitalism. If anyone suggested the creation of the NHS in this day and age, they would be dismissed as an insane terrorist-loving commie with a magic money tree.
It is also worth mentioning that when tuition fees were first introduced, it wasn't because 'it's not fair for part of the population to fund something they don't directly benefit from', as Vince Cable and other people have fooled themselves into believing. It was supposed to be a way of increasing participation and diversifying funding as well as ensuring those who went to university were serious about it, since a thousand pounds (as it was at the time) a year is no small sum to any young adult, regardless of repayment. The rise to 9k a year though is nothing but pure, unadulterated greed, taking advantage of the commoditization of a degree and the fact that young people are convinced (and in most industries justified in this) that they need a degree to have a career. What better way for a government to make a quick buck than ensure every year nearly half of the new entrants to the labour force are making a 27k commitment before they have even have their first payslip? (And keeps them off the unemployment figures for a few years too)
There are several reasons, both legitimate and sinister, why tuition fees were introduced and why the system has devolved into the godawful mess it is now, but Vince Cable's idiotic assertion isn't one of them.
I am going by what I have been told by very high performing staff in the civil service, and I can assure you their unions are fighting the performance management system and have done so for years.
I'm sure that is correct, which is what I said to varying degrees of success (as unions have lost that battle in some areas), so as long as staff doing the same job whether under performing, average performance or very high performing are all happy to earn the same salary the unions can keep fighting for non performance related pay.
Personally (and this doesn't apply to all professions) I find it odd that people will earn the same regardless of their performance, just seems unfair and demotivating ....... if you can't reward the very high performing staff what is the incentive to do so?
I think the issue is a bit more subtle than that - it varies a bit from department to department - in one - Education - Some roles it is harder to judge performance - It isn't so much the performance related nature than the divisive system around it. I'll give you an example - they have a top 10 per cent and then a next 15 percent that get non consolidated modest bonuses - then everybody else is average and a bottom 10 percent that effectively lose money. They have to fill these quotas so a more generous manager can make a difference as can a more critical one.
I believe there's enough support within the Tory's to push to remove the cap, I'll be very surprised if they don't do something anyway. They will of course have a decision as to how to fund that, will they put 1p on all tax rates, I think I would and raise the personal allowance £500. The easier and non discriminatory way is to simply raise the personal allowance substantially for everyone, although without other tax changes that will help everyone sub circa £130k so you'd probably want to do something else in addition, I'd still go with the 1p on all bands.
I think the 40% tax payer being able to somehow dodge the system is a bit of a myth, these are not mega earners but generally PAYE people. The 40% starts at 32k taxable pay so even if you have the full personal allowance it starts on gross earnings of 43.5k. No way an 'employee' can do anything at that level.
I think @bobmunro will concur even much higher PAYE earners and 45% tax payers it's almost impossible to avoid paying the correct amount of tax. You can of course limit the tax you pay by giving to charity or paying into a pension (to a limit) but all tax payers can do that at any level and it's actually reduced once you get to the 45p band.
The only people I know who potentially manage to 'avoid' paying the correct amount are self employed with 'cash' jobs or the mega earners and the now high profile schemes such as 'film' investments. I've lost count over the years of the number of self employed tradesman who bemoan the fact they can only borrow small amounts on a mortgage as their 'accounts' show they are low earners.
Let's hope they see sense & do something, but I'm still of the mind it needs to help the lower earners across the board, not just public sector.
What a place we've arrived in in the UK where providing a rise of above a 1/3rd of current inflation for nurses, teachers, carers, police officers, prison officers, housing officers, youth workers, social workers, occupational therapists, mental health workers, probation officers, paramedics, environmental health officers, etc is described as discriminatory.
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I believe there's enough support within the Tory's to push to remove the cap, I'll be very surprised if they don't do something anyway. They will of course have a decision as to how to fund that, will they put 1p on all tax rates, I think I would and raise the personal allowance £500. The easier and non discriminatory way is to simply raise the personal allowance substantially for everyone, although without other tax changes that will help everyone sub circa £130k so you'd probably want to do something else in addition, I'd still go with the 1p on all bands.
I think the 40% tax payer being able to somehow dodge the system is a bit of a myth, these are not mega earners but generally PAYE people. The 40% starts at 32k taxable pay so even if you have the full personal allowance it starts on gross earnings of 43.5k. No way an 'employee' can do anything at that level.
I think @bobmunro will concur even much higher PAYE earners and 45% tax payers it's almost impossible to avoid paying the correct amount of tax. You can of course limit the tax you pay by giving to charity or paying into a pension (to a limit) but all tax payers can do that at any level and it's actually reduced once you get to the 45p band.
The only people I know who potentially manage to 'avoid' paying the correct amount are self employed with 'cash' jobs or the mega earners and the now high profile schemes such as 'film' investments. I've lost count over the years of the number of self employed tradesman who bemoan the fact they can only borrow small amounts on a mortgage as their 'accounts' show they are low earners.
Let's hope they see sense & do something, but I'm still of the mind it needs to help the lower earners across the board, not just public sector.
What a place we've arrived in in the UK where providing a rise of above a 1/3rd of current inflation for nurses, teachers, carers, police officers, prison officers, housing officers, youth workers, social workers, occupational therapists, mental health workers, probation officers, paramedics, environmental health officers, etc is described as discriminatory.
These used to be jobs that were valued.
You're twisting what I said to suit your rhetoric as usual.
You seemed to miss the section before the one you highlighted suggesting removal of the cap and 1p on income tax specifically to help those you seem to think I don't value. Or the latter section saying 'lets hope they see sense'. Sorry for wanting to help all the low earners and not just those employed by the state
Do you not value the person working in the petrol station, the supermarket, at your bank, the bus driver or staff at your local car garage or 1001 other occupations that provide a service to the public but aren't public sector employee's?
I give no apology to saying we should be helping everyone at the lower earnings end, if you only care about the public sector then carry on banging the public sector drum but it's starting to smell a bit me me me........
If I sound a bit grumpy today (or more than usual) I apologise, and I'd hope I don't need to say it but I value all those who provide a service to the public regardless of whom their employer may be.
I'm a bit grumpy as although I may agree nurses, police etc deserve a better pay rise, there are a lot of deserving people in this country that need help, some much more than a simple pay rise, a job and a roof over there head for starters.
A young lady I know has sadly found herself living back on the street and jobless as she was sat outside cannon street station, to say I was gutted for her this morning was an understatement.
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
I am going by what I have been told by very high performing staff in the civil service, and I can assure you their unions are fighting the performance management system and have done so for years.
I'm sure that is correct, which is what I said to varying degrees of success (as unions have lost that battle in some areas), so as long as staff doing the same job whether under performing, average performance or very high performing are all happy to earn the same salary the unions can keep fighting for non performance related pay.
Personally (and this doesn't apply to all professions) I find it odd that people will earn the same regardless of their performance, just seems unfair and demotivating ....... if you can't reward the very high performing staff what is the incentive to do so?
I think the issue is a bit more subtle than that - it varies a bit from department to department - in one - Education - Some roles it is harder to judge performance - It isn't so much the performance related nature than the divisive system around it. I'll give you an example - they have a top 10 per cent and then a next 15 percent that get non consolidated modest bonuses - then everybody else is average and a bottom 10 percent that effectively lose money. They have to fill these quotas so a more generous manager can make a difference as can a more critical one.
Agree in part,
But paying Teachers based on tenure is equally if not more so unfair. There were many times I wanted to give a pay rise to an absolutely outstanding teacher, but pre 2013 I couldn't I'd have to give them the same rise as their equivalent experienced teacher next door regardless of if that teacher was great or poor.
There aren't quota's as such in teaching, budget constraints for sure, but not quota's.
@seth plum A number of things will have helped bring down the deficit, public sector pay will be one, higher taxes another as well as I'm sure other things.
Public service pensions increase in line with CPI each year. Many private pension don't increase at all (unless you pay extra).
For instance at aged 60 with £100k you can buy an annual pension of £4,268 which will remain at that level for as long as you live, no increase. The same £100k can buy you a pension linked to RPI but only buys you initially £2,362. Neither provide any form of spouse pension which would reduce the amounts further.
Not sure on 'average' increase in the private sector, can only go by my industry which has seen huge job cuts and very little if any pay rises.
On one point you're mistaken. Teachers public sector pension increases were capped at 1%.
@seth plum ,I'm not aware of a cap on teachers pension increase, when the figure was set for this year it is taken at a point last year based on the annual CPI figure, which just happened to be 1% (same as the pay cap).
To be honest, what you agree with or not doesn't matter as I got this from people who work there. I was talking about Civil Servants in the DfE btw - not teachers
I believe there's enough support within the Tory's to push to remove the cap, I'll be very surprised if they don't do something anyway. They will of course have a decision as to how to fund that, will they put 1p on all tax rates, I think I would and raise the personal allowance £500. The easier and non discriminatory way is to simply raise the personal allowance substantially for everyone, although without other tax changes that will help everyone sub circa £130k so you'd probably want to do something else in addition, I'd still go with the 1p on all bands.
I think the 40% tax payer being able to somehow dodge the system is a bit of a myth, these are not mega earners but generally PAYE people. The 40% starts at 32k taxable pay so even if you have the full personal allowance it starts on gross earnings of 43.5k. No way an 'employee' can do anything at that level.
I think @bobmunro will concur even much higher PAYE earners and 45% tax payers it's almost impossible to avoid paying the correct amount of tax. You can of course limit the tax you pay by giving to charity or paying into a pension (to a limit) but all tax payers can do that at any level and it's actually reduced once you get to the 45p band.
The only people I know who potentially manage to 'avoid' paying the correct amount are self employed with 'cash' jobs or the mega earners and the now high profile schemes such as 'film' investments. I've lost count over the years of the number of self employed tradesman who bemoan the fact they can only borrow small amounts on a mortgage as their 'accounts' show they are low earners.
Let's hope they see sense & do something, but I'm still of the mind it needs to help the lower earners across the board, not just public sector.
What a place we've arrived in in the UK where providing a rise of above a 1/3rd of current inflation for nurses, teachers, carers, police officers, prison officers, housing officers, youth workers, social workers, occupational therapists, mental health workers, probation officers, paramedics, environmental health officers, etc is described as discriminatory.
These used to be jobs that were valued.
You're twisting what I said to suit your rhetoric as usual.
You seemed to miss the section before the one you highlighted suggesting removal of the cap and 1p on income tax specifically to help those you seem to think I don't value. Or the latter section saying 'lets hope they see sense'. Sorry for wanting to help all the low earners and not just those employed by the state
Do you not value the person working in the petrol station, the supermarket, at your bank, the bus driver or staff at your local car garage or 1001 other occupations that provide a service to the public but aren't public sector employee's?
I give no apology to saying we should be helping everyone at the lower earnings end, if you only care about the public sector then carry on banging the public sector drum but it's starting to smell a bit me me me........
If I sound a bit grumpy today (or more than usual) I apologise, and I'd hope I don't need to say it but I value all those who provide a service to the public regardless of whom their employer may be.
I'm a bit grumpy as although I may agree nurses, police etc deserve a better pay rise, there are a lot of deserving people in this country that need help, some much more than a simple pay rise, a job and a roof over there head for starters.
A young lady I know has sadly found herself living back on the street and jobless as she was sat outside cannon street station, to say I was gutted for her this morning was an understatement.
There but for the grace of god (go I).
Not twisting anything. You've said numerous times you prefer to see a further rise in tax allowance to help the low paid. So would I but equally I don't think that negates the need to properly pay those doing jobs like the examples I gave. It's not an either/or situation at all, which is the Tory line.
The government found the money to fund it's deal with the DUP easily enough, it could find the money to pay nurses a proper rise. If it choose to. But it doesn't want to. The economics behind these pay caps are little more than ideological and the Tories have done a top job of setting the public against those working for them. Trouble is, as we've seen recently, people are starting to see it for what it is.
Btw If anything you're the one constructing a straw man argument in that I want to take money off poorer workers and give it to the public sector. That's never been my point at all and you know it.
I want everyone to have a chance of earning a decent living and not having to come home after a shift looking after the sick and vulnerable and have to worry about paying the electric bill. I make no apology for that.
Edit - very sorry to hear about the young lady you helped previously(?) and her circumstances have taken a turn for the worse again.
@Bournemouth Addick where have I ever said you wanted to take money off poorer workers and give it to the public sector? I've never said nor inferred that. I have said you only seemed concerned on the raising of public sector wages but that is very different.
You specifically highlighted a section of my post, listed numerous public sector workers jobs and followed with 'these used to be jobs that were valued'. You chose to ignore my suggestion of removal of the public sector pay cap or how to potentially pay for it.
Glad you now agree you'd like to increase the personal allowance to help all lower tax payers..... I knew I'd win you round eventually
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Some excerpts from Nick Cohen's article, which @cafcpolo and others can dispute ideally with factual arguments...
A week before the General Election was called, the Student Loan Company announced that it was increasing interest rates from 4.9 percent to 6.1 percent, according to its formula of inflation plus 3 percent. Due to the effects of compound interest, that potentially takes the lifetime cost of a typical student’s debts from around £51,000 to £70,000, according to the calculator on the Money Saving Expert website. However, try finding accurate repayment numbers on an official site and you will be disappointed. Indeed, the internet is full of somewhat dubious calculators, many of them giving different answers
The most frequent of these is that students earn more than other taxpayers and consequently should not be subsidised by them. It is certainly true that graduates from top universities earn hundreds of thousands of pounds more, but if you compare non-Russell Group graduates (ie the majority) to, say, those with grade 4 apprenticeships, the difference is on average only £1,700 a year, according to Boston Consulting Group.
Put the student loan system together with high house prices (my emphasis, PA) and it becomes even more toxic. The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes. Clearly, banks have to take this into account when they make affordability calculations for mortgages, reducing borrowing power significantly.
In political editor James Forsyth’s words, you cannot sell capitalism to people without any capital.
Hi Rob7Lee, hope you're cheering up a bit. I used to volunteer for St Mungo's in it's very early days (1970) and you might point your homeless friend in their direction, who knows it might help. Mind you on another matter you have introduced the notion of an 'outstanding' teacher which is a can of worms in itself.
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Here's a fact for you Prague, straight from the gov website...£220 a month, off £30k per year is as I said. Bullshit.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
Thanks @seth plum I'll talk to her tomorrow and look them up, I'd tried numerous places before but they were snowed under. I'd like to find out what went wrong for her (without being too intrusive) as hoped with the job & bedsit as a start she was in for a brighter future maybe it was the ongoing support that lacked, I don't know, just feel gutted for her, feel quite upset myself to be honest, will try and get her back up again.
It's the interest rates that are the killer on the more recent loans. The new 6.1% on £50k means you won't even be paying off the accruing interest if you earn £50k, they need to sort that for a start!
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Here's a fact for you Prague, straight from the gov website...£220 a month, off £30k per year is as I said. Bullshit.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
So who's figures on loan repayments should I trust? Please do tell me. A news editor or the gov website?
I guess he decided to ignore the initial element of salary as 9% of £30k is £225 x 12.
Is that 'miscalculation' to make a misleading point if just ignorance/laziness.
Either way Prague I think cacfpolo is right. It was bull$hit!
What that does, in my humble opinion, is question the whole article. Does the journalist make stuff up to suit his agenda? If so his whole piece must be questioned. Or is he too lazy or incompetent to check his facts? If so his whole piece must be questioned.
Either way I do find myself wondering if students are right vote Labour, at all.
Comments
Personally (and this doesn't apply to all professions) I find it odd that people will earn the same regardless of their performance, just seems unfair and demotivating ....... if you can't reward the very high performing staff what is the incentive to do so?
What a sad, selfish argument. What a country the UK has become if reasonable people (of course I don't mean Gove) can seriously buy it.
It's the same bollocks that some people use to justify the outrageous cost of rail travel. Those who cruise everywhere in their 5 litre SUVs should not "subsidise" rail travel because they don't use trains, the argument goes. The UK used to be a country which believed in solidarity, where you could have access to the best healthcare and education regardless of whether you are rich or poor. Health because no one wants to be sick and it can strike at random. Education, because the more educated a society the better that society functions, as well as increasing the life options for individual citizens. Investment in education gives countries a competitive advantage.
I keep reading the debt isn't an issue because you only start paying off once you earn over £21k a year. Well tell me this then; what kind of life will you lead in London if you don't earn more than £21k for the next 20 years after graduating?
The issue is not so much that students have to make a financial contribution. It is the size of it, and the complete lack of transparency in how the fees are concocted. We are told that without these fees the unis cannot function. Really? So they all need the same amount then? A former polytechnic like Portsmouth has the same cost base as a famous old red-brick like Manchester? Really? Has anyone stopped to ask where all that money really goes? And what the cost base is when compared with famous and well regarded European unis like Leuven or Maastricht (to name two that are no further from London than a Scottish one). What about the issue of the obviously lower educational standards needed, both to get in, and to achieve a degree level, compared with when I was at Uni? How does making students pay, address that? It seems to me to cement the level of mediocrity we have settled for.
It seems to me that a lot of people on here who argue that the debt isn't a problem, never shouldered that debt themselves. In fact it must be true, because the 9k a year level only kicked in last year. I am clear that my nephew, and especially my niece (who is now one of those 9k'ers) would have thought long and hard about going to Uni had I not stepped in to offer financial support. My nephew was always a super smart kid, but my niece was a late developer, and I can already see the benefits.
The more I see of the direction the UK is heading, the more I keep remembering @Off_it 's only contribution to the Brexit thread, on 24.6.16. He wrote, simply: "This is not the country i thought it was".
Public sector pensions no longer track inflation either.
The cap on public sector pay has helped the country get the deficit under more control (allegedly) in terms of the private sector similarly pitching in it comes down to tax.
This for me. I was reading a very interesting article the other day about profit per equity partner at Clifford Chance hitting £1.5m for the first time
They also highlighted the generous salaries for newly qualified lawyers after their training contracts were completed. Very healthy at about £80k a year
Of course this is an extreme example, but what if you're not on the Clifford Chance gravy train. Yes, I get the argument about not having to pay back the loans until a certain threshold is reached etc, but I truly fear for the levels of debt and potential lack of opportunity for the next generation
@WattsTheMatter gave us a very good first hand account of his situation, others have intimated at their offspring's struggles
This country just kicks the can down the road. Always. That's all we do. And we pretend it's okay and not as bad as it is because consumerism brings iPads and car finance deals to the masses
Public service pensions increase in line with CPI each year. Many private pension don't increase at all (unless you pay extra).
For instance at aged 60 with £100k you can buy an annual pension of £4,268 which will remain at that level for as long as you live, no increase. The same £100k can buy you a pension linked to RPI but only buys you initially £2,362. Neither provide any form of spouse pension which would reduce the amounts further.
Not sure on 'average' increase in the private sector, can only go by my industry which has seen huge job cuts and very little if any pay rises.
Secondly, I believe that the fees being a deterrent for people going to University might be a good thing. Something needs to stop so many going that are just not worthy of the investment that it takes. I know that sounds elitist but I don't think there is a need for such expensive qualifications for such a large percentage of the population. The expectation for graduates is also way off now. They all expect to walk out of university and be rewarded with one of the top 5% positions, yet 40% go. 40 into 5 doesn't work - We don't need graduates costing the tax payer £50k to flip burgers in McDonalds. I'm sorry, but we just don't!
The UK is a far more selfish country than it was 10 years ago. When you hear vox-pops it is always "me me me", blaming poorer people, disabled, younger folks and refugees for being thick and lazy. The Tories encapsulate this perfectly and with the help of the media continue to perpetuate the harmful myth that the poor are poor by choice and that poverty doesn't really exist. Remember Theresa May saying "There are many reasons why people use food banks"? Says it all really about the national mindset in regards to those who have been left behind by our perverse dog-eat-dog version of capitalism. If anyone suggested the creation of the NHS in this day and age, they would be dismissed as an insane terrorist-loving commie with a magic money tree.
There are several reasons, both legitimate and sinister, why tuition fees were introduced and why the system has devolved into the godawful mess it is now, but Vince Cable's idiotic assertion isn't one of them.
These used to be jobs that were valued.
You seemed to miss the section before the one you highlighted suggesting removal of the cap and 1p on income tax specifically to help those you seem to think I don't value. Or the latter section saying 'lets hope they see sense'. Sorry for wanting to help all the low earners and not just those employed by the state
Do you not value the person working in the petrol station, the supermarket, at your bank, the bus driver or staff at your local car garage or 1001 other occupations that provide a service to the public but aren't public sector employee's?
I give no apology to saying we should be helping everyone at the lower earnings end, if you only care about the public sector then carry on banging the public sector drum but it's starting to smell a bit me me me........
If I sound a bit grumpy today (or more than usual) I apologise, and I'd hope I don't need to say it but I value all those who provide a service to the public regardless of whom their employer may be.
I'm a bit grumpy as although I may agree nurses, police etc deserve a better pay rise, there are a lot of deserving people in this country that need help, some much more than a simple pay rise, a job and a roof over there head for starters.
A young lady I know has sadly found herself living back on the street and jobless as she was sat outside cannon street station, to say I was gutted for her this morning was an understatement.
There but for the grace of god (go I).
But paying Teachers based on tenure is equally if not more so unfair. There were many times I wanted to give a pay rise to an absolutely outstanding teacher, but pre 2013 I couldn't I'd have to give them the same rise as their equivalent experienced teacher next door regardless of if that teacher was great or poor.
There aren't quota's as such in teaching, budget constraints for sure, but not quota's. @seth plum ,I'm not aware of a cap on teachers pension increase, when the figure was set for this year it is taken at a point last year based on the annual CPI figure, which just happened to be 1% (same as the pay cap).
https://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/news/public-news/2017/03/pension-increase-2017.aspx
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592449/Pensions_increase_2017_-_covering_note__1_16_feb.pdf
The government found the money to fund it's deal with the DUP easily enough, it could find the money to pay nurses a proper rise. If it choose to. But it doesn't want to. The economics behind these pay caps are little more than ideological and the Tories have done a top job of setting the public against those working for them. Trouble is, as we've seen recently, people are starting to see it for what it is.
Btw If anything you're the one constructing a straw man argument in that I want to take money off poorer workers and give it to the public sector. That's never been my point at all and you know it.
I want everyone to have a chance of earning a decent living and not having to come home after a shift looking after the sick and vulnerable and have to worry about paying the electric bill. I make no apology for that.
Edit - very sorry to hear about the young lady you helped previously(?) and her circumstances have taken a turn for the worse again.
You specifically highlighted a section of my post, listed numerous public sector workers jobs and followed with 'these used to be jobs that were valued'. You chose to ignore my suggestion of removal of the public sector pay cap or how to potentially pay for it.
Glad you now agree you'd like to increase the personal allowance to help all lower tax payers..... I knew I'd win you round eventually
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
A week before the General Election was called, the Student Loan Company announced that it was increasing interest rates from 4.9 percent to 6.1 percent, according to its formula of inflation plus 3 percent. Due to the effects of compound interest, that potentially takes the lifetime cost of a typical student’s debts from around £51,000 to £70,000, according to the calculator on the Money Saving Expert website. However, try finding accurate repayment numbers on an official site and you will be disappointed. Indeed, the internet is full of somewhat dubious calculators, many of them giving different answers
The most frequent of these is that students earn more than other taxpayers and consequently should not be subsidised by them. It is certainly true that graduates from top universities earn hundreds of thousands of pounds more, but if you compare non-Russell Group graduates (ie the majority) to, say, those with grade 4 apprenticeships, the difference is on average only £1,700 a year, according to Boston Consulting Group.
Put the student loan system together with high house prices (my emphasis, PA) and it becomes even more toxic. The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes. Clearly, banks have to take this into account when they make affordability calculations for mortgages, reducing borrowing power significantly.
In political editor James Forsyth’s words, you cannot sell capitalism to people without any capital.
Cohen also trashes Corbyn's plan, BTW
I used to volunteer for St Mungo's in it's very early days (1970) and you might point your homeless friend in their direction, who knows it might help.
Mind you on another matter you have introduced the notion of an 'outstanding' teacher which is a can of worms in itself.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
https://www.gov.uk/repaying-your-student-loan/what-you-pay
So who's figures on loan repayments should I trust? Please do tell me. A news editor or the gov website?
Is that 'miscalculation' to make a misleading point if just ignorance/laziness.
Either way Prague I think cacfpolo is right. It was bull$hit!
What that does, in my humble opinion, is question the whole article. Does the journalist make stuff up to suit his agenda? If so his whole piece must be questioned. Or is he too lazy or incompetent to check his facts? If so his whole piece must be questioned.
Either way I do find myself wondering if students are right vote Labour, at all.