The 2010 Emergency Budget thread

[Wildcat]

Chartered Institute of Personnel Development - not Directors.

 

They've been hell enough since they changed from the IPM.

 

My bad the heat is getting to me.

[Grahame]

I know what you said. I asked if maybe one individual managed to make a big profit for his employer, should that person be well paid for it?

 

Personally I think whatever the rate of pay which is agreed at the time, that any employee should give 100% both in loyalty and effort. Then hopefully if they do well then they earn promotion and a higher wage.

 

Just my view.

[hitch_1980]

I think things already fall into categories by themselves, with some exceptions.

 

I need a new suit. I can buy one from Burtons for £100, Marks and Spencer for £200, or I can go more upmarket and have one tailored for me for about £500.

 

All these attract VAT at different rates if I choose to buy the luxury tailor made suit five times more VAT will go to the excheqeur (sp).

 

In essence your idea for a banded system of VAT already exists it's down to personal choice.

 

Finally someone sees sense ...........we have choice - its as simple as that.

[Grahame]

Finally someone sees sense ...........we have choice - its as simple as that.

 

That sounds like you are a rich man? The poor don't have the choice of a £500.00 suite.

[JFKvsNixon]

Personally I think whatever the rate of pay which is agreed at the time, that any employee should give 100% both in loyalty and effort. Then hopefully if they do well then they earn promotion and a higher wage.

 

Just my view.

 

Okay, if someone manages to make a £100 million profit for their company, would a £1 million bonus be immoral?

[Wildcat]

It looks like the bank levy was the wrong approach too....

 

So we have a new bank levy – to be charged on bank assets.

 

The consequence is obvious: banks won't lend. That’s the last thing we wanted. What we actually wanted was a tax on those transactions banks undertake that fuel bonuses and harm the economy, international relations and the stability of democracy itself. Those are the massively speculative transactions which brought banks down – and which continue unabated.

 

A financial transaction tax – a Robin Hood Tax – could have done that.

 

This bank levy won’t.

 

So it’s the wrong tax at the wrong time with the absolutely guaranteed wrong outcome. Apart from that, full marks to George Osborne.

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/06/22/we-didnt-need-this-bank-tax/

[L00b]

I was putting in context your begrugement of the public sector and reasons for why they should be targetted specifically to foot the bill for the banker's crisis.

<...>

I didn't say they weren't the exception. I was pointing out the target for your jealousy was poorly directed.

I don't begrudge, I just observe.

 

Generally, I don't have any issue about how people succeed (cue my inherent lack of moral compass ), so long as they conform to my ethos of "don't do unto others, what you wouldn't want others doing to you".

 

Where I do draw the line is where, in the current situation of financial peril, the blanket is being pulled on inequitable grounds. That's not excusing those at which the buck stops (private and public figures), but they're not going to sort the mess, and we (mere plebes) all knew that a long time ago already, didn't we?

It should have been 13% less pay. From an IDS Study comparison last year. IDS being leading pay experts.

Thanks for that link. I would give it more credence if it was not associated with a Union

That doesn't affect the generality which is that last year public sector pay increased by 1% and private sector pay by 2%. Expecting the public sector to make a pay cut in real terms to fund the bankers crisis is unfair and a cheap attack on a section of workers that bore no responsibility for this crisis and made no gains from it.

I do not believe the public sector is being asked to fund the bankers crisis, but to give a hand in sorting out the Nation's finances. Something which the private sector has been busy doing for the last year and a bit already (can I ask, objectively, where has most of the additional unemployment stemmed from so far?)

 

Even if it (the public sector) was (being asked to fund the bankers crisis), I am failing to see in which way would a public sector worker be in any way less responsible than the private sector worker: loans and credit were consumed by all. And private sector workers have been, and will continue to be, doing their bit to fund it.

Unfortunately, the 17.5 band seems to contain most of the things that you need to buy

Food and drink for human consumption, Welfare, Health, Education, Power, Utilities, Baby wear, Children's clothes and footwear. All between 0% and 5% max rated.

 

What else do you need to buy?

[Grahame]

Okay, if someone manages to make a £100 million profit for their company, would a £1 million bonus be immoral?

 

If they have a bonus scheme then they will get a bonus. The percentage would depend on a number of factors.

 

You are boring and this is irrelevant.

[hitch_1980]

That sounds like you are a rich man? The poor don't have the choice of a £500.00 suite.

 

lol, I am far far from that . But the thing is ....I might aspire to buying one (i dont btw) But there are suits out there that I can buy....even at that level I have choice. We try and live within our means.

[JFKvsNixon]

If they have a bonus scheme then they will get a bonus. The percentage would depend on a number of factors.

 

You are boring and this is irrelevant.

 

I was just exploring your idea in this post:

 

It looks that way doesn't it.

 

I always used to say that every job should be evaluated on a points system according to the value to the community, the degree of knowledge, study and training the job required, the value to human life a doctor or surgeon for example, and you can probably add to the list, because I do think people should be rewarded for the work they do and the responsibility they carry?