Anything that affects spending power potentially affects growth - so taxes and VAT impacts of course - you have to try to put more money in people's pockets. Before you try to make a statement based on few facts - Overall Labour's policies at the last election would have given most people more money and more spending power. You can argue that they wouldn't with somebody else. I think this is generally accepted by most people even if not you. The counter argument is that they can't afford to do it which links to austerity.
Just wondered on Austerity if you believed what I do, in that it's predominantly around either/or/both of increasing taxes and.or/both of decreasing public expenditure.
I don't think I agree overall Labour's policies would have put more money overall in people's pockets, different pockets and maybe more pockets but certainly not more money overall. Even before you look at impact of things like corp tax at £20bn and the like that has an indirect effect on money in peoples pockets the additional tax burden was over 23bn;
Income Tax 6.4bn Capital Gains, Inheritance tax, married persons allowance removal £3.7bn Stamp duty reserve tax etc £5.6bn VAT on school fee's 1.6bn IPT £?? Tax avoidance programme £6.5bn (agree it should be done but is still currently 'money in pocket')
That all amounted to considerably more £'s than the reverse of where they were putting more money into peoples pockets with things like ESA, paternity pay, bedroom tax, state pension, public sector pay cap etc - did it not?
I didn't think Austerity in respect of money in pockets was around numbers of pockets but what is in all the pockets? I'd certainly agree that there was less peoples pockets reduced and more increased, but the net value was a decrease - in my view.
Anything that affects spending power potentially affects growth - so taxes and VAT impacts of course - you have to try to put more money in people's pockets. Before you try to make a statement based on few facts - Overall Labour's policies at the last election would have given most people more money and more spending power. You can argue that they wouldn't with somebody else. I think this is generally accepted by most people even if not you. The counter argument is that they can't afford to do it which links to austerity.
Just wondered on Austerity if you believed what I do, in that it's predominantly around either/or/both of increasing taxes and.or/both of decreasing public expenditure.
I don't think I agree overall Labour's policies would have put more money overall in people's pockets, different pockets and maybe more pockets but certainly not more money overall. Even before you look at impact of things like corp tax at £20bn and the like that has an indirect effect on money in peoples pockets the additional tax burden was over 23bn;
Income Tax 6.4bn Capital Gains, Inheritance tax, married persons allowance removal £3.7bn Stamp duty reserve tax etc £5.6bn VAT on school fee's 1.6bn IPT £?? Tax avoidance programme £6.5bn (agree it should be done but is still currently 'money in pocket')
That all amounted to considerably more £'s than the reverse of where they were putting more money into peoples pockets with things like ESA, paternity pay, bedroom tax, state pension, public sector pay cap etc - did it not?
I didn't think Austerity in respect of money in pockets was around numbers of pockets but what is in all the pockets? I'd certainly agree that there was less peoples pockets reduced and more increased, but the net value was a decrease - in my view.
I know you don't believe it - but the conservative position is we can't afford it! Don't really want to argue with your minority view on this, but the Tories who believe we can't afford to invest to grow. The way to increase growth is by investing in infrastucture and people feeling able to spend money they have - the poorest generally spend the money they have as they need food and clothing.
'Except those in the Armed Forces. Where we want to see a few more cuts taking place."
and my other question was as i didn't know was do the armed forces come into public sector pay rises
He was talking about cuts in numbers of personnel, not in pay.
i know what he meant, but its so hard for anyone that's been in the forces to get a job coming out, fair enough if you have had a trade whilst serving but if your a run of the mill infantry soldier after 4 years are surplus to requirements v difficult to get into anything else, i also don't think there wages fall into the same brackets as emergency services;
Ultimately people do choose what career paths they go down, but low paying of public employees isn't a new thing,so lets not pretend it is.
As pointed out elsewhere that used to be compensated for in security, pensions etc. No longer the case.
As the thread was about austerity and wage increases, while I cannot disagree that you make perfectly pertinent points about young guys with little or no skill other than the military being chucked out of their job, the phrase "as corbyn wanted to cut them" isn't really relevant to the particular discussion we are having here. A bloke who has put the lid on biscuit tins all his life has the same problem if he is totally unskilled.
Anything that affects spending power potentially affects growth - so taxes and VAT impacts of course - you have to try to put more money in people's pockets. Before you try to make a statement based on few facts - Overall Labour's policies at the last election would have given most people more money and more spending power. You can argue that they wouldn't with somebody else. I think this is generally accepted by most people even if not you. The counter argument is that they can't afford to do it which links to austerity.
Just wondered on Austerity if you believed what I do, in that it's predominantly around either/or/both of increasing taxes and.or/both of decreasing public expenditure.
I don't think I agree overall Labour's policies would have put more money overall in people's pockets, different pockets and maybe more pockets but certainly not more money overall. Even before you look at impact of things like corp tax at £20bn and the like that has an indirect effect on money in peoples pockets the additional tax burden was over 23bn;
Income Tax 6.4bn Capital Gains, Inheritance tax, married persons allowance removal £3.7bn Stamp duty reserve tax etc £5.6bn VAT on school fee's 1.6bn IPT £?? Tax avoidance programme £6.5bn (agree it should be done but is still currently 'money in pocket')
That all amounted to considerably more £'s than the reverse of where they were putting more money into peoples pockets with things like ESA, paternity pay, bedroom tax, state pension, public sector pay cap etc - did it not?
I didn't think Austerity in respect of money in pockets was around numbers of pockets but what is in all the pockets? I'd certainly agree that there was less peoples pockets reduced and more increased, but the net value was a decrease - in my view.
I know you don't believe it - but the conservative position is we can't afford it! Don't really want to argue with your minority view on this, but the Tories who believe we can't afford to invest to grow. The way to increase growth is by investing in infrastucture and people feeling able to spend money they have - the poorest generally spend the money they have as they need food and clothing.
I didn't think we were talking about what we can afford. I agree entirely that the conservatives say we can't afford 'it' on a number of things and you can argue that any number of ways depending on your long term economic view.
The topic was about Austerity and if it was ending. I don't believe for one minute it is nor would it under a different government, would just take a different form of austerity. One reduces spending on public services and lowers tax or is neutral on it. The other will spend on public services and increase tax, they are both half way house austerity.
If you think the average £80-150k earner (where a proportion of the additional tax was coming from) would still spend the same if they had less take home pay or it is balanced out if a small proportion of that went to the poorer (as that's not where it was all going) I feel you are wrong. There would have been less money being spent by the public than now.
So are you still saying the government in waiting would put more money into pockets and more spending power? I can't see anything in their fully costed/neutral manifesto that shows that?
Completely agree that minimum anyone should get each year is a rise in line with inflation.
Is this the end of austerity? I hope so but in my (very publicly unqualified) opinion, I don't think it was as bad (and needed) as what the Tories made out anyway.
and what are you measuring inflation by ? RPI ?? CPI ?? or even RPIX ??? RPI was ditched a few years ago because it took into account mortgage payments & they feeling was that more people are paying rent, or don't have a mortgage compared to those that do. That's ok at the moment when interest rates are low, but going back to the late 80's & early 90's then someone getting a CPI rise rather than an RPl rise would be worse off.
Also, lots of public service workers (Nurse, Doctors especially) get annual increment rises, which are equivalent to a 3% -5% pay rise. Doctors have had very little pay rises but a Consultant get a £5k increment rise every 4 years.
Completely agree that minimum anyone should get each year is a rise in line with inflation.
Is this the end of austerity? I hope so but in my (very publicly unqualified) opinion, I don't think it was as bad (and needed) as what the Tories made out anyway.
and what are you measuring inflation by ? RPI ?? CPI ?? or even RPIX ??? RPI was ditched a few years ago because it took into account mortgage payments & they feeling was that more people are paying rent, or don't have a mortgage compared to those that do. That's ok at the moment when interest rates are low, but going back to the late 80's & early 90's then someone getting a CPI rise rather than an RPl rise would be worse off.
Also, lots of public service workers (Nurse, Doctors especially) get annual increment rises, which are equivalent to a 3% -5% pay rise. Doctors have had very little pay rises but a Consultant get a £5k increment rise every 4 years.
thats a very god point that passed me by in all of this.
Completely agree that minimum anyone should get each year is a rise in line with inflation.
Is this the end of austerity? I hope so but in my (very publicly unqualified) opinion, I don't think it was as bad (and needed) as what the Tories made out anyway.
and what are you measuring inflation by ? RPI ?? CPI ?? or even RPIX ??? RPI was ditched a few years ago because it took into account mortgage payments & they feeling was that more people are paying rent, or don't have a mortgage compared to those that do. That's ok at the moment when interest rates are low, but going back to the late 80's & early 90's then someone getting a CPI rise rather than an RPl rise would be worse off.
Also, lots of public service workers (Nurse, Doctors especially) get annual increment rises, which are equivalent to a 3% -5% pay rise. Doctors have had very little pay rises but a Consultant get a £5k increment rise every 4 years.
I disagree with increment rises but they stop when a person gets to the top of their 'band' and some of the lower bands have pretty small progression rates like £200 per increment. I know they are meant to reward loyalty from a time when it was hard to retain staff (like now!) and reflect increased clinical skills. At times increments have been performance related but it would be better to pay a decent amount in the beginning and have proper annual pay awards.
'Except those in the Armed Forces. Where we want to see a few more cuts taking place."
and my other question was as i didn't know was do the armed forces come into public sector pay rises
He was talking about cuts in numbers of personnel, not in pay.
i know what he meant, but its so hard for anyone that's been in the forces to get a job coming out, fair enough if you have had a trade whilst serving but if your a run of the mill infantry soldier after 4 years are surplus to requirements v difficult to get into anything else, i also don't think there wages fall into the same brackets as emergency services;
Ultimately people do choose what career paths they go down, but low paying of public employees isn't a new thing,so lets not pretend it is.
As pointed out elsewhere that used to be compensated for in security, pensions etc. No longer the case.
As the thread was about austerity and wage increases, while I cannot disagree that you make perfectly pertinent points about young guys with little or no skill other than the military being chucked out of their job, the phrase "as corbyn wanted to cut them" isn't really relevant to the particular discussion we are having here. A bloke who has put the lid on biscuit tins all his life has the same problem if he is totally unskilled.
Completely agree that minimum anyone should get each year is a rise in line with inflation.
Is this the end of austerity? I hope so but in my (very publicly unqualified) opinion, I don't think it was as bad (and needed) as what the Tories made out anyway.
and what are you measuring inflation by ? RPI ?? CPI ?? or even RPIX ??? RPI was ditched a few years ago because it took into account mortgage payments & they feeling was that more people are paying rent, or don't have a mortgage compared to those that do. That's ok at the moment when interest rates are low, but going back to the late 80's & early 90's then someone getting a CPI rise rather than an RPl rise would be worse off.
Also, lots of public service workers (Nurse, Doctors especially) get annual increment rises, which are equivalent to a 3% -5% pay rise. Doctors have had very little pay rises but a Consultant get a £5k increment rise every 4 years.
thats a very god point that passed me by in all of this.
Incremental rates don't apply to any worker who reaches the top of their band. By way of example. I was at the top of my salary band for 20 years and therefore incremental rises were not relevant to me. Incremental progression is also linked to performance. Nothing wrong with that.
The real issue here is that the government is completely ignoring the fact that the NHS is close to the edge in terms of qualified medical and paramedical staff. We are totally reliant on overseas workers. If they stop coming or decide to leave, which all the studies are suggesting is already happening then we are completely fecked.
Brits in enough numbers either just don't want these types of jobs or are too ill educated to take them. Or both. Anyone who is interested is put off straight away by the salaries on offer after three years of university or the debt of £30k plus. Many turn away because they simply can't afford to embark down that road.
No attempt as far as I can see is being made to address these issues.
I can't imagine that the public sector unions and workforce will be very happy that the government is removing the pay cap for only the police and prison officers. I can see a lot of industrial action coming this winter. For once there might just be a balance of sympathy from the public.
Completely agree that minimum anyone should get each year is a rise in line with inflation.
Is this the end of austerity? I hope so but in my (very publicly unqualified) opinion, I don't think it was as bad (and needed) as what the Tories made out anyway.
and what are you measuring inflation by ? RPI ?? CPI ?? or even RPIX ??? RPI was ditched a few years ago because it took into account mortgage payments & they feeling was that more people are paying rent, or don't have a mortgage compared to those that do. That's ok at the moment when interest rates are low, but going back to the late 80's & early 90's then someone getting a CPI rise rather than an RPl rise would be worse off.
Also, lots of public service workers (Nurse, Doctors especially) get annual increment rises, which are equivalent to a 3% -5% pay rise. Doctors have had very little pay rises but a Consultant get a £5k increment rise every 4 years.
thats a very god point that passed me by in all of this.
Incremental rates don't apply to any worker who reaches the top of their band. By way of example. I was at the top of my salary band for 20 years and therefore incremental rises were not relevant to me. Incremental progression is also linked to performance. Nothing wrong with that.
The real issue here is that the government is completely ignoring the fact that the NHS is close to the edge in terms of qualified medical and paramedical staff. We are totally reliant on overseas workers. If they stop coming or decide to leave, which all the studies are suggesting is already happening then we are completely fecked.
Brits in enough numbers either just don't want these types of jobs or are too ill educated to take them. Or both. Anyone who is interested is put off straight away by the salaries on offer after three years of university or the debt of £30k plus. Many turn away because they simply can't afford to embark down that road.
No attempt as far as I can see is being made to address these issues.
I can't imagine that the public sector unions and workforce will be very happy that the government is removing the pay cap for only the police and prison officers. I can see a lot of industrial action coming this winter. For once there might just be a balance of sympathy from the public.
I think there would be huge sympathy from the public, but the unions would need to be conscious of maintaining that sympathy.
Completely agree that minimum anyone should get each year is a rise in line with inflation.
Is this the end of austerity? I hope so but in my (very publicly unqualified) opinion, I don't think it was as bad (and needed) as what the Tories made out anyway.
and what are you measuring inflation by ? RPI ?? CPI ?? or even RPIX ??? RPI was ditched a few years ago because it took into account mortgage payments & they feeling was that more people are paying rent, or don't have a mortgage compared to those that do. That's ok at the moment when interest rates are low, but going back to the late 80's & early 90's then someone getting a CPI rise rather than an RPl rise would be worse off.
Also, lots of public service workers (Nurse, Doctors especially) get annual increment rises, which are equivalent to a 3% -5% pay rise. Doctors have had very little pay rises but a Consultant get a £5k increment rise every 4 years.
thats a very god point that passed me by in all of this.
Incremental rates don't apply to any worker who reaches the top of their band. By way of example. I was at the top of my salary band for 20 years and therefore incremental rises were not relevant to me. Incremental progression is also linked to performance. Nothing wrong with that.
The real issue here is that the government is completely ignoring the fact that the NHS is close to the edge in terms of qualified medical and paramedical staff. We are totally reliant on overseas workers. If they stop coming or decide to leave, which all the studies are suggesting is already happening then we are completely fecked.
Brits in enough numbers either just don't want these types of jobs or are too ill educated to take them. Or both. Anyone who is interested is put off straight away by the salaries on offer after three years of university or the debt of £30k plus. Many turn away because they simply can't afford to embark down that road.
No attempt as far as I can see is being made to address these issues.
I can't imagine that the public sector unions and workforce will be very happy that the government is removing the pay cap for only the police and prison officers. I can see a lot of industrial action coming this winter. For once there might just be a balance of sympathy from the public.
Understand that about the increments, I remember it well with a member of the leadership team where I was a governor who had been in her position for over 20 years so had been at the top of her band for a long time. I'd just forgotten briefly when we've been talking about the pay cap.
I think generally there is sympathy from the general public although that could wain if lots of strikes as bob indicates.
I think what we need to remember is although the 1% cap is in the press every other day so is at the forefront of people's minds, there are many in the private sector who would have loved a 1% rise over the last few years. Clearly many have had more than that but many have had nothing.
Hence why I bang on about taxation, raising the tax allowance like the conservatives have helps everyone not just one sector or just public or just private. As would moving the 20p band or bringing back a 10p rate. The easiest is the allowance, just increase that by another few thousand, that'll help all lower earners regardless of profession.
Completely agree that minimum anyone should get each year is a rise in line with inflation.
Is this the end of austerity? I hope so but in my (very publicly unqualified) opinion, I don't think it was as bad (and needed) as what the Tories made out anyway.
and what are you measuring inflation by ? RPI ?? CPI ?? or even RPIX ??? RPI was ditched a few years ago because it took into account mortgage payments & they feeling was that more people are paying rent, or don't have a mortgage compared to those that do. That's ok at the moment when interest rates are low, but going back to the late 80's & early 90's then someone getting a CPI rise rather than an RPl rise would be worse off.
Also, lots of public service workers (Nurse, Doctors especially) get annual increment rises, which are equivalent to a 3% -5% pay rise. Doctors have had very little pay rises but a Consultant get a £5k increment rise every 4 years.
thats a very god point that passed me by in all of this.
Incremental rates don't apply to any worker who reaches the top of their band. By way of example. I was at the top of my salary band for 20 years and therefore incremental rises were not relevant to me. Incremental progression is also linked to performance. Nothing wrong with that.
The real issue here is that the government is completely ignoring the fact that the NHS is close to the edge in terms of qualified medical and paramedical staff. We are totally reliant on overseas workers. If they stop coming or decide to leave, which all the studies are suggesting is already happening then we are completely fecked.
Brits in enough numbers either just don't want these types of jobs or are too ill educated to take them. Or both. Anyone who is interested is put off straight away by the salaries on offer after three years of university or the debt of £30k plus. Many turn away because they simply can't afford to embark down that road.
No attempt as far as I can see is being made to address these issues.
I can't imagine that the public sector unions and workforce will be very happy that the government is removing the pay cap for only the police and prison officers. I can see a lot of industrial action coming this winter. For once there might just be a balance of sympathy from the public.
Understand that about the increments, I remember it well with a member of the leadership team where I was a governor who had been in her position for over 20 years so had been at the top of her band for a long time. I'd just forgotten briefly when we've been talking about the pay cap.
I think generally there is sympathy from the general public although that could wain if lots of strikes as bob indicates.
I think what we need to remember is although the 1% cap is in the press every other day so is at the forefront of people's minds, there are many in the private sector who would have loved a 1% rise over the last few years. Clearly many have had more than that but many have had nothing.
Hence why I bang on about taxation, raising the tax allowance like the conservatives have helps everyone not just one sector or just public or just private. As would moving the 20p band or bringing back a 10p rate. The easiest is the allowance, just increase that by another few thousand, that'll help all lower earners regardless of profession.
Similarly though, the 1% cap is used to indicate that public sector workers are getting 1% pay rises. In many many cases they are not getting any increase at all. This isn't public vs private sectors, this is the public sector getting a bum deal, nothing to do with the private sector.
The age-old trick of divide and conquer. Pit the public sector against the private sector, convince each of them that the other 'side' is the enemy, all the while continuing to ridiculously inflate senior wages and ignore meaningful ways of redistributing the wealth to the lower-paid. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Pretty obvious that the Tories are expecting trouble, removing the cap for coppers and screws!
The law is drawn up to make old school strikes nearly impossible these days.
The media will analyse every aspect of strike procedure in order to discredit the workers and their Unions. From that they will fuel the 'public sympathy' angle.
Now here's a thing. When I learned that a Solicitor will charge £20 for each email they read, and that in private health for example there is a charge for every single interactive procedure, I would urge the austerity impacted workforce to do the most difficult thing of all...work to the absolute letter of your contract.
No need to strike, simply do what you're paid for and not one iota more, and insist on every rule, particularly regarding health and safety, is followed to the letter.
Still impactful believe me, and no loss of pay, and a reduction in stress from not working all hours for free.
This approach is hard because there is a tendency for people to go the extra mile frequently, and indeed for that willingness to be exploited.
The age-old trick of divide and conquer. Pit the public sector against the private sector, convince each of them that the other 'side' is the enemy, all the while continuing to ridiculously inflate senior wages and ignore meaningful ways of redistributing the wealth to the lower-paid. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Pretty obvious that the Tories are expecting trouble, removing the cap for coppers and screws!
Its true, I never thought I was any different from any other worker until after the 2010 election when there was a clear tactic to blame public sector staff. We had merely chosen different career paths.
I have worked in public, private, charity and in the gap between the three (linking them together in partnership) and was shocked at the divisive tactic, all designed to make it easier to impose cuts.
Completely agree that minimum anyone should get each year is a rise in line with inflation.
Is this the end of austerity? I hope so but in my (very publicly unqualified) opinion, I don't think it was as bad (and needed) as what the Tories made out anyway.
and what are you measuring inflation by ? RPI ?? CPI ?? or even RPIX ??? RPI was ditched a few years ago because it took into account mortgage payments & they feeling was that more people are paying rent, or don't have a mortgage compared to those that do. That's ok at the moment when interest rates are low, but going back to the late 80's & early 90's then someone getting a CPI rise rather than an RPl rise would be worse off.
Also, lots of public service workers (Nurse, Doctors especially) get annual increment rises, which are equivalent to a 3% -5% pay rise. Doctors have had very little pay rises but a Consultant get a £5k increment rise every 4 years.
thats a very god point that passed me by in all of this.
Incremental rates don't apply to any worker who reaches the top of their band. By way of example. I was at the top of my salary band for 20 years and therefore incremental rises were not relevant to me. Incremental progression is also linked to performance. Nothing wrong with that.
The real issue here is that the government is completely ignoring the fact that the NHS is close to the edge in terms of qualified medical and paramedical staff. We are totally reliant on overseas workers. If they stop coming or decide to leave, which all the studies are suggesting is already happening then we are completely fecked.
Brits in enough numbers either just don't want these types of jobs or are too ill educated to take them. Or both. Anyone who is interested is put off straight away by the salaries on offer after three years of university or the debt of £30k plus. Many turn away because they simply can't afford to embark down that road.
No attempt as far as I can see is being made to address these issues.
I can't imagine that the public sector unions and workforce will be very happy that the government is removing the pay cap for only the police and prison officers. I can see a lot of industrial action coming this winter. For once there might just be a balance of sympathy from the public.
Understand that about the increments, I remember it well with a member of the leadership team where I was a governor who had been in her position for over 20 years so had been at the top of her band for a long time. I'd just forgotten briefly when we've been talking about the pay cap.
I think generally there is sympathy from the general public although that could wain if lots of strikes as bob indicates.
I think what we need to remember is although the 1% cap is in the press every other day so is at the forefront of people's minds, there are many in the private sector who would have loved a 1% rise over the last few years. Clearly many have had more than that but many have had nothing.
Hence why I bang on about taxation, raising the tax allowance like the conservatives have helps everyone not just one sector or just public or just private. As would moving the 20p band or bringing back a 10p rate. The easiest is the allowance, just increase that by another few thousand, that'll help all lower earners regardless of profession.
Similarly though, the 1% cap is used to indicate that public sector workers are getting 1% pay rises. In many many cases they are not getting any increase at all. This isn't public vs private sectors, this is the public sector getting a bum deal, nothing to do with the private sector.
I haven't seen a long list of every Public sector role and what pay rise they did or didn't get or will or won't get- you only see the headlines of NHS x, Police Y, Fire Brigade Z etc. But I am sure you are correct that there will be some who got nothing at all.
Agree it isn't public v private as public sector pay awards do not effect the private sector, however my response was regarding strikes and sympathy from the public. My view is like Bob (if I understood his reply correctly) there is huge sympathy currently but that could change if there are lots of strikes. If I was in the private sector and hadn't had a pay rise for a number of years I might feel aggrieved if Public sector were striking as the pay deal offered of 1/2% of whatever it may be wasn't viewed acceptable. You could get that from one public sector to another.........
Just raise the tax threshold to £13,500, then assuming you are full time on minimum ish wage gives everyone £400 extra a year. same as a 2% gross award on £25k.
I would have sympathy for and support prison officers striking. The conditions they have to work in and the resources that are given to them is unacceptable
Just raise the tax threshold to £13,500, then assuming you are full time on minimum ish wage gives everyone £400 extra a year. same as a 2% gross award on £25k.
Around 27 million pay tax at the basic rate of 20% - so the £400 extra for each of them is taken straight off exchequer revenue - £10.8 billion.
Unless we learn how to turn base metal into gold that £10.8 billion has to be found from somewhere. The pot is the same size, it is about how the burden is shared in a progressive way. If we want to pay doctors, nurses, police, fire, ambulance, prison officers, teachers et al more money (and I would not question the morality of that) then either more needs to be raised in tax from high earners (law of diminishing returns as has been discussed to death in other threads) or so called 'non-essential' public services would have to be cut.
As at July this year, fines imposed by the FCA in 2017 amounted to £163,305,322. Or, otherwise known as a drop in the ocean. Of that total, £163,076,224 came from one organisation Deutsche Bank; the rest came from 4 individuals.
As said, since 2012 the fines go back into The Treasury's general coffers. This is a very, very big improvement on the old system whereby receipts from fines went back into reducing the level of authorised firms fees (except those firms that had been fined).
The level of fines is still pathetic and paltry. I've long thought that the fine system would be better served if the fine matched exactly the total level of executive pay and all senior staff bonuses for the year(s) in which the misdemeanour took place. That way the firm would be required to make a decision. The three available choices would be binning shareholders dividends; binning the vastly unnecessary staff bonuses and executive salaries; or the third choice would be to actually pay attention to the rules and regulations and not screw people over.
(Fines in 2016 were only £22mn and Aviva was the only entity most will have heard of that got fined. The hefty years fines-wise were 2014 - £1471mn and 2015 - £905mn with lots of famous names getting a whack, including Deutsche who apparently didn't learn.)
The sate owned RBS was fined £5.5 billion by the US authority and £15 million by the FCA for the loan advice scandal, £300 million by the US and £85 million by the FCA for the Libor scandal. The government then sold off some of the shares at a £2 buillion loss, so the tax payer has effectively paid for the banks corruption to another government. In july the state still owned 71% of loss making RBS and the share price would have to go from roughly £4 to £6.25 for the governemnt to break even.
After eight years of loss making surely it is time for someone in the private sector to pick it up for a song and make a huge profit on it? After all, with the spector of brexit looming, no clear direction after six months of talks and an economy totally invested in the financial sector, we have to look after the wealth creators. A success story is just what we need to restore confidence and stop the mass exodus in the sector that boy George bet on. That way we can use our effective tax system to pay for the services we need and deserve.
Yes we can argue about how the cake is divided between public and private sector workers, different businesses, owners and bosses, the young and old - but the most effective way of improving everyone's lot is to increase real GDP and to do that we have to improve productivity and to do that we probably need to increase investment in the productive economy as opposed to vanity projects. Business investment has been stagnant for a number of years and no one in the major political parties is talking about how it might be increased - and all the instability created by Brexit isn't helping either.
Yes we can argue about how the cake is divided between public and private sector workers, different businesses, owners and bosses, the young and old - but the most effective way of improving everyone's lot is to increase real GDP and to do that we have to improve productivity and to do that we probably need to increase investment in the productive economy as opposed to vanity projects. Business investment has been stagnant for a number of years and no one in the major political parties is talking about how it might be increased - and all the instability created by Brexit isn't helping either.
QE was supposed to alleviate the stagnation in investment but that never materialised. Linking performance to pay has made the private sector to short sighted on quck returns for shareholders. There was talk of a national bak devoted to capital investment and raising GDP, but it was one of those blokes who wanted to take us back to that decade of record levels of employment and happiness.
Just raise the tax threshold to £13,500, then assuming you are full time on minimum ish wage gives everyone £400 extra a year. same as a 2% gross award on £25k.
Around 27 million pay tax at the basic rate of 20% - so the £400 extra for each of them is taken straight off exchequer revenue - £10.8 billion.
Unless we learn how to turn base metal into gold that £10.8 billion has to be found from somewhere. The pot is the same size, it is about how the burden is shared in a progressive way. If we want to pay doctors, nurses, police, fire, ambulance, prison officers, teachers et al more money (and I would not question the morality of that) then either more needs to be raised in tax from high earners (law of diminishing returns as has been discussed to death in other threads) or so called 'non-essential' public services would have to be cut.
The magic money tree! Gold reserves that Gordon didn't sell off must have rocketed in value the past few years......
Fair point though, so the increase from circa 6.5k in 2010 to the 11.5k now cost per annum about 27bn? Where did/do we find that from? Was it the loosing of the tax allowance, child allowance, lowering where the 40% came in at etc?
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Yes we can argue about how the cake is divided between public and private sector workers, different businesses, owners and bosses, the young and old - but the most effective way of improving everyone's lot is to increase real GDP and to do that we have to improve productivity and to do that we probably need to increase investment in the productive economy as opposed to vanity projects. Business investment has been stagnant for a number of years and no one in the major political parties is talking about how it might be increased - and all the instability created by Brexit isn't helping either.
I agree but maybe you didn't read the Labour or indeed the Green Party manifesto.
Yes we can argue about how the cake is divided between public and private sector workers, different businesses, owners and bosses, the young and old - but the most effective way of improving everyone's lot is to increase real GDP and to do that we have to improve productivity and to do that we probably need to increase investment in the productive economy as opposed to vanity projects. Business investment has been stagnant for a number of years and no one in the major political parties is talking about how it might be increased - and all the instability created by Brexit isn't helping either.
I agree but maybe you didn't read the Labour or indeed the Green Party manifesto.
I do remember McDonnell digging up that old Bennite idea of a National Investment Bank fro the manifesto but there was precious little on how it would work during the election campaign. I do remember that Tony Benn was rather keen on the idea as well - but since his investment ideas were to spend money on Concorde and British Leyland you can perhaps understand why people might be a little sceptical. I also remember how McDonnell proposed a sudden rise in Corporation Tax - but never explained how that would improve business investment rather than the opposite.
I think you will find that the manifesto was full of ideas- now you may be predesposed to dismiss them or even argue they won't work, but what is unfair is to suggest they weren't there.
Yes we can argue about how the cake is divided between public and private sector workers, different businesses, owners and bosses, the young and old - but the most effective way of improving everyone's lot is to increase real GDP and to do that we have to improve productivity and to do that we probably need to increase investment in the productive economy as opposed to vanity projects. Business investment has been stagnant for a number of years and no one in the major political parties is talking about how it might be increased - and all the instability created by Brexit isn't helping either.
I agree but maybe you didn't read the Labour or indeed the Green Party manifesto.
I do remember McDonnell digging up that old Bennite idea of a National Investment Bank fro the manifesto but there was precious little on how it would work during the election campaign. I do remember that Tony Benn was rather keen on the idea as well - but since his investment ideas were to spend money on Concorde and British Leyland you can perhaps understand why people might be a little sceptical. I also remember how McDonnell proposed a sudden rise in Corporation Tax - but never explained how that would improve business investment rather than the opposite.
You can't remeber it that well, as he said it would be independant from governemnt in a similar fashion to the bank of England.
Perhaps we should more closely at the success of the German Mittlestand where they are much less ideological in the State having a role in the economy but they see that role mainly as one of support rather than direct intervention e.g.
Support for R&D and technological development Support for apprenticeship schemes Support for developing non confrontational labour relations with workers being consulted and involved with development Support for businesses to sell internationally Support for banks providing longer term finance
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Income tax is only 27% of the total tax revenue, and completely distorts the total picture when focused on as it is designed to be progressive. That is less than is raised by indirect taxes, 29% :
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
Just raise the tax threshold to £13,500, then assuming you are full time on minimum ish wage gives everyone £400 extra a year. same as a 2% gross award on £25k.
Around 27 million pay tax at the basic rate of 20% - so the £400 extra for each of them is taken straight off exchequer revenue - £10.8 billion.
Unless we learn how to turn base metal into gold that £10.8 billion has to be found from somewhere. The pot is the same size, it is about how the burden is shared in a progressive way. If we want to pay doctors, nurses, police, fire, ambulance, prison officers, teachers et al more money (and I would not question the morality of that) then either more needs to be raised in tax from high earners (law of diminishing returns as has been discussed to death in other threads) or so called 'non-essential' public services would have to be cut.
Seems to me the way out of this is to pay seriously much more to the already rich. I'm sorry that would result in them shouldering even more of the financial burden facing our country but we must get the money into the exchequer.
Comments
I don't think I agree overall Labour's policies would have put more money overall in people's pockets, different pockets and maybe more pockets but certainly not more money overall. Even before you look at impact of things like corp tax at £20bn and the like that has an indirect effect on money in peoples pockets the additional tax burden was over 23bn;
Income Tax 6.4bn
Capital Gains, Inheritance tax, married persons allowance removal £3.7bn
Stamp duty reserve tax etc £5.6bn
VAT on school fee's 1.6bn
IPT £??
Tax avoidance programme £6.5bn (agree it should be done but is still currently 'money in pocket')
That all amounted to considerably more £'s than the reverse of where they were putting more money into peoples pockets with things like ESA, paternity pay, bedroom tax, state pension, public sector pay cap etc - did it not?
I didn't think Austerity in respect of money in pockets was around numbers of pockets but what is in all the pockets? I'd certainly agree that there was less peoples pockets reduced and more increased, but the net value was a decrease - in my view.
You won't but why not try watching this
As the thread was about austerity and wage increases, while I cannot disagree that you make perfectly pertinent points about young guys with little or no skill other than the military being chucked out of their job, the phrase "as corbyn wanted to cut them" isn't really relevant to the particular discussion we are having here. A bloke who has put the lid on biscuit tins all his life has the same problem if he is totally unskilled.
The topic was about Austerity and if it was ending. I don't believe for one minute it is nor would it under a different government, would just take a different form of austerity. One reduces spending on public services and lowers tax or is neutral on it. The other will spend on public services and increase tax, they are both half way house austerity.
If you think the average £80-150k earner (where a proportion of the additional tax was coming from) would still spend the same if they had less take home pay or it is balanced out if a small proportion of that went to the poorer (as that's not where it was all going) I feel you are wrong. There would have been less money being spent by the public than now.
So are you still saying the government in waiting would put more money into pockets and more spending power? I can't see anything in their fully costed/neutral manifesto that shows that?
Also, lots of public service workers (Nurse, Doctors especially) get annual increment rises, which are equivalent to a 3% -5% pay rise. Doctors have had very little pay rises but a Consultant get a £5k increment rise every 4 years.
I know they are meant to reward loyalty from a time when it was hard to retain staff (like now!) and reflect increased clinical skills.
At times increments have been performance related but it would be better to pay a decent amount in the beginning and have proper annual pay awards.
The real issue here is that the government is completely ignoring the fact that the NHS is close to the edge in terms of qualified medical and paramedical staff. We are totally reliant on overseas workers. If they stop coming or decide to leave, which all the studies are suggesting is already happening then we are completely fecked.
Brits in enough numbers either just don't want these types of jobs or are too ill educated to take them. Or both. Anyone who is interested is put off straight away by the salaries on offer after three years of university or the debt of £30k plus. Many turn away because they simply can't afford to embark down that road.
No attempt as far as I can see is being made to address these issues.
I can't imagine that the public sector unions and workforce will be very happy that the government is removing the pay cap for only the police and prison officers. I can see a lot of industrial action coming this winter. For once there might just be a balance of sympathy from the public.
I think generally there is sympathy from the general public although that could wain if lots of strikes as bob indicates.
I think what we need to remember is although the 1% cap is in the press every other day so is at the forefront of people's minds, there are many in the private sector who would have loved a 1% rise over the last few years. Clearly many have had more than that but many have had nothing.
Hence why I bang on about taxation, raising the tax allowance like the conservatives have helps everyone not just one sector or just public or just private. As would moving the 20p band or bringing back a 10p rate. The easiest is the allowance, just increase that by another few thousand, that'll help all lower earners regardless of profession.
The media will analyse every aspect of strike procedure in order to discredit the workers and their Unions. From that they will fuel the 'public sympathy' angle.
Now here's a thing. When I learned that a Solicitor will charge £20 for each email they read, and that in private health for example there is a charge for every single interactive procedure, I would urge the austerity impacted workforce to do the most difficult thing of all...work to the absolute letter of your contract.
No need to strike, simply do what you're paid for and not one iota more, and insist on every rule, particularly regarding health and safety, is followed to the letter.
Still impactful believe me, and no loss of pay, and a reduction in stress from not working all hours for free.
This approach is hard because there is a tendency for people to go the extra mile frequently, and indeed for that willingness to be exploited.
I have worked in public, private, charity and in the gap between the three (linking them together in partnership) and was shocked at the divisive tactic, all designed to make it easier to impose cuts.
Agree it isn't public v private as public sector pay awards do not effect the private sector, however my response was regarding strikes and sympathy from the public. My view is like Bob (if I understood his reply correctly) there is huge sympathy currently but that could change if there are lots of strikes. If I was in the private sector and hadn't had a pay rise for a number of years I might feel aggrieved if Public sector were striking as the pay deal offered of 1/2% of whatever it may be wasn't viewed acceptable. You could get that from one public sector to another.........
Just raise the tax threshold to £13,500, then assuming you are full time on minimum ish wage gives everyone £400 extra a year. same as a 2% gross award on £25k.
Unless we learn how to turn base metal into gold that £10.8 billion has to be found from somewhere. The pot is the same size, it is about how the burden is shared in a progressive way. If we want to pay doctors, nurses, police, fire, ambulance, prison officers, teachers et al more money (and I would not question the morality of that) then either more needs to be raised in tax from high earners (law of diminishing returns as has been discussed to death in other threads) or so called 'non-essential' public services would have to be cut.
After eight years of loss making surely it is time for someone in the private sector to pick it up for a song and make a huge profit on it? After all, with the spector of brexit looming, no clear direction after six months of talks and an economy totally invested in the financial sector, we have to look after the wealth creators. A success story is just what we need to restore confidence and stop the mass exodus in the sector that boy George bet on. That way we can use our effective tax system to pay for the services we need and deserve.
Fair point though, so the increase from circa 6.5k in 2010 to the 11.5k now cost per annum about 27bn? Where did/do we find that from? Was it the loosing of the tax allowance, child allowance, lowering where the 40% came in at etc?
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Support for R&D and technological development
Support for apprenticeship schemes
Support for developing non confrontational labour relations with workers being consulted and involved with development
Support for businesses to sell internationally
Support for banks providing longer term finance
https://theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/10/its-not-true-that-the-top-1-pay-27-of-tax
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
https://fullfact.org/economy/what-do-wealthiest-pay-tax/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3LiUstWk1gIVygWRCh0X7QV-EAAYASAAEgJ-kvD_BwE
Diminishing returns my arse.