BBC Blog Network

User Profile

p45builder

Listed below are comments made by p45builder between Wednesday, 4th November 2009 and Friday, 11th December 2009 (3 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Why £73bn is the new £90bn 2:53pm on 11 Dec 2009 #74 Russell Branch

I'm a supporter of option a.
However, what would happen is that the G would do what they've done in education and rather than provide trained nurses (teachers) they would provide cover support staff, untrained in nursing (teaching), cos they are cheaper.

Then they would say that they've increased nursing staff (teachers) by 10% when in fact they've decreased life-support (teaching) capability by 'x'%.
Why £73bn is the new £90bn 2:41pm on 11 Dec 2009 You know I'm not an exponent of the 'flog the publice service worker' horse; indeed I'm of the sustain employment levels camp and sort that part out later, cos I do not think too many have thought through the real cost of bashing the large sections of the employed.

Advocating 15% wage cuts may work for higher paid public sector, but remember that large portions of ps employees are close to nmw. That 15% drop in income will lead to at least 10% clawback in benefits.

But just to show I'm not advocating 'protect jobs at any cost' just look at this:
the average number of support staff in a state school (ex caretaker/cleaner/cooks) in the 1970's was 8. Today it is nearer 30.

Ask your self this: is the ability of the average school leaver to survive in today's job market and society any better than it was 30 years ago. Are these school kids suffiently competitive on the world stage to enable the retention of employment opportunity in the UK.
This is not the top 10% MoU's running our commerce. Just the average Joe Bloe.

Add to that the question: is UK really a competitive environment or it too expensive/too inefficient. If the latter is true what fundamentals make it so?
Why £73bn is the new £90bn 2:18pm on 11 Dec 2009 I do like MrsBloggs's clear cut call to examine the real waste in public sector.

Here's a thought. 1600 hours at nmw equates to something under 10000GBP.
Tax & NI will take 32% of everything over....is it 6000 now. Let's say about £1200.
Benefits and what have you will pay most of that straight back.

Efficient or what?

Making these public sector nmw guys redundant is only 60% efficient. Basically you need to sack 2 to save one wage equivalent (and that's without any redundancy payments)
Time to hug Goldman? 12:01pm on 11 Dec 2009 #75 Crookwood

Don't clock up the hours you do, and don't rate myself particularly highly, but the customers keep coming back....

Guess my economics is well dated, but I always thought that somewhere along the line somebody paid for somebody else's wealth. And generally those who pay the highest relative proportion are the less skilled.

We've all seen the high level rewards for working in certain banking and media areas. People here can earn in an hour what the unskilled worker takes 1-5 years to accumulate.

Furthermore these top earners have the ability to quickly return to generating income even when the original source has dried up.

Conversely, the unskilled/niche skilled does not. They are reliant on others.

Government policies for handling this assume a healthy employment market. There is no policy for markets of mass unemployment.

I have no issue with people being able to receive large rewards provided they accept that it is their duty to pitch in at much higher levels in circumstances such as these - its short term thing - and that means some pretty tough measures way above those on the table. I am prepared to take the risk that some high earners will not want that commitment and leave the country, because they are not irreplaceable. The majority will accept the short term hit because they are confident enough to know they'll get it all back and more in the medium term.

What I cannot accept is weak government with short-term thinking. I cannot accept government that is so costly it consumes 50%+ of Mr/Mrs AverageIncome's income. I cannot accept government that comprises petty fiefdoms wasting resources and failing to provide for the big picture. I cannot accept government that spends so much effort intervening that nothing actually gets done to benefit anybody. I cannot accept government that spends so much effort telling us what we cannot do because it unsafe or risky but at the same time develops economic policy and revenue streams on an inherently unsafe & risky model. I cannot accept government that constantly sings its own praises especially about things nobody wanted in the first place.

apart from that life's good
Time to hug Goldman? 10:25am on 11 Dec 2009 #57 said "Wouldn't it be nice once in a while to remember that the problems we all face were caused by people borrowing too much and being unable to repay the debt. I'm struggling to understand why it's no longer shameful to default on a loan."

I never forget it.

A lot of people, companies and governments have forced on me debt (and now even more taxes to help pay for the mess) that I have struggled for years to avoid.

I'm now having to pay for their excesses, through lack of work and additional taxes, whilst watching others be excessively rewarded (a perpetuation of the greed cycle).

I'm extremely frustrated because apart from 'getting on my bike' there is very little I can do to change this. I see how powerless our economic policy has made our government on the international stage, as we are held to ransom by globalisation and our fear of losing significant tax revenue and employment sources were we to reign in the excess.

I know we need to cut government expenditure by amounts so vast the associated levels of unemployment would be devastating. But whilst I can understand the reticence, I cannot understand why it is not being broached at all.

No party waiting for an election is going to do the necessary.
(it would have been better if we had had our elections a year earlier, just to have stopped the posturing and delaying the inevitable in order to garner votes from the gullible)

We also know from history that even a man/party who did the necessary (Churchill)may not get re-elected. So on that basis there is nothing for them to lose by going for it NOW. Those in power have names of mud. They will forever be remembered thus unless they are prepared to sacrifice their careers for the long-term good of the nation.
Tories tweaking their message 12:46pm on 24 Nov 2009 I always seem to join these late. Still, got some work yesterday so can't complain.

Profligacy.
We hear about wasteful government. Cuts are demanded.
So suppose we cut 10% of big-G jobs. That's 4% of all jobs. 1.2million extra unemployed.

£65m/week basic JSA. £100m/week enhanced JSA. £120m/week benefits payments, etc - over £300m/week costs
Tax loss 2% of all Income Tax revenues.
And the rest.

Those costs are at the lowest level of unemployment benefit in like-sized 'western' economies - lower than even the USA

Resultant total savings.... less than £5bn, a piss in the wind

And suppose we cut out some capital expenditure projects, do we chose which on the basis of total savings or rather in terms of least effect on UK unemployment? I suspect there are a number of 'unloved' such projects in which much of the capital/labour component is principally imported.

Ready for more QE and 10-20% on your taxes?

Of course this will drive prices down cos demand will fall, and who does lower prices play into the hands of.... low cost producers, our old friends in China - and of course the unscrupulous home-based business owners who can then drive down wages/hours, and create more efficiencies by employing less.And even less tax revenue, so more government job cuts or more taxes on those still in employment. And more benefit payments to those whose low incomes are depleted. Spiral into deflation.

Like it or not the first priority has to be to get those who are unemployed employed again (and that's not just cos I'll benefit, though it can't be sneered at). That creates increased tax revenues. That helps pay off debt. It lowers social unrest and all that costs.

And it has to be in those areas worst hit; Building, transport and logistics, manufacturing, niche crafts.

Horrible though it may seem this probably means pumping even more QE money into capital expediture primary infrastructure projects where UK-based supply can be exploited without breaking EU rules. So lots more new hospitals and schools, major road congestion relief, and rail upgrades.

It also means pumping money into alternative energy supply. Like the compulsory switch to Digital TV/Radio I would also make it compuslory to upgrade all homes/businesses over a certain value/multiple property ownership with alternative energy generation, though there would need to be ways to encourage early uptake. Taxes generated from this can be used for similar work in social housing.

In addition it means pumping money into re-training, in part to supply additional labour for this. Broaden the skills base. Make skills enhancement pro-active not reactive, and not a financial burden on the low paid, not a thing that happens only when you are unemployed. We need niche-companies and niche craft skills specialists to provide diversity, but they are all to often hit hardest by recession, and it their employees who suffer because they are removed from the wider workforce in terms of translatable skills.

And it means some super-incentives to bring manufacturing capacity/diversity back to the UK (which unfortunately is going to be more medium term, and needs to in the first instance be directed at UK sustainable energy product manufacture).

Some extra taxes will be required, but they need to be highly targeted at those with the income-ability to pay. Those of us who benefit from this largesse (that will include me) can expect windfall taxation. For the shorter term, some smaller thing is better than nothing. Just don't expect us to put up with sustained 1960's levels of taxation.

It means we won't be clearing debts anytime soon and we will continue to pay interest on the interest, but it buys time to set in place a re-structuring that re-balances the economy and allows timed elimination some of the wastefulness in government without shafting its low income employees, and increasing dole Q's.

I know this may be quite fantastical but there is too much of the 'same old same old'. Leaps of faith are required, and not enough people are coming up with suggestions, just defeatism or history revisits.
Tough times ahead 10:45am on 17 Nov 2009 #72
Get real.
Your accountant/doctor example is just so out of touch. They can easily afford the care. What they are not prepared to do is give up their 'good life' in part funded by the state. Cake and eat it comes to mind.

why does SHE have to childcare. is the bloke incompetent?

Get out there and look at all the parenting couples who both have to work to get 1/3rd of what your couple earn, and these low incomers fund child care that takes 60% of their post tax income, even after childcare vouchers.
Tough times ahead 10:31am on 17 Nov 2009 Well we've had the VAT and car price giveaways and they've just benefited those with spare cash, the VAT giveway being the a total waste of time. Have they generated jobs? Have they generated tax income/benefits reductions to justify them? No really , have they?

Windfall tax.
We've applauded such taxes on Big Oil; now let's have it on Big Incomes.
It's a one off.
Big incomers can afford a lump sum proportioal to their total earnings over the last 5 years.
The question is at what level does it start?
The government says (rightly or wrongly) that up to £60000 pa you are entitled to working tax credit (though it diminishes with rising income), so this is a starting base. Been earning over £60000 - pay windfall tax of say £5000. Over £100000, windfall tax of £20000; etc. What's more you could also get them to pay back all their Child benefits over that period. High income earners get disproportionately high benefits from CB relative to low earners. Ain't right.

What should not be happening is job loses and tax increases at the lowest end. And this means no increases in regressive taxes such as VAT and fuel taxes. This is just so negative. So when it is advocated to cut Public Sector jobs, just which ones are we talking about? The guys who run round emptying the bins for less than £15000k per year? Straight onto full benefits; net gain to treasury, peanuts.

60% of low key Public Sector jobs are bottom end payers. And the 'generous pension': well its not that fantastic is it when what you get is based on what you earned near the bottom end of the scale.

Raising pension age - hah - have you tried getting a job once you are over 55; guess where you end up.... Public Sector. Just go down the job centre today and see the age balance, especially when you look across the genders. All the males are either school leavers or over 55. Look at who is employed in the job centre.....

What all our politicians will NOT do is a radical reform of the tax and benefits system and they will not address the fundamental issues that cause demand for such a high level of benefits payments to those in lower income jobs (just try to forget about the scroungers for the moment as they will always exist). None has the guts to tell it like it needs to be

Is it right that lowest income jobs (national minimum wage, below official poverty line) should be taxed, and at marginal rates that significantly exceed those on upper tier incomes? Is it right that we then pay benefits back to cover the shortfall created in part by taxation?

What is the acceptable discrepancy between the official poverty line and the national minimum wage?

How do we hold labour costs to a level that makes them competitive enough that the jobs are not exported, but at the same time not push more into UK-based poverty and benefits-dependency?

I've no answers. What I do know though is that I'm carrying the can for other's extravagances, and that I'm soon going to be paying through the nose for it on the little work I am able to get.

Here's my own greedy thought. Anybody made redundant over the past year will only have to pay 15% of any tax raises the rest have to pay. Having been sacrificed once for the common good, society now agrees that it is unfair to hit the unemployed again - HAH fat (not cat) chance.
Cautious good cheer 3:41pm on 12 Nov 2009 #44

Get down the job centre and sign on.
You are aiding and abetting a state sponsored fraud by not registering your status, plus you should have been eligible for £60/wk Jobseekers allowance for the first six months unless of course you are subject to state sponsored ageism ie close to retirement age, when of course you are entitled to zilch. Oh and if you are not retired and 29 years employment makes it sound that way, they will pay your NI stamp, which might be useful when they are forced to increase the number of contributions needed for full state pension after listening to all the demands to cut government costs on this blog. Plus you can get some monies towards retraining, though if you've a highly technical skill they don't really have enough to pay for that sort of training.... so you'll have to fund most of that - oh and make sure you do that before six months u/e is up, cos if you don't retrain before then you lose it (another of their caring policies).

But then the whole government ethos on u/e is that it is YOU that are at fault for not getting another job, or that you are a scrounger, living it up on their generous benefits. They conveniently forget that this is a national cock-up of their (and their future employers/ex comrades) making, and that 99% of those unemployed as a result of it would love to get back to work in something like the job they had before even at reduced pay, and even though the job was pretty naff.

Lots of the supplicants at the fount of unemployment largess have been on short time for up to a year before losing their jobs. Others went in to the temp market two or three weeks after losing their permanent job, and found they were only being offered 1 or 2 days a week, but they were 'employed', ie hidden from the offical stats, but earning less than if they had sensibly stayed unemployed, and of course they can't get full benefits anymore if they leave voluntarily.

You'll hear some great stories of how 'Fred' was one of 300 applicants for a job, and they interviewed him for a total of 3 minutes, got his name wrong, and thought his 20 years relevant experience and regular skills updates was immaterial relative to his ability to lick boots, and then how they never even bothered to tell him he hadn't got the job.

So basically I think Steph has got it wrong. We are in the trough of a many 'false peak' W, and unemployment will rise rapidly as employers who have been trying to keep going finally collapse, and the millions of teenagers forced into inappropriate post GSCE courses hit the job market over the next 6 months (which of course will be strung out to September or even longer if they can find some way to hide the reality
The Treasury hedge fund 09:45am on 04 Nov 2009 Maybe in FS the recession is over - over 55% of jobs posted in IT are for FS posts (FS is a 25% contributor to the ecomomy), and this is a good indication of the imbalance in the 'recovery'. Jobs funded by public money. If you've manufacturing skills in IT then forget it - less than 3%. Retail slumbers, construction is comatose. Even government IT jobs are drying up as budgets tighten. So jobs advertised considerably imbalanced with respect to the sector's contribution to the economy, suggesting a strong unidirectional bias, and something to be greatly concerned about.

When a guy goes for an HGV job needing international experience and he is one of 350 fully qualified applicants then we know that the recovery is still limited to the few.

It is the lack of basic jobs which is crippling society and whilst all the effort has been poured into preventing (short-term?) the collapse of the financial system, those at the sharp end, dependent on wide-scale economic recovery, continue to be ignored by government who continue to offer farcical employment incentives to employers without the underlying cash flow to support extra employment. What's more those unemployed people are growing more desparate as personal and public funds run out.

For the vast majority it has been life-as-usual but with some belt tightening and being fleeced if you want to borrow money, but getting nice little incentives in VAT cuts and cheap cars. For those unemployed by the gross incompetence of the state and its significant tax patron Financial Services it has been a nasty period of being sacrificed and ignored for the common good

Recovery? - not round here.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

p45builder