Civil servants vote for strike ballot over cuts

[beorhthelm]

The private sector doesn't 'generate wealth for the country'.

i'm intrigued, how then is wealth created in this or any other economy? given that all public spending comes from taxation (or borrowing on future tax reciepts), im very keen to understand the as yet undocumented model you have of wealth creation?

 

[Miocene]

I'm gonna have to bite on this one i'm afraid....

I have been a civil servant for 10 years, i get paid £15k a year (10k a year less than the national average for my age and type of work i do) I work 8am to 5.30 pm, I PAY FOR MY PENSION that is being slowly eaten away by the various governements, so much so, by the time i retire, if they dont keep changing the age, i wont have much from them.

Since 2002 i have not had a secure job, my department alone is to loose 40% of the workforce in the next 4 years, so im a bit worried about that. We have had a pay freeze for the past 3 years, get no performance related pay or bonus' of any kind.

I dont moan about it, i count myself lucky i still have a job at the moment and pray i will this time next year. I know we all have to pitch in with the bailing the country out and i dont agree with the PCS union at all. But i do get annoyed about what people think of my job and what they call us, JUST BECAUSE I AM A CIVIL SERVANT. Please remember, the civil service runs whatever daft ideas the government of the day chooses, they dont choose them themselves.

We dont get 5 days sick allowance, we get ZERO! If i am sick, i am asked why, if they think i am taking the piss, i get the sack....that is the fair thing to do. We arent in the 80's anymore! In fact, someone i know was sacked while she was recovering from cancer because she had taken too much time off sick because of it. I challenge anyone to tell me they would not be up in arms on here if the same happened to them or their wife!

And before anyone says, i am on holiday this week and not in the office wasting tax payers money writing this. rant over, now back to Albion chat

 

[Simster]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all public sector workers have these pension schemes and absurdly cosy contracts, Miocene. But I think what you do say illustrates the fact that nobody on here really has a clue what savings could be made by reigning in public sector pensions, because we don't know how many are affected by it.

 

[Miocene]

very good point slimster! def a tough one to sort out

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Wealth creation in the private sector comes from the value of a company, the value of it's stock equity, and the dividend payable on the ownership of shares to shareholders. It is not the same as taxing a company on it's profits.

Taxation is applied universally, and is not a perogative of the private sector. If there was NO taxation ( like Monaco ), the private sector would still generate wealth for itself. Even with taxation, the private sector generates wealth, for itself.

There is no such thing as wealth being generated 'for the country', wealth is generated by Private Individuals, FOR Private Individuals.

That is how Capitalism as an economic entity is defined.

Wealth being generated 'for the country' is an oxymoron. Capitalism cannot generate 'wealth for the country'. By definition, capitalism generates wealth for those with capital.

 

[sten_super]

Wealth creation in the private sector comes from the value of a company, the value of it's stock equity, and the dividend payable on the ownership of shares to shareholders. It is not the same as taxing a company on it's profits.

Taxation is applied universally, and is not a perogative of the private sector. If there was NO taxation ( like Monaco ), the private sector would still generate wealth for itself. Even with taxation, the private sector generates wealth, for itself.

There is no such thing as wealth being generated 'for the country', wealth is generated by Private Individuals, FOR Private Individuals.

That is how Capitalism as an economic entity is defined.

Wealth being generated 'for the country' is an oxymoron. Capitalism cannot generate 'wealth for the country'. By definition, capitalism generates wealth for those with capital.

I take your point, but I think your definition of wealth creation is a bit narrow. Ultimately in the private sector, a worker creates value for his firm (in that he/she takes an input and does something to it to allow the firm to sell it at a higher price), and is rewarded for that with a commensurate wage. Ultimately, yes, that person is working for their own self interests, but they are not the only person that benefits; the owners of the firm benefit, assuming that the workers wage is less than his total value added, and ultimately 'the country' does benefit, albeit indirectly, through taxing the individual. If total wages rise, taxation revenues rise; therefore (assuming this rise is greater than the level of inflation) revenue is being generated for the government.

In the public sector, it is much more difficult to measure this value added by an individual worker (partly because a lot of the benefits are indirect, partly because the benefits are generally measured in a qualitative rather than quantitative fashion). However it does not mean that benefits are not being accrued from the work being done by the individual.

 

[beorhthelm]

Wealth creation in the private sector comes from the value of a company, the value of it's stock equity, and the dividend payable on the ownership of shares to shareholders. It is not the same as taxing a company on it's profits.
...
There is no such thing as wealth being generated 'for the country', wealth is generated by Private Individuals, FOR Private Individuals.

wow, thats a tad misguided. i will paint a picture: if there were no private sector at all, where would the money come from for the public spending?

 

[Curryisgreat]

I'm gonna have to bite on this one i'm afraid....

I have been a civil servant for 10 years, i get paid £15k a year (10k a year less than the national average for my age and type of work i do) I work 8am to 5.30 pm, I PAY FOR MY PENSION that is being slowly eaten away by the various governements, so much so, by the time i retire, if they dont keep changing the age, i wont have much from them.

Since 2002 i have not had a secure job, my department alone is to loose 40% of the workforce in the next 4 years, so im a bit worried about that. We have had a pay freeze for the past 3 years, get no performance related pay or bonus' of any kind.

I dont moan about it, i count myself lucky i still have a job at the moment and pray i will this time next year. I know we all have to pitch in with the bailing the country out and i dont agree with the PCS union at all. But i do get annoyed about what people think of my job and what they call us, JUST BECAUSE I AM A CIVIL SERVANT. Please remember, the civil service runs whatever daft ideas the government of the day chooses, they dont choose them themselves.

We dont get 5 days sick allowance, we get ZERO! If i am sick, i am asked why, if they think i am taking the piss, i get the sack....that is the fair thing to do. We arent in the 80's anymore! In fact, someone i know was sacked while she was recovering from cancer because she had taken too much time off sick because of it. I challenge anyone to tell me they would not be up in arms on here if the same happened to them or their wife!

And before anyone says, i am on holiday this week and not in the office wasting tax payers money writing this. rant over, now back to Albion chat

If you have been prepared to work for 10 grand less than you could get in private industry for the past 10 years for doing the same thing surely that suggests you must have an easy life to have not moved over to the private sector at some point during the past decade?

You may part pay towards your pension, but the ordinary taxpayer contributes a hell of a lot more!

 

[drew]

But that makes the assumption they never get another job. The belief is likely that they will get a job in the private sector and therefore receive neither wages nor benefits from the public purse.

Even if they don't get a job immediately, while you're paying about the same out of the public purse, it is hopefully temporary because they are looking for a new job, whereas if they stay in employment, there is no end in sight, the employee has a job, so isn't looking for a new one so will be an indefinite burden on the public purse.

We are still waiting for the massive increase in private sector jobs to replace those thrown away in the public sector

Still a lot cheaper than paying them a wage isn't it ? did you really need an answer to that ? Pretty obvious is it not ? Hate to tell you a Civil Servant who loses their job is unemployed and is entitled to exactly the same as any other unemployed individual. However a Civil Servant who earns a wage for a job that is superfluous costs a lot more.

. Once again someone is trying to suggest that there are swathes of superfluous jobs in the public sector that aren't needed.

That belief would only make any sense if the number of jobs in the private sector increased at the same rate as public sector workers were made redundant. Even then it still doesn't make sense, new jobs aren't going to be created BECAUSE of these reduncancies, meaning that even if they DO get a private sector job, it means someone else didn't get it. Either way, it's an extra person on the dole than otherwise.

As I said above, the private sector is not yet picking up any of the slack created by public sector redundancies. However, not sure I understand your comment about the public sector employee getting a private sector job and therefore someone else missing out! If you make 100,000 public sector posts redundant and the private sector creates and additional 100,000 jobs which are taken up by those redundant, the overall employment figures and unemployment figures will remain unaltered except the public purse will be saving100,000 salaries. The problem is these new jobs are not being created.

The private sector doesn't 'generate wealth for the country'.

They generate wealth for themselves alone, everyone else can take a running jump. That's why companies like Vodafone spend a fortune putting money overseas to avoid paying the taxes that fund the infrastructure that allow them to operate in this country.

If the private sector really wanted to 'generate wealth for the country' they would pay the taxes that they are supposed to, and give their employees a better remuneration package, especially when it comes to pensions.

The fact that they'd rather abolish their pension provider ( ie. their pension schemes ) but protect their investors and shareholders speaks volumes for the way the private sector likes to keep it's wealth private.

People like Lokki 7 would like this country to be run like Monaco, where the public sector simply doesn't exist. Well just look how expensive it is to live there..........

Mind you abolishing the NHS would save a lot of money, but no-one would be able to afford a system based on private provision - just look at healthcare ( or I should say LACK of healthcare ) provision in the USA, and ask yourself, would I really be better off if all the hospitals closed forever tomorrow?

Abolishing the Armed Services would also save a fortune, but would leave us open to attack from just about anybody ( and the only solution would be one where everyone has to buy their own gun and ammunition to defend their property ).

Why aren't the Libdems pressing for the abolition of Trident as they PROMISED before the election? Because now they're in Cabinet they should be if they're really serious about saving money. We already know that the cost of getting involved in Libya is now over £ 100 M. That's £ 100 M which could have been saved by NOT getting involved. Not only is that £ 100 M of aircraft fuel, and missiles that has been squandered, but for our armed forces to work effectively, they will have to spend another £ 100 M to replace those consumables - no point having a gun if you haven't got the bullets to shoot from it. And if you've no intention of ever using a weapon, then there really isn't any benefit to having it, it's just a heap of junk that will eventually be worth nothing when it eventually becomes obsolete or unusable.

Not quite sure what planet you are from! A bi-product of the wealth created by companies is taxation. If they make a profit, they pay taxes. They pay salaries that enable employees to pay tax. You quote Vodaphone but they do pay taxes in this country. However, they have utilised tax avoidance to minimise their liability. I don't agree with it and by all accounts it was the lawyers for HMRC that let them get away with it. You cannot deny the fact that all taxation in this country is possible because of the wealth created by the private sector. Even as a socialist, I accept that!!!!

Wealth creation in the private sector comes from the value of a company, the value of it's stock equity, and the dividend payable on the ownership of shares to shareholders. It is not the same as taxing a company on it's profits.

Taxation is applied universally, and is not a perogative of the private sector. If there was NO taxation ( like Monaco ), the private sector would still generate wealth for itself. Even with taxation, the private sector generates wealth, for itself.

There is no such thing as wealth being generated 'for the country', wealth is generated by Private Individuals, FOR Private Individuals.

That is how Capitalism as an economic entity is defined.

Wealth being generated 'for the country' is an oxymoron. Capitalism cannot generate 'wealth for the country'. By definition, capitalism generates wealth for those with capital.

Come in planet Zog!!!!


Going back to the main problem which I think is mismanagement of the public sector. There are great Tory headlines about cutting costs and putting a few pence back in the pockets of Joe Bloggs but in many cases there is a cost. Take HMRC, they have had massive efficiency drive under labour and now face the prospect of having to make more savings yet the uncollected tax bill over the last 5 years is £42b considerably more than the savings being made.

 

[Simster]

wow, thats a tad misguided. i will paint a picture: if there were no private sector at all, where would the money come from for the public spending?

Communist USSR had no private sector, yet happily traded with western capitalist nations.

 

[bhaexpress]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all public sector workers have these pension schemes and absurdly cosy contracts, Miocene. But I think what you do say illustrates the fact that nobody on here really has a clue what savings could be made by reigning in public sector pensions, because we don't know how many are affected by it.

Good point well made

 

[beorhthelm]

Communist USSR had no private sector,

that turned out well didnt it. i know, you dont have to have explicitly private sector, but you need to have non-public sector - agriculture, industry, services, commerce. Communism just means the state owns the means of production, rather than private individuals/companies, but there is still production. public sector (a moving target, i know) does not produce anything.

(this would be why wholesale privatisation of education and NHS wouldnt work, it must still be state funded to be universal, so whats the point of paying someone a profit margin. improve the management, implementation and methods)

 

[Simster]

that turned out well didnt it. i know, you dont have to have explicitly private sector, but you need to have non-public sector - agriculture, industry, services, commerce. Communism just means the state owns the means of production, rather than private individuals/companies, but there is still production. public sector does not produce anything.

Whether or not it "turned out well" is irrelevant as you could say the same thing about several capitalist countries and it is not easily measured. The fact is that there was no private sector in the USSR which blows a hole in what you said, which was this:

i will paint a picture: if there were no private sector at all, where would the money come from for the public spending?

I feel you are defining the public sector to suit your own choice of politics. I think you'll find the public sector DOES produce things. For example, a national road infrastructure. You could argue that the BBC is part of the public sector (the license is essentially a tax on all those with a TV), and that makes millions by selling stuff it produces abroad.

But I don't mean to have a pointless spat really, it's just that I don't agree that the public sector generates ZERO wealth.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

My Mum works for the civil service, and she told me that the current government have (illegally) been trying to change the contracts of current workers, and I get the impression the unions/workers are pretty pissed off about that. No private business would ever be able to do that.

Not if they were doing it illegally, they couldn't, as they would risk being taken to court. Which, from my understanding, is what the unions are planning on doing.

Care to explain how you think this is "illegal" ?

 

[drew]

Care to explain how you think this is "illegal" ?

Because you cannot arbitrarily change the terms of someones contract. If you do, they can either accept it or leave and take you to court for constructive dismissal.

 

[beorhthelm]

I feel you are defining the public sector to suit your own choice of politics. I think you'll find the public sector DOES produce things. For example, a national road infrastructure. You could argue that the BBC is part of the public sector (the license is essentially a tax on all those with a TV), and that makes millions by selling stuff it produces abroad.

But I don't mean to have a pointless spat really, it's just that I don't agree that the public sector generates ZERO wealth.

point taken, it rather depends on what is part of the state and must be so, and i dont hold that the public sector has no input on wealth. the key objection to mr Fighter Command is the suggestion that wealth is created purely by the private sector for (apparently literally) private individuals, which is ludicrous.

 

[sten_super]

I feel you are defining the public sector to suit your own choice of politics. I think you'll find the public sector DOES produce things. For example, a national road infrastructure. You could argue that the BBC is part of the public sector (the license is essentially a tax on all those with a TV), and that makes millions by selling stuff it produces abroad.

But I don't mean to have a pointless spat really, it's just that I don't agree that the public sector generates ZERO wealth.

To be fair I think a lot of people fall into that trap. The major issue with the public sector is a lot of its benefits are difficult to measure; taking one example, bin collection is part of the public sector, and it saves me the job of taking my bins to the tip every week. The 'value' to me is entirely dependent upon how much value I place on that hour of my time that I would otherwise have to spend going to the tip. How on earth do you measure the effect of that across the entire population? This makes it very difficult to compare the cost of employing a binman versus the benefits.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

The only ' wealth of the country ' lies in the value of Crown assets, which are owned ' by the Crown '.

This is not the same as the personal wealth of the Monarch.

In much the same way, the value of the public sector cannot be couched in financial terms. It's ' abilty to generate wealth ' only lies in the value of it's assets, be they police cars, dialysis machines, office furniture, streetlights or Trident missiles. These are all purchased from the Private Sector.

So cutting public expenditure will directly lead to reduced sales and turnover for Private Companies.

The salary paid to a public sector worker is subject to tax alongside everyone else, so in no way are they advantageously treated over private sector employees. They pay their fare share of the cost of the public sector. So if they are taxed, they are entitled to be represented. And if they choose to pay a subscription to a trade body, they are entitled to be represented en-masse by that trade body.

It is in the interests of the Private Sector company owner for his wage bill to be minimized. Therefore the tax he pays ( and NI contributions etc ) are minimised. BUT and it is a very BIG but, the costs of providing a public sector don't alter just because the Private Sector business owner wants to pay peanuts and employ monkeys. The costs of the public sector are fixed by the market value of purchasing it's assets, and the amount of money it can pay to operate said assets.

The Unions are striking because they are protecting those costs - effectively they are saying that if you cut the costs, we will not accept a pay cut, so you will have to cut the assets you purchase, or liquidate some you already own. So the choice becomes something along the lines of Prisons or Prison Officers, Soldiers or Guns, Teachers or Schools ?

It is for PRIVATE sector employees to argue their worth with their employer. It is the job of the Citizen at large ( even if they are say 15 years old and have never had any kind of employment and never paid any tax ) to determine the worth of a public sector worker. In the case of their Teacher they may well consider that they are worth every penny. And regardless of what they do it is the business of the PUBLIC sector employee to argue their worth with the executive who employs them - if that means they strike then that reflects the entrenched position on either side of the arguement, NOT whether they ' generate wealth for the country '.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

wow, thats a tad misguided. i will paint a picture: if there were no private sector at all, where would the money come from for the public spending?

If there were NO Private sector then we would be living under Communism. The Public Sector could also NOT exist either because the deliniation would not be present in the economic structure of the nation.

Everyone would be employed by the state, and therefore you would ALL have to be ( for want of a better term ) Public sector workers, although I think Proletariat would be a better term to use.

This is pretty much how Russia, Eastern Europe and China survived for decades, and how Cuba exists now.

There was precious little wealth generated under such circumstances.

 

[fork me]

Except that some jobs are created by redundancies. Economic recoveries are often times of high levels of innovation and entrepreneurship, exactly because people are encouraged to 'take risks' because they don't have a job to fall back on. It's not a particularly great way to encourage entrepreneurship, but it does work.

...and for every successful entrepreneur there are a dozen failed ones. Ecomonic recovery isn't that simple. Especially, as we're told most people are worse off. When people are worse off they spend less money. That's not good for people trying to start up businesses.

Major chains are still going to the wall, Mothercare, as an example, are closing over 100 shops.

Incidentally, I heard an interesting theory the other day that the reason that the recovery in the US and UK has been largely 'jobless' is because the firms that are doing well are those in the service sector, particularly IT, which have a very high level of productivity per employee and in actual fact employ a fairly small number of people (relatively to the value added that they create). In that case, we may find that entrepreneurship and innovation actually increase the income disparities, because all they are doing is creating a small number of high earners, rather than a large number of people being employed by a successful entrepreneur.

This is a problem that will only get worse. An online retail outlet needs a lot less staff compared to sales than an actual shop. More and more of industry is being automated. We are already coming to a point where there are a lot more people than there are jobs to be done. Eventually, capitalism is going to have to be completely rethought.