Public sector still wasting money on non-jobs, jollies and needless PR

[ratrace]

The Taxpayers Alliance remind me of a bloke I used to work with - never had a good word for anyone - miserable old git wasted his life moaning about things that, for the most part, had no effect on him.

 

The man was a joke - and so are the Taxpayers Alliance.

 

Hear, hear! They're like the Daily Mail's gestapo!

[mj.scuba]

The Taxpayers Alliance remind me of a bloke I used to work with - never had a good word for anyone - miserable old git wasted his life moaning about things that, for the most part, had no effect on him.

 

The man was a joke - and so are the Taxpayers Alliance.

 

They scrutinise public revenue and expenditure and rightly publicise wastage, no joke when thousands of workers are about to lose their jobs, but if throwing money away that could pay for front line staff in your bag, so be it.

[mj.scuba]

If they didnt have communications people how would you know what was going on... I agree there are lots of pointless jobs and that communications jobs should be streamlined but its not totally a non-job!

 

We need them to just fulfill their intended purpose, they don't need to self publicise to tell us they exist.

[Bloomdido]

The Local Authorities are going into meltdown. Rotherham will have to drop its 'no forced redundancies' policy and I hear the PCT is issuing redundancy warnings by the sack load. Why has this all come to a head now? We have an election and all of a sudden the same statutory services can be delivered on 25+% less funding? Or are needy and dependent people just going to get hit?

 

The Local Authorities across the country have to provide some 'far out' services to people who are a drain on our society. Is it now time to let a few people fall through the safety net if they really won't begin to help themselves?

[studentbob]

They scrutinise public revenue and expenditure and rightly publicise wastage, no joke when thousands of workers are about to lose their jobs, but if throwing money away that could pay for front line staff in your bag, so be it.

 

Sorry, I didn't realise they had access to Treasuary documents.

 

But, let's be fair, they are just another right wing pressure group who attract people by saying "let's pay less tax" - cunning - but still a joke.

[mj.scuba]

All the links were pretty weak.

 

If you want to rage about overpaid non-jobs then why not start with some of these:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/11/chief-executives-pay-bonuses

 

And as one society points out:

 

 

 

http://www.onesociety.org.uk/news/36/88/Pay-restraint-starts-but-doesn-t-end-at-home.htm

 

It would be interesting to know how the taxpayers alliance spends the millions in donations it gets on its staff? Surely they can't spend all of it on exploiting Tax loopholes to claim they are non-political and a charitable organisation? If they want pay transparency why not start with themselves, then perhaps we will see some real overpaid non-jobs.

 

Private sector executives like Sir Stuart Rose are not funded out of the taxpayer purse!

It is the prerogative of the Shareholders (ie the owners) to approve their pay.

 

Backed by 83% of shareholders, it's all very democratic you know.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10638950

 

My bold:

I'm not sure why you'd be more interested how an organisation spends it's voluntary donations than how taxpayer money is spent?

[Bedders]

The Taxpayers Alliance remind me of a bloke I used to work with - never had a good word for anyone - miserable old git wasted his life moaning about things that, for the most part, had no effect on him.

 

The man was a joke - and so are the Taxpayers Alliance.

 

Well said that undemocratic voice of one (that a group of likeminded people who all think the same & form a consensus, are in the wrong from the majority voice of one!)

[Wildcat]

Private sector executives like Sir Stuart Rose are not funded out of the taxpayer purse!

It is the prerogative of the Shareholders (ie the owners) to approve their pay.

 

I never said he was.

 

It is not however solely the prerogative of shareholders, a group that is mostly ineffectual at holding companies to account.... such that in M&S's case 16% rejecting the pay policy is seen to be a significant rebuke, realistically it shows a large groundswell of support against the policy, but whilst shares are largely owned by corporate investors as in this case nothing will be done and the company bosses will continue to reward themselves at everyone's expense.

 

The private sector does not act in a bubble, its pay rises impact on us all they distort the jobs market forcing pay up elsewhere including public sector pay. His high wages reduce the salaries of his workers and increase the costs of his products for the rest of society.

[Wildcat]

I'm not sure why you'd be more interested how an organisation spends it's voluntary donations than how taxpayer money is spent?

 

Taxpayer money is spent on the taxpayer's alliance. They gain subsidies for claiming to do non-political charitable campaigning, something they are being investigated by the Charity Commission for.

 

Regardless of whether they get Tax-payer's money or not, there is still a public interest in the way they acquire and spend their money.

 

It would for example be a bit embarassing if they received money from Non-Dom tax exiles, would it not?

[mj.scuba]

Taxpayer money is spent on the taxpayer's alliance. They gain subsidies for claiming to do non-political charitable campaigning, something they are being investigated by the Charity Commission for.

 

Regardless of whether they get Tax-payer's money or not, there is still a public interest in the way they acquire and spend their money.

 

It would for example be a bit embarassing if they received money from Non-Dom tax exiles, would it not?

 

My bold (1) - perhaps it is. Perhaps it is just as much of public interest to how Unions receive and spend their money, and how they get taxpayer money via the UMF despite their £millions gained from membership subs and the fact that some monies are directed at political parties whilst receiving taxpayer money.

 

My bold (2) - not really, it could easily be argued we are losing their tax revenue because they are effectively being forced offshore due to a regressive tax regime. If it's cheaper for them to be based abroad, they will follow the market, just as happens in any other market.