Are we going to have an Election discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by reductionist:
Well back it up then ... we are all waiting

I work closely with a lot of public sector bodies and while they do have a considerable number of quality staff there are still a lot of people (at all levels within the organisations) that are no more and no less than a waste of space. While the positions themselves don't usually appear over-paid, or even competitive v the commercial sector (unless you're lucky enough to get yourselves appointed to a quango) for what they're supposed to be fore, my impressions of many of the people filling those positions is that they're overpaid for what they actually deliver.

quote:

So can you please simply provide the evidence of this job pool and back up your assertion?

You seem to be suggesting that black is white. The increase in public sector employment under this government isn't exactly secret, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=407 for example.

And towards the bottom of http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285 is,

quote:

The monetary difference between the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (£453 per week in April 2004) and the private sector (£408 per week) has widened over the year to April 2004; in 2003 the figures were £431 and £393 respectively.

Anyway, perhaps you could show I'm wrong? You've offered nothing other than the existence of two highly paid civil service friends.

Paul

You appear to be simply incapable of substantiating your assertion that there are sinecures that are so well paid and exist on such a scale that we simply cannot lift the tax burden from the poor. If this is so then have the testicular fortitude to bloody well admit it.

Earlier you claimed "In 'bigmick's world clearly the direct and indirect public sector hasn't expanded over the last 8 years". I asked how you came to this conclusion about my views and have yet to receive a cogent response. If your original assertion was simply about the increase in public sector then your link would be relevant, but it wasn't. It appears that it was nothing more than the typical tabloid twaddle about public sector larging it at the taxpayer's expense and depriving the poorly paid of tax breaks.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Anyway, perhaps you could show I'm wrong? You've offered nothing other than the existence of two highly paid civil service friends.
Paul

Show you that you’re wrong? LOL Whilst this might be the popular last line of defence for the conspiracy theorist and UFO nut, I think you’ll find that in the real world it’s incumbent on the person who makes the assertion to provide proof. My friends have been candid with respect to their own pay scales and those in their respective departments and whilst it’s clearly not a large or scientific sample it’s still real, valid and first hand evidence that doesn’t fit with your assertion, unsupported thus far, by any evidence. I think if we can understand the process by which you see

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
decidely below average salaries.

and yet understand that to mean

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
highly paid
Paul

we can get some idea of why you made your initial assertion, yet are unable to offer evidence. TBH as far as I'm concerned the point has been made and I’m bored to death with trying to squeeze blood on this one.

Steve I agree almost entirely with what you say but in fairness and with regret I would add that IME this phenomenon is still a feature of both private and public enterprise but with some alarming salary differentials.

You'd two'd be great in a pub at closing time, probably even more effective thatn Fritz's famous "Shut Up Song", where they get me a beer, so long as I shut up.


Fritz Von Another cue for Our Mick methinks

So, we still don't know how many people were elligible to vote, and how many did do we, just rag %'s as per usual, give em a fish & they'll be happy:

quote:

You appear to be simply incapable of substantiating your assertion that there are sinecures that are so well paid and exist on such a scale that we simply cannot lift the tax burden from the poor.

It's quite clear. The public sector is expanding faster than the private, the public sector is on average more highly paid than the private, the private totally funds the public. The poor pay tax, most people are on less than average incomes and collectively pay most tax. Minor tax changes to the higher paid make little overall difference and major ones are counter-productive.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist. How does the existence of your friends counter this? You seem to be asserting that they are on 'below average salaries' yet claim that they are lawyers. Pull the other one.

Paul

Good Lord I'm sorry, all along I thought you were feigning obtuseness. If I'd realised earlier that you actually understood neither my question nor the issue then I would have got on with something more productive. Which I shall now do.

Grow Up, and buy a pint John