Mr Cameron's argument

[Mikinton]

Nice one, Phildo. - I couldn't have put it better myself.

Me and t'missus used to joke about all the flyers we had from banks offering us a loan - we used to think there was something up with us never applying for one. It's a shame others didn't think the same way.

 

[andy w]

Now that Fred Goodwin has had his knighthood taken off him, it will be his turn on the ducking stool again. Not that he doesn't deserve it but you do have to smile at the predictable media/moral outrage. I remember 3 years back when someone burnt a swastika into Goodwin's front lawn Rod Liddle said in the sunday times that he was quickly running out of paraquat with so many bankers and mp's gardens to desicrate.
The root of the problems today can be charted back to the 1980s with deregulation, privatisation, stock market boom etc. All this created the biggest financial industry in Europe and governments of all colours have been in awe of this golden cow.
Cameron and Osbourne are percieved to be too close to the city and their ideolagy is against intervention and they are floundering on a stance to take on what action can be taken against boardroom excess.
That said the previous Labour government were more than happy to cozy up the high flyers and indeed how much of the extra public borrowing was based on continued boom of the financial sector

 

[Jenksie]

If your salary was cut - not new starters but yours, would you accept the argument that you advance?

"We are only cutting your future salary - not your present one" is what the Govt are saying. "We are not asking for a piece of the salary you have thus far received - just some of your entire future salary"

We were talking pensions, not pay. They are not cutting pay, they are amending the terms of the pension scheme in the future for all current and future members.

The Public Sector employees pay VAT - you might be surprised to learn this. And income TAX and Fuel duty.

No, I am fully aware that public sector employees pay tax. I am not quite so aware what relevance this has?

Keeping costs down by not recruiting will inevitibly mean a poorer service.

If a poorer service is all the Country can afford then it will just have to do. This obsession with protecting services is another media fave, why not have a balanced and truthful view of the situation that explains that we have overspent both as a Nation and as individuals over a 10-15 year period and that we need to take a look at where we spend money and make difficult choices.
The media is so two faced as it will happily have programmes that try to help individuals spend wisely and to offer advice on budgeting but when the Govt trys to do the same it is shouted down!

I don't buy the 'living longer' argument either. This will come back and bite when 72 year old employees have to attend medical appointments or care for elderly relatives - they will be castigated, discriminated against or just moaned at.
Plus it doesn't free up the jobs for youngsters.

Agree with you on this, I think the retirement age should have been left alone in most cases but that would have meant an even bigger increase in contributions and that wouldn't have gone down well!

Pay and pensions are directly linked. It gets delivered into the Bank at the same time. It forms part of ones monthly pay statement. Increased Pension contribution? Increased NI? = less pay. Mine will be £60 quid short later this year every month. It's a pay cut. Some will pay much more.
My point about the VAT was that it has increased - dramatically - we all pay it. This will be an example of us "making up the shortfall in general taxation"
Why should we have to tolerate poor service AND make up the shortfall. And bail out the Banks?

"Amending the Terms"? You could be a Politician.

 

[phildo]

"Amending the Terms"? You could be a Politician.

LOL....absolutely no way on earth would I do that job. That's my main problem with all of this, the country is run by people who are bothered about appealing to the voters and getting re-elected. During these tough times they need to speak plainly and truthfully and that goes for both sides of the Commons.

 

[phildo]

Pay and pensions are directly linked. It gets delivered into the Bank at the same time. It forms part of ones monthly pay statement. Increased Pension contribution? Increased NI? = less pay. Mine will be £60 quid short later this year every month. It's a pay cut. Some will pay much more.
My point about the VAT was that it has increased - dramatically - we all pay it. This will be an example of us "making up the shortfall in general taxation"

Ok, i accept that the NI increases and pension changes will reduce net pay but that's not actually a pay cut, it's a reduction in disposable income. The VAT increase has the same impact. But it isn't just the public sector that is having to face this. I haven't seen a pay increase for 4 years, I pay more VAT, I pay more NI and I pay more income tax. The difference is that I will only get out of my pension the net result of what I have paid in over the years plus (hopefully) investment gains whereas the public sector currently have a defined benefit that is in excess of the market value of their contributions.

Why should we have to tolerate poor service AND make up the shortfall. And bail out the Banks?

Because we all benefitted when all of the money was spent, there is none left in the pot and it needs paying back.

 

[Withnail]

In terms of the OP though, the question was asked as to the difference in stance of the Govt to the honouring of contracts to one such as Hester and the drones in public service - irrespective of whether the bonus was justified or not.

Phildo seems to be suggesting that the terms of public sector pensions have not been retrospectively changed, so there has been no breach of contract as there has was in the Hester bonus shenanigans. I don't know whether this is the case (coz i is a bit financially dim) - elucidate me if i have misinterpreted your point Phildo - but if so there would appear to be no inconsistency.

we used to think there was something up with us never applying for (a loan). It's a shame others didn't think the same way.

Not financially dim enough to take out a loan i couldn't afford - or indeed any loan - though.

 

[Withnail]

Why should we have to tolerate poor service AND make up the shortfall. And bail out the Banks?

Because we all benefitted when all of the money was spent, there is none left in the pot and it needs paying back.

That's the thing that pisses people off though, isn't it?

Who are the beneficiaries of 'all the money being spent'? Why is there none left in the pot?

The plot has been completely lost with executive pay

It's difficult to frame the argument in terms of public/media hysteria when in the same year that everyone talks about financial Armaggedon, executive pay in the FTSE 100 companies has increased 49%. Forty, Nine, Per, Cent. Put that in the pipe of your four year pay freeze and 40% colleague redundancy rate and say Hallelujah.

Ah yes, it needs paying back. Sadly, we have paid too much of it to those who have no moral rectitude, and no intention of paying any of it back.

The feckless rich.

 

[Gramaisc]

I didn't borrow anything that I couldn't pay back, and I currently owe nobody anything. What is my fault?

 

[henryscat]

I didn't borrow anything that I couldn't pay back, and I currently owe nobody anything. What is my fault?

Shops closing that would still be open if only you'd spent all that money you couldn't pay back....!!

 

[Gramaisc]

I didn't borrow anything that I couldn't pay back, and I currently owe nobody anything. What is my fault?

Shops closing that would still be open if only you'd spent all that money you couldn't pay back....!!

I apologise for plunging the world into recession.

 

[tek-monkey]

You better!

 

[phildo]

That's the thing that pisses people off though, isn't it?

Who are the beneficiaries of 'all the money being spent'? Why is there none left in the pot?

Since 1997 the UK govt ran a budget defecit - (it spent more than it took in in taxes) - So, either taxes were too low or spending too high or a mixture of both. Either way the population benefitted as they enjoyed low taxes and high public spending................

and now they must accept the higher taxes and lower public spending as the debt is repaid.

For a simple explanation have a look at this http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm

 

[Withnail]

For a simple explanation have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question.