View Full Version : to all the workers, a message from the bosses
ha ha ha...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46744840
i dont know why people moan about other people making huge amounts of money..
Biker Biggles
04-01-19, 03:55 PM
Nothing wrong with making huge amounts of money unless the person or people making it are also controlling it in the first place. Then it becomes corruption in moral if not legal terms.
if you take a job your there to work.. dont like the job then get another.. simples
if you take a job your there to work.. dont like the job then get another.. simples
Yeah that's what the bosses will tell you, and it's great provided it's a fair and level playing field.
It aint.
Yeah that's what the bosses will tell you, and it's great provided it's a fair and level playing field.
It aint.
i dont understand that. whats a fair and level playing field?
just because someone is making money from the work an employee is making makes it wrong?
someone had to take the risk at the beginning and its not the person who demands their wage at the end of every month.
you either work for someone or you work for yourself.. if you work for yourself then its ALWAYS a gamble if you put food on the table every night. an employee only worries about having to work to get paid by the person taking the risk. that employee agreed to take an hourly rate and do the work so why should a "boss" pay them more when they reap the rewards.
now what i do find wrong is people not paying their tax etc.etc but i can also see the other side of that in why should they give the Gov 40-50% when an employee only pays 20-25%, now thats unfair and unjust and not a level playing field.
SV650rules
04-01-19, 06:44 PM
If you run a business you only need to work half a day, you can do what you like with the other 12 hours...
Bezos had to borrow $8 million in 1995 to launch Amazon - that was a massive responsibility, could have ruined his life if it had failed.
Talking Heads
05-01-19, 12:22 AM
i dont know why people moan about other people making huge amounts of money..
Because every year more money in the economy gets hoovered up by the top elite there is less and less for the rest of us.
Its explained brilliantly by Robert Reich in his book "Saving Capitalism" which was made into a documentary film and is available on Netflix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukLTBlFQ_-E
Sir Trev
05-01-19, 09:32 AM
There is nothing wrong with being paid what you're worth and it's quite right that you get paid more for taking difficult decisions and leading the company. I've seen too many people over the years who do not realise how difficult senior jobs are - the hours and the stress are crippling. The best leaders are visible and spend a lot of time travelling to meet people in their operating divisions, keeping up with their teams and then schmooze with the press and The City/Wall Street to keep investors and shareholders happy. That is a HARD job.
However - I do think the differential, the pay gap, is getting too wide and exec pay has become a market-lead price as opposed to a competency-lead one, which is potentially very dangerous.
i dont understand that. whats a fair and level playing field?
The boss doesn't just earn more money than you. He also is in charge. He make the decisions. He even gets to decide on the company culture and influence what the workers think. Often he gets a platform on which to influence gov't and certainly has the money to influence whatever he wants in any way he wants, underhand or otherwise. Including how much he gets paid.
The pay gap is so large, he can work for one year and retire, if he so chose. He doesn't have to work at all after this. He won't be in the dole queue or struggling to feed his family in a sh*tehole flat somewhere.
Many of these directors haven't built their own companies with their own investments, and if they have it's not always with borrowed money, it's inheritance. They just went to the right schools and met the right people. You can't just become one through hard work, as much as they would like you to believe otherwise.
Now I know how capitalism works and why it is the way it is, and I've got no solutions. But if you think working for the man goes both ways, it rarely does. The lowest tier are the first to go and the least able to sustain themselves without work. They're a commodity, to the boss, not people. There is a known policy with staff salaries, based on a few equations. Pay enough to retain staff but ensure it's not enough to escape this hamster wheel. It makes perfect sense. Business only serves business. The worker is incidental.
And I'm in the same boat as all of you. Hope it doesn't sink.
And most MPs are exactly the same.
Well it's like a game of chess but you buy the pieces. And the board. And pay to get the rules changed if somehow you still can't win.
littleoldman2
05-01-19, 03:32 PM
The pay gap is so large, he can work for one year and retire, if he so chose. He doesn't have to work at all after this. He won't be in the dole queue or struggling to feed his family in a sh*tehole flat somewhere.
So far this thread is really all about relative richness. All these economic migrants are using their life savings and risking their lives for a chance to live in that "sh*tehole flat". Our poorest are much richer than the middle class only a few generations ago and compared to many in south & central america, Africa, Asia et al.
Just to put it into perspective a little. Over the last few years there has been a take over battle for control of Syria Ltd, a well known family run business in the middle east. The message from the boss there was delivered by fighter jet.
The problem we have is one of expectation and inequality.
Red ones
05-01-19, 03:46 PM
Perspective.
Consider the top 1% of earners or the global top 1% of people by net wealth.
What does your income or your net wealth have to be to qualify you for this sinking rich, uncaring, capitalist elite?
Our poorest are much richer than the middle class only a few generations ago...
Not sure people who can't afford to feed themselves have ever been considered middle class in any generation.
Perspective... just because things could be worse, doesn't mean they're great as they are. Or right. Or can't be improved. But yes, things could be a lot worse. No dispute there.
littleoldman2
05-01-19, 05:39 PM
Not sure people who can't afford to feed themselves have ever been considered middle class in any generation.
Do you know anyone who cannot afford to eat? I don't.
I have worked in some of the poorest areas of Newcastle and not met anyone who cannot afford to eat. I have met a fair few who have a TV in every room and hence high electric bills so struggle and also people who go to the food back one week then fly off to holiday the next (one of my daughters runs a clothing scheme for the poor { https://www.facebook.com/groups/CommunitySchoolClothingScheme/ } and recently gave a load of children's clothes and school uniforms to a family who then sold them on Facebook, almost broke her kind heart).
I do not see real malnutrition in the UK with severely thin people like we did in the 50's. I do see people who are malnourished and fat at the same time through poor diet.
Yet at the same time the streets of our poorest areas are littered with cars check out https://goo.gl/maps/SUtiKpZ6jwx. This is an area with the biggest problems and "poverty" in N upon T just move the little chap around and see that all the streets have cars.
On the subject of cars, we moved house in 1962 there was only one car on the street, a demonstrator driven by the garage salesman, nobody on the street owned a car, this is it now https://goo.gl/maps/bm1C7NdYEfE2
I think our biggest problem (well apart from China and the rest) is that automation promised us the opportunity to work 4 hours a week for the same productivity. Instead we have increased productivity (and moved it offshore) without reducing the working week, leading to less people in productive work. By productive I mean adding real value to something and selling it, preferably abroad, not teaching everyone how to write a better CV and similar.
Stuff
at one time there were the "have and have nots". now there are just the "must haves".
i'm with LOM in that when my family came back from Africa to Edinburgh there were maybe 3 cars in our street and that was in the middle of the city across from the Queens Hall.
people "must have" so they will sell their soul and work all the hours they can as they cant manage money so get themselves into debt. poor misguided idiots.
yes this is the "must have" generation.
now i'm all for equality but it goes both ways so why should a person earning billions have to pay higher tax than someone earning min wage. if your earning billions you are automatically paying millions in tax. most people on min wage dont pay much tax but expect a lot more and take a lot more. those with the real money pay their own way and get ridiculed for doing it.
littleoldman2
05-01-19, 06:12 PM
Just as an aside here. My daughter started the scheme because of the high cost of school uniforms. The cost is so high because the school give a monopoly or duopoly to a shop in return for a donation. The shops then charge what they like. Low income working families suffer. This is made much worse at our local high school who have a different coloured logo for each year so you cannot pass a school top down to a younger sibling or friends child.
At one local school if your child wears the wrong brand of trousers they are excluded, so perfectly good trousers from the supermarket are not allowed.
What really gets my goat is that the local council are very supportive of her in a non financial way whilst doing nothing about the schools that they fund. Boils my pee.
our local school would be empty if they done that...
dont they have a PA at the school?
littleoldman2
05-01-19, 07:28 PM
Yes and they seem happy with that.
Talking Heads
05-01-19, 10:34 PM
Do you know anyone who cannot afford to eat? I don't.
Just because you don't know them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
When the UN send a rapporteur to investigate extreme poverty things have to be pretty bad.
The findings of Mr Alston (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/Pages/PhilipAlston.aspx)'s visit are shocking.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23881&LangID=E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XeV_CTIh3c
littleoldman2
05-01-19, 10:55 PM
Just because you don't know them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
When the UN send a rapporteur to investigate extreme poverty things have to be pretty bad.
The findings of Mr Alston (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/Pages/PhilipAlston.aspx)'s visit are shocking.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23881&LangID=E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XeV_CTIh3c
so do you?
Talking Heads
06-01-19, 06:12 AM
I refer the little old gentleman to my previous reply.
"Just because you don't know them, doesn't mean they don't exist."
I see poverty daily, I'm a bus driver.
I see the people walking to and from the foodbanks too skint to take the bus.
littleoldman2
06-01-19, 11:01 AM
I see poverty daily, I'm a bus driver.
I see the people walking to and from the foodbanks too skint to take the bus.
This in some ways is my problem with the "too poor to eat". As I said previously I used to work on the streets in some poor areas and know a lot about them. I have seen many, many homeless and know 3 very well one of whom I consider a friend. I know criminals of all types and kinds but nobody who cannot afford to eat. I do know a lot who prefer to spend their money on other things. I'm PEG fed and get Forticip on a script. Doctors also prescribe it to junkies. A couple of weeks ago I got a phone call asking me how many would I like at 50p each as the kid had two carrier bags full.
littleoldman2
06-01-19, 11:06 AM
The richest 1% own 50% of the world's wealth, the problem I see is that much of their money is effectively out of circulation so there's a smaller pot for the rest of us.
You're right, I've just googled it. I thought it was a lot higher than that.
Red ones
06-01-19, 11:21 AM
The richest 1% own 50% of the world's wealth, the problem I see is that much of their money is effectively out of circulation so there's a smaller pot for the rest of us.
To go back to my question.
The top 1% of global earners are those with an income greater than £25,300 pa
The top 1% by net wealth are those with more than £600,000 ( this includes equity in property, pensions, vehicles, savings etc)
The average UK full-time employee is in the top 1% on the first measure.
The average UK person is globally very highly paid, although net wealth is low.
The bottom end of UK people are seriously not well off, and getting worse.
SV650rules
06-01-19, 11:59 AM
How rich you are depends on how much it costs to buy or rent a house and food in the country where you live ( cost of living), it is no good comparing the wages in India or Vietnam with wages in UK. If you divided up all the money in the world equally between the population you can bet that in 10 years ( or less) the same people would be rich and the same ones 'poor'. With our welfare system in the UK people have the choice whether to work or not ( and whole generations of families choose not to) this is not the case in many countries, also how many of the rough sleepers etc are actually UK citizens. The UK tax credit scheme for low earners has actually been subsidising low paying companies like Amazon etc by 'topping up' minimum wage earners pay at the expense of taxpayers. People have a choice what to spend their money on, some decide that doughnuts, cigarettes, booze and the latest mobile are important, other decide to buy housing and food. The lack of affordable council houses and the rise of the private landlord are responsible for a lot of the homelessness in UK
Many years ago Rockerfeller was stopped in a New York street by a homeless bum who berated him about his wealth and how he should share it out - Rockerfeller said, OK I agree, I am worth $250M, the population of USA is 250million, here is a dollar - go buy yourself a hamburger ....
littleoldman2
06-01-19, 12:33 PM
Homelessness in the UK is not always a money problem. The 3 lads I know all share the same problem of paranoia. This in simple terms leads them to fall out with everyone leaving them with no friends, family, job, home and no support of any kind.
Homelessness in the UK is not always a money problem. The 3 lads I know all share the same problem of paranoia. This in simple terms leads them to fall out with everyone leaving them with no friends, family, job, home and no support of any kind.
mental health issues are now the public's problem... the Gov took the care section away from the NHS and forced it on the local councils all to say that they gave more finding to the NHS. the local councils dont have to give support if they dont want to. as far as i know there are no NHS care homes... privatisation via back door.
Craig380
06-01-19, 03:07 PM
privatisation via back door.
And councils have had the most stringent budget cuts forced on them over the past decade. Both health and social care services are being starved of the funding they need in order to keep up with the growing pressures on them from an ageing population. This is being done as a matter of deliberate Government policy under the smokescreen of 'balancing the books'. And Brexit is going to make it worse; much worse.
littleoldman2
06-01-19, 03:09 PM
One lad "R" had a whole team of folk looking after him.
Caseworker, doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist, addiction services and the rest. But unfortunately of no use as he did not trust their motives so didn't take his med's as described or do anything else he was advised. Finally he was sectioned and for the last 6/7 years has been in residential care. He cost the NHS a fortune as every night for months he'd get off his face and sleep in a bus shelter, cause trouble and the police would dump him in A&E, get admitted, discharge himself in the morning and start again. The doctor ended up giving him a daily script (for the A-Z of psychotic compounds) as he'd loose whatever he got that day. The doctor gave up trying to tell him that one valium six times a day did not really mean take them all at once.
The last time I heard from R he finally fell out with me for colluding with his full time carer to send two fly's to his bungalow in the residential centre to spy on him. He's a intelligent man who knows about his illness but just cannot see through it. How you help these people without locking them up I have no idea.
littleoldman2
06-01-19, 03:17 PM
And councils have had the most stringent budget cuts forced on them over the past decade. Both health and social care services are being starved of the funding they need in order to keep up with the growing pressures on them from an ageing population. This is being done as a matter of deliberate Government policy under the smokescreen of 'balancing the books'. And Brexit is going to make it worse; much worse.
We have to have a balanced budget. All the political parties in the past have borrowed far to much. To have a balanced budget you have to cut services or increase tax. Politicians of all parties who talk about greater efficiency's are talking out their backsides.
Sir Trev
06-01-19, 04:34 PM
Taxes have to increase, it is inevitable as the cost of supplying services keeps going up. We do indeed need to balance our spending but at some point someone will have to bite the bullet and say enough is enough - we've cut things too far and we need more funding, so PAYE or NIC or other taxes will have to rise. Trouble is no politician of any party will want to go down in history as the one to do that so expect this to get a lot worse...
Red ones
06-01-19, 05:20 PM
What you could do is take profit from industry to help fund services. It's easy enough. Own water companies, electricity companies, train and bus operators, state telecom operators. Own the national air carrier. It would be like owning the family silver and not having to buy it in.
A bit leftie. A bit Corbyn. I know.
Who owns the companies that currently operate buses in this country? Other countries governments! trains? Water companies? You get the idea.
You'll soon be able to check the things faster when we get 5G. Run on equipment owned by another country.
littleoldman2
06-01-19, 05:53 PM
What you could do is take profit from industry to help fund services. It's easy enough. Own water companies, electricity companies, train and bus operators, state telecom operators. Own the national air carrier. It would be like owning the family silver and not having to buy it in.
A bit leftie. A bit Corbyn. I know.
Who owns the companies that currently operate buses in this country? Other countries governments! trains? Water companies? You get the idea.
You'll soon be able to check the things faster when we get 5G. Run on equipment owned by another country.
You could only do that with companies that cannot clear off, I should imagine any airline could be headquarter'ed and operated from any country in the world and still fly to and from the UK.
You could tax aviation fuel, which would also have environmental brownie points but no politician has the balls to be the first to tax holidays.
Look at non means tested benefits, like free prescriptions for the over 60's, no matter how wealthy you are or how high your income is over 60's get them free.
My particular gripe with benefits atm is bus passes. In Northumberland if you can walk more than 64 meters you are not entitled one, so if you have a bad leg (I've had both fibula's removed) but can walk the 150 meters to the bus stop you cannot have one, whilst if you cannot walk 64 meters but live 65 meters or more from the bus stop you cannot make use of it. Utter madness. However if you are deaf you can have one no matter how rich you are or how much you earn.
Sir Trev
07-01-19, 10:18 AM
Companies would alter their ownership structure and would still shunt their profits to the lowest taxation country. All of the large IT companies I have worked for do this - the UK operating (Ltd) company would be owned by, say, the Irish operating country who would "charge" the UK a % of their revenue. This meant the UK made a loss, paid little or no UK corporation tax, and all of the profits were then held in Ireland which at the time had a very low CT rate. This is what all large corporates do. A simple paper shuffling job and some formal board minutes is all it takes to "sell" the UK operating company to, say, Lichtenstein who will then be ones to hold all the profits. Small companies cannot do this and will be the ones that suffer if UK CT rates go up - they'll either go bust, reduce their workforce or just about scrape by. The Treasury may get a little more cash but it may deter entrepreneurs from setting up new companies and the economy may stagnate which defeats the object. It's a very difficult balancing act for successive governments who all try to encourage growth by lowering CT rates while trying to preserve incomes from it. Glad I don't have the headache of setting fiscal policies.
Red ones
07-01-19, 12:52 PM
Nationalise them.
Nationalise them.
I always thought your Nick related to paint colour... :rolleyes:
Nationalise them.
i agree.
privatisation was supposed to give us cheeper and better services via competition.. ermmm no it never could due to shareholders making profits. but the dumb greedy public thought they could make a quick buck..
biggest con the Gov has ever confused the public with.. you paid for your shares twice... :notworthy:
i agree.
privatisation was supposed to give us cheeper and better services via competition.. ermmm no it never could due to shareholders making profits. but the dumb greedy public thought they could make a quick buck..
biggest con the Gov has ever confused the public with.. you paid for your shares twice... :notworthy:
I also agree... in principle :!:
But for some reason nationalization never works either. Perhaps it's due to inefficiency because no-one gives a flying one anymore because there's no profit in it, or because the gov't is really rubbish at running things, or any combination of the above. Anyone got any insight here?
I also agree... in principle :!:
But for some reason nationalization never works either. Perhaps it's due to inefficiency because no-one gives a flying one anymore because there's no profit in it, or because the gov't is really rubbish at running things, or any combination of the above. Anyone got any insight here?
due to the public not being told the truth.
think of it this way.. lets say BT supply 20,000,000 UK households with a phone line and charge £10 a month on "line rental" thats £2,400,000,000 a year on line rental alone. even if the Gov end up making £2,000,000 a year profit then thats still better than nothing. all privatised companies are interested in is profit to keep their "share holders" happy, i'll rephrase that "executives" rich and happy.
the public are not told this when all the privatisation was going on. instead the Gov made a quick buck to keep the wolves from the door.
so what are they going to sell next so they can keep the payments going on the ever increasing national debt....... the public no longer have a grip on their politicians who will now do as they please.
due to the public not being told the truth.
think of it this way.. lets say BT supply 20,000,000 UK households with a phone line and charge £10 a month on "line rental" thats £2,400,000,000 a year on line rental alone. even if the Gov end up making £2,000,000 a year profit then thats still better than nothing. all privatised companies are interested in is profit to keep their "share holders" happy, i'll rephrase that "executives" rich and happy.
the public are not told this when all the privatisation was going on. instead the Gov made a quick buck to keep the wolves from the door.
so what are they going to sell next so they can keep the payments going on the ever increasing national debt....... the public no longer have a grip on their politicians who will now do as they please.
yeah that wasn't the intended question.
Why do public sector companies seem to fail?
yeah that wasn't the intended question.
Why do public sector companies seem to fail?
If you have ever worked in the public sector, as I have, you would know the answer to that question. It's the dead hand of bureaucracy and the influence of the public sector unions. I worked for over 20 companies before I retired and only one was in the public sector. The contrast between the efficiency of the private sector and the public is marked. Believe it or not, when I got a promotion in the public sector, it had to be approved by Unison before I got the job. And it was just a move from general clerical to claims handling, nothing exceptional.
The reason I worked for so many companies is that for 25 years I was a freelance IT professional.
Never had the "pleasure", although Miss Ophic worked in teaching for a long time.
I suspected it was along these lines. It doesn't sound like something that's intrinsic to any public sector company though - just the way they have ended up.
I mean, in theory, public and private sector follow the same rules, right? Employment law is the same for both.
not all of them fail and if they do its due to not putting the correct "management" in charge of them. some of them are there to "serve the public" and are as such non profit for which the public pay for out the coffers.
think of it this way for every company that is nationalised and makes profit is less the public has to pay for and as such receives lower living costs and better public services as they are cheeper. if not cheeper then even more of the profits go back into the coffers for public services or pays to "support/top up" the less profitable ones. privatisation the coffers go into "fat cats" pockets or with whats happening at the moment "foreign investors or Gov's" pockets.
privatisation was to be better and cheeper for the public... that was what Thatcher said but she also put 10p on a ltr of fuel and promised to remove road tax... yes i'm old and can remember.
I'm thinking difference of ethos.
For private companies, it's make profit or die.
For public companies, it's run the service. Oh it's not making a profit? Doesn't matter we can survive that way because we're backed by public coffers, and hence we can limp along really inefficiently until the gov't takes some action.
ermm before branson pickle was the east coast line not making profit as i seem to remember that someone else was running it then the Gov had to step in and then was one of the only rail lines actually making profit but the Gov in its wisdom sold it.... again
public transport should be one thing that should not be in private hands... its called PUBLIC transport for a reason.
littleoldman2
07-01-19, 06:01 PM
Companies would alter their ownership structure and would still shunt their profits to the lowest taxation country. All of the large IT companies I have worked for do this - the UK operating (Ltd) company would be owned by, say, the Irish operating country who would "charge" the UK a % of their revenue. This meant the UK made a loss, paid little or no UK corporation tax, and all of the profits were then held in Ireland which at the time had a very low CT rate. This is what all large corporates do. A simple paper shuffling job and some formal board minutes is all it takes to "sell" the UK operating company to, say, Lichtenstein who will then be ones to hold all the profits. Small companies cannot do this and will be the ones that suffer if UK CT rates go up - they'll either go bust, reduce their workforce or just about scrape by. The Treasury may get a little more cash but it may deter entrepreneurs from setting up new companies and the economy may stagnate which defeats the object. It's a very difficult balancing act for successive governments who all try to encourage growth by lowering CT rates while trying to preserve incomes from it. Glad I don't have the headache of setting fiscal policies.
Yep I used to work for a company that gave us a share of the UK profits as a bonus. Every thing we exported was sold to a Co in the Cayman Is who then sold it on. I'll leave you to estimate my bonus.
Councils get fat over time. The council I worked for was hit by government cuts 5 years ago. Hard decisions on staffing had to be made and as a result, 50 middle managers in the Social Services dept. alone were made redundant with no apparent reduction in services to the public. Job losses were spread across most departments with little noticeable effect.
In another example, around 35 years ago, Northamptonshire County Council shed a third of its middle managers and for a time was one of the best run councils in the country (a friend was one of the managers that remained employed). In 2018, that same council was essentially bankrupt due to bloated management and reckless spending.
Sir Trev
08-01-19, 01:54 PM
For private companies, it's make profit or die.
For public companies, it's run the service. Oh it's not making a profit? Doesn't matter we can survive that way because we're backed by public coffers, and hence we can limp along really inefficiently until the gov't takes some action.
This bears out my observations as well. Worked at one of our contracts where a lot of the people were ex civil servants who were on TUPE terms. As far as they were concerned they were still public employees as their rights to a guaranteed pay increase, their final salary pension, and all their other perks were "untouchable". You could tell which of the people around you were which as the rest of us were trying to make things work better and the former civil lot ignored us, refused to change anything, claiming it works fine as it is so why change. They insisted on just moving paper about between ten people when two and a new process could do it in half the time. The joke is there were so many thing they could pick up that were not being done at all so there was never any suggestion of redundancies - they simply did not care a jot. You never get that sort of complacency in the private sector, thankfully, as it would have driven me nuts years ago. In the past five years I have been contracting I have refused to work in the public sector for exactly this reason. I know this is not representative of all public workers but that lot put me right off!
If we re-nationalise some of the industries sold off you can bet your backside most of them will slide straight back to their old ways again.
Luckypants
08-01-19, 02:33 PM
I worked at National Power during the and after the privatisation process. The difference between the old CEGB staffers and new intake was chalk and cheese. Ever have someone get up in the middle of a meeting and say they are going home because it is 4 o'clock?:geek:
But I'm convinced it is due to management style and expectation setting, as those with a bit of nouse quickly adapted to the new hardware / software / regime and made a success of their careers. (Those that didn't were offered eye wateringly good redundancy packages until the die hard refusniks who thought they were untouchable were given compulsory redundancy on MUCH reduced terms.) New management gave the department focus and goals, which we achieved through hard work and the ones who went with the change enjoyed the new ethos tremendously. The old CEGB management were side-lined and moved on ASAP as part of privatisation.
Nationalised companies can work and do work in many countries. You need dynamic managers to lead these organisations so they compete with the private sector. Being good at what you do and efficient while doing it will make a nationalised enterprise unattractive to private investors as there is little to no fat to trim off for profit.
SV650rules
08-01-19, 03:09 PM
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3005730/Third-council-tax-spent-staff-pensions-warns-leading-council-finance-chief.html
Now you know why council tax keeps rising.... finally salary pension schemes were phased out by most private sector companies a long time ago...
littleoldman2
08-01-19, 06:25 PM
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3005730/Third-council-tax-spent-staff-pensions-warns-leading-council-finance-chief.html
Now you know why council tax keeps rising.... finally salary pension schemes were phased out by most private sector companies a long time ago...
I'm sure that's part of the reason, but the real reason is that there is no alternative to choose between. Monopolies always lead to high prices, public / private doesn't matter.
The National Audit Office found 38 per cent of all local NHS organisations are struggling to balance their books and raising serious concerns about value for money.
Meg Hillier, an MP for Hackney in London and the chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, said: 'It is deeply concerning that local auditors are raising increasing numbers of concerns about local bodies’ arrangements to secure value for money, but these are often not being listened to and there is no consequence for the local bodies themselves.
No consequences, so no attempt to balance the books. The government is expected to bail them every time.
Adam Ef
10-01-19, 12:58 PM
My friend who is an NHS nurse had his hours / days cut in an attempt by his department to save money, at least so it looked that way on paper to appease budget handling people. Only problem was they actually needed him for the same original hours (and more), so he now also picks up extra work to his reduced hours, back up to what he was doing before, via an agency at a higher rate of pay than before. So the department end up paying more for him, but on paper it they've lowered their permament staff wages to make the budget handling people happy.
keith_d
10-01-19, 01:48 PM
Ooh, we've found another one of those big questions...
In the UK there is effectively an unlimited demand for healthcare spending, and this is only going to get worse as the population ages. The NHS problems are exacerbated by a management structure which is mired in 1970's bureaucracy, ageing infrastructure and dispirited junior staff who have born the brunt of politically inspired cuts.
So called 'efficiency savings' really don't address any of these problems. They just add more bureaucracy without making long term improvements to health care delivery. Similarly, the gradual increases in real terms spending proposed by successive governments don't allow the NHS to implement a step change in performance. Demand is still outstripping spending.
I don't see any easy answers to this problem, but I'm fairly sure that using the NHS as a political football will ensure that any improvements which might be made are blocked by one political party or the other.
Just my thoughts,
Keith.
SV650rules
10-01-19, 03:10 PM
It suits the agenda of Labour controlled councils to blame service cuts on a conservative government, and local councils need to get smarter at sourcing services to get value for money. I see now that most of the fly tipping was caused by local councils handing over waste to dodgy contractors who took the money and promptly dumped it on old roads and railway tracks. Local councils obviously did not investigate the contractors very well, and it was far too easy to get a rubbish disposal permit, all that is being tightened up now ( horse and stable door). Wolverhampton was also guilty of making money from issuing taxi permits to every Tom, D1ch or Harriet ( updated to comply with gender equality legislation ) with very little checking and basically flooded all of the local Midlands area with wannabe taxi drivers.
As for the NHS, anything that is free at point of use for anyone from anywhere, whether they have contributed to it or not is on a hiding to nothing, and is basically a money pit. The original NHS was set up to treat basic stuff and basically to make sure people were fit to work, now it is expected to fix everything for everybody, no matter how badly they have treated / neglected their body... many people look after their car better than they look after themselves...
The last few years I have had cause to use the general hospital in my area due to cancer and other age related issues so have had a close look at how the various departments within the hospital are organised. What struck me, as someone who worked in the private sector for most of my career, is the level of waste at an administrative level. Every dept. and indeed sub dept. had at least two receptionists. In the cancer outpatients there were 4 receptionists, (which was justified as the desk was manned (personed?) for 14 hours each day and the throughput of patients was very high) but in general, the hospital was employing far too many admin people. In one case, the DVT dept, had one senior nurse for 2 receptionists. The nurse assessed me and then sent me to another dept where again there were 2 receptionists for an ultrasound examination of my leg. There were 3 medical staff attending me for the ultrasound, one to do it and 2 to watch him.
Seeker, I nentioned Northamptonshire CC in an earlier post. In their case, it was not only their not adhering to government cuts in their grants, but also bloated staffing and reckless spending on vanity projects.
SV650rules
10-01-19, 06:59 PM
The last few years I have had cause to use the general hospital in my area due to cancer and other age related issues so have had a close look at how the various departments within the hospital are organised. What struck me, as someone who worked in the private sector for most of my career, is the level of waste at an administrative level. Every dept. and indeed sub dept. had at least two receptionists. In the cancer outpatients there were 4 receptionists, (which was justified as the desk was manned (personed?) for 14 hours each day and the throughput of patients was very high) but in general, the hospital was employing far too many admin people. In one case, the DVT dept, had one senior nurse for 2 receptionists. The nurse assessed me and then sent me to another dept where again there were 2 receptionists for an ultrasound examination of my leg. There were 3 medical staff attending me for the ultrasound, one to do it and 2 to watch him.
The watchers could be medical students, and anyway staff are not allowed to be in a room on their own with a patient these days due to allegations of various kinds by money-grubbing no win no fee clients, so staff have to have witnesses on hand, and some patients can turn aggressive so a bit of self protection thrown in..
Medicine is a very Labour intensive business.
Talking Heads
10-01-19, 11:32 PM
NHS seems to be doing much better in Scotland.
Wonder why that would be...?
NHS seems to be doing much better in Scotland.
Wonder why that would be...?
Fewer expensive old people as they all die young from eating deep fried mars bars apparently...
keith_d
11-01-19, 09:20 AM
NHS seems to be doing much better in Scotland.
Wonder why that would be...?
Scotland spends about £2500 per head on the NHS, England spends £2200. (https://fullfact.org/health/what-is-the-nhs-budget/ )
They pay roughly the same taxes as the rest of the UK (distributed slightly differently), so presumably the rest of the UK is footing the bill for this.
Correction - according to the the Scottish Finance Secretary, most people pay less tax in Scotland than south of the border ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46522968 )
Talking Heads
11-01-19, 10:54 AM
presumably the rest of the UK is footing the bill for this.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!
Its the other way round.
We're paying for your failure.
If Scotland is a drain on the UK treasury why would Treeza say "now is not the time" ?
She would want rid and fast.
SV650rules
11-01-19, 11:02 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/12200495/IFS-Scotland-to-get-billions-of-English-income-tax.html
We subsidise Scotland through the Barnet formula, which is heavily (20% extra per person) weighted in favour of Scotland - it also insulates Scotland from falls in UK wide tax revenues as they continue to get pretty much the same even if England is suffering, Oh yes they have it both ways and mrs wee krankie ginger whinger shouty mouth continues to say England is the devil in a bid to bolster the falling SNP support ( it is the only weapon she has ) - If the rest of UK take defence bases and contracts out of Scotland = instant recession Ha Ha.. suck it up wee Krankie. Shetland has already said it will stay part of UK if anything happens, they know which side their bread is buttered ( or should that be 'which side their mars bar is battered' ).
Fewer expensive old people as they all die young from eating deep fried mars bars apparently...
you may have a valid point
Talking Heads
11-01-19, 01:54 PM
Keep taking the meds.
Keep taking the meds.
I'm actually gonna back him up here.
In all honesty the gov't spent a bunchload of money investigating the money transfers from the UK to Scotland during the independence bid. Their conclusion was... no-one really knows. It's impossible to unravel.
But in general, the lower the population density, the more each person costs. And if they're paying less tax as well...
It's not something I'd want to test. From either side.
So umm... I agree with T. May and SV650rules ? didn't see that one coming...
Talking Heads
11-01-19, 04:32 PM
So answer me this one question, if as is often claimed, Scotland is a drain on the westminster exchequer, why does westminster continue to oppose Scottish independence?
SV650rules
11-01-19, 04:50 PM
So answer me this one question, if as is often claimed, Scotland is a drain on the westminster exchequer, why does westminster continue to oppose Scottish independence?
We kinda like you guys, we have long history together..
Talking Heads
11-01-19, 04:59 PM
We kinda like you guys, we have long history together..
Josef Fritzl kinda liked his daughter.
littleoldman2
11-01-19, 05:00 PM
So answer me this one question, if as is often claimed, Scotland is a drain on the westminster exchequer, why does westminster continue to oppose Scottish independence?
British people like me, like the concept of the union.
The English on the other hand would be rid of the Scots at the drop of a hat.
If you want the result you desire from your ref 2 don't ask Scotland, ask the UK as a whole.
littleoldman2
11-01-19, 05:10 PM
The watchers could be medical students, and anyway staff are not allowed to be in a room on their own with a patient these days due to allegations of various kinds by money-grubbing no win no fee clients, so staff have to have witnesses on hand, and some patients can turn aggressive so a bit of self protection thrown in..
Medicine is a very Labour intensive business.
Over the last few years I've gained far to much experience of the NHS. My speech and swallowing therapists never ever are alone with me, even though in 8 years I have not given them ( they are all female) any cause for concern in any way. The scar clinic I attend on the other hand, I am always seen by a lone nurse, So far I must of met 12 different ones all female.
Talking Heads
11-01-19, 05:42 PM
The English on the other hand would be rid of the Scots at the drop of a hat.
If you want the result you desire from your ref 2 don't ask Scotland, ask the UK as a whole.
Would suit me just fine.
zsv650s
11-01-19, 05:47 PM
Yep that'd be the quickest clearest vote we ever had it'd have to be binding no running back if it fails.
SV650rules
11-01-19, 06:13 PM
Josef Fritzl kinda liked his daughter.
But we don't like the ungrateful sarcastic ones, nobody does...
littleoldman2
11-01-19, 06:14 PM
Yep that'd be the quickest clearest vote we ever had it'd have to be binding no running back if it fails.
I thought that about the recent referendum about the EU, however ALL the politicians of ALL parties are concentrating on their own particular agenda's in stead of the good of the people in the long term.
why is Scotland always brought up when people talk about the Barnett formula. its not just Scotland that gets it so does Wales and NI. with NI residents getting the biggest "top up"
you have to remember that the rest of the UK get block grants where they cant spend what they like but England can spend what it wants and get us all into debt while doing it. 1.8 trillion debt. so if the rest of the UK get block grants where was the deficit money spent?
its a well known fact that the money sent down south from Scotland is roughly the same as we get back give or take and as far as i know the figures dont include revenue raised by duty. you also have to remember that if Scotland raise revenue via their own raising powers then they get their block grant cut by the same amount. at the moment i think the block grant is 32 billion
its only England that gets to spend what it wants ALL the other members of the UK have to rely on handouts and make do, once the block grants are spent thats it the rest cant just go to the BOE and say give us more.
50 billion is Scotland's coffers for a year and they do what they do on that. its Westminster that cant balance their books.
Scotland has a huge problem right now with the homeless "middle England" moving across the border. only trouble is that Scotland dont get their budget raised as the people are classed as "no fixed abode". never mind the mass migration of English selling up and moving north of the border due to better health care, free prescriptions and tuition fees. but again they dont get their block grant raised to compensate.
we are not talking a few hundred people moving north each year we are talking 1000's.
now you might see why the rest of the UK get a bit pizzed off about English harking on about the Barnett formula.
if you dont like it then tell Westminster to get rid of the rest of us. trust me you would be doing Scotland a favour.
lets not even get started on what England's new train set is costing THE REST OF US.
keith_d
12-01-19, 10:09 AM
so if the rest of the UK get block grants where was the deficit money spent?
Where do you think the money in those block grants came from??
We've had decades of over spending by governments from all parties. But you don't get elected by promising £3.5 trillion cuts in public spending, or an extra thousand pounds a year of income tax. Those are the sort of measures which would be needed to balance the UK budget.
So unless we all want to pay our bills in full we're going to be stuck with the deficit for a very long time.
If Scotland were to become independent, IMO, the fairest way to distribute the national debt would be per-capita since everyone had the benefits. But I'm sure wee Krankie wouldn't be wanting any of it.
[Last year's budget deficit 3.51 trillion,
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/ruuw/pusf
UK tax payers around 30 million
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710884/Table_2.2.pdf
]
Where do you think the money in those block grants came from??
We've had decades of over spending by governments from all parties. But you don't get elected by promising £3.5 trillion cuts in public spending, or an extra thousand pounds a year of income tax. Those are the sort of measures which would be needed to balance the UK budget.
So unless we all want to pay our bills in full we're going to be stuck with the deficit for a very long time.
If Scotland were to become independent, IMO, the fairest way to distribute the national debt would be per-capita since everyone had the benefits. But I'm sure wee Krankie wouldn't be wanting any of it.
[Last year's budget deficit 3.51 trillion,
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/ruuw/pusf
UK tax payers around 30 million
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710884/Table_2.2.pdf
]
Scotland's block grant has nothing to do with the deficit. how can it when they only get what they get same goes for NI and Wales (i think). Scotland's population is growing but their block grants remain the same... is that really fair.
put it this way.. i'll take your house and give you a budget of £100 a week and tell you to pay your bills. 6 months later i'll move someone else into your house and tell you to feed them but you will still only get £100. in another 6 months i'll do the same.
Talking Heads
12-01-19, 04:33 PM
Where do you think the money in those block grants came from??
From Scotland.
Along with all the other money westminster thieves off us.
UK and Norway have produced roughly the same amount of oil, Norway has more money in its sovereign wealth fund than it can spend, westminster has trillions of debt.
But hey, cucumber sandwiches.
dizzyblonde
13-01-19, 12:17 AM
There is nothing wrong with being paid what you're worth and it's quite right that you get paid more for taking difficult decisions and leading the company. I've seen too many people over the years who do not realise how difficult senior jobs are - the hours and the stress are crippling. The best leaders are visible and spend a lot of time travelling to meet people in their operating divisions, keeping up with their teams and then schmooze with the press and The City/Wall Street to keep investors and shareholders happy. That is a HARD job.
However - I do think the differential, the pay gap, is getting too wide and exec pay has become a market-lead price as opposed to a competency-lead one, which is potentially very dangerous.
Precisely, and I'm rather happy to be put up in a hotel for an all expenses paid knees up on the bosses tab, for husband being worth what he's paid to do, and driving a team to succeed working 50 plus hrs a week. .. Ta very much rich bloke. Keep on coughing up the bonuses too, keeps the wolves from the door. There's a good chap.
PS...... Hi folks :lol:
Precisely, and I'm rather happy to be put up in a hotel for an all expenses paid knees up on the bosses tab, for husband being worth what he's paid to do, and driving a team to succeed working 50 plus hrs a week. .. Ta very much rich bloke. Keep on coughing up the bonuses too, keeps the wolves from the door. There's a good chap.
Good grief.
dizzyblonde
13-01-19, 05:06 PM
Good grief.
Huge dollop of sarcasm missed by a country mile
keith_d
14-01-19, 09:38 AM
From Scotland.
Along with all the other money westminster thieves off us.
UK and Norway have produced roughly the same amount of oil, Norway has more money in its sovereign wealth fund than it can spend, westminster has trillions of debt.
But hey, cucumber sandwiches.
I think you're comparing apples with cucumbers when you use Norway as an example. In the UK, our taxes are about 38% of GDP, in Norway the government takes 55% of GDP.
[Source: https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-revenue.htm#indicator-chart ]
So, if we had all paid about 45% more tax over the last five decades we could have a top class health system like Norway. But instead we voted for lower taxes and more spending and as a result we've got a huge deficit.
You may have noticed that my posts contain references for where I'm getting my numbers from. Any chance you could share some of yours??
Keith.
Talking Heads
14-01-19, 04:52 PM
I think you're comparing apples with cucumbers when you use Norway as an example. In the UK, our taxes are about 38% of GDP, in Norway the government takes 55% of GDP.
[Source: https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-revenue.htm#indicator-chart ]
So, if we had all paid about 45% more tax over the last five decades we could have a top class health system like Norway. But instead we voted for lower taxes and more spending and as a result we've got a huge deficit.
You may have noticed that my posts contain references for where I'm getting my numbers from. Any chance you could share some of yours??
Keith.
Norwegian taxation regime is very different to ours, yes Norwegians do pay higher taxes, but the bulk of their revenue comes from taxation on oil and gas which is then invested in a sovereign wealth fund.
The reason Norway is bajillions in the black isn't because individual Norwegians pay high income tax, its because they have competent government.
https://resourcegovernance.org/blog/did-uk-miss-out-%C2%A3400-billion-worth-oil-revenue
So comparing Norwegian hydrocarbons with UK hydrocarbons, almost the same quantity produced of each, but Norway has generated three times as much tax revenue from theirs.
Regarding another point I've previously made, whether Scotland subsidises England or other way round, even the BBC knows the truth, per head GDP England £23226 and Scotland £26424
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26326117
if the UK public want what Norway has then how about a nice income tax hike to 38%... how does that sound?
never mind all the rest of the high tax rates like the equivalent of our NI contributions.
the cost of living in Norway is huge but they also get paid more (not by much though).
could Scotland do any better... maybe, maybe not. i personally think yes as Scotland have to balance the books with pitiful handouts but they would need a good person at the head of it all to begin with who could set the rules and ring fencing. i feel that the nippy little lying cow that is first minister is not the right person. i wish she would do everyone in Scotland a favour and crawl back under the rock she came from.
its already been proven that an independent Scotland would be no better or worse off at the beginning, its only the future that poses a problem but the same could be said for any new country... i also fully believe that if it were not for all the dirty underhanded scare mongering from Westminster and its cronies then Scotland would be independent today.
keith_d
15-01-19, 03:22 PM
<snip>
I also fully believe that if it were not for all the dirty underhanded scare mongering from Westminster and its cronies then Scotland would be independent today.
No, we'd still be arguing about the details of who pays for what.
I live down in the south, but I think if there was ever a time for Scotland to become independent this is it. We're at a point where the money received from Westminster broadly matches the taxes that an independent Scotland could expect to raise. So even with a per capita share of the national debt Scotland would be in a reasonable fiscal position. Hopefully, the oil revenue would last long enough for them to diversify into other areas of economic activity.
Unfortunately, I would expect the (English) Labour party to do everything in their power to prevent independence because in the past Scotland has returned a significant number of Labour MPs. Without Scottish votes (or SNP support in Westminster) they could be facing decades in opposition.
Just my thoughts,
Keith.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.