economic situation is dire

[Awol]

"Which would be just under £190K [a year] for a full week"

Mate, why bother? :winkold:

Maybe an apology needed, but I would not expect one

Which would be just under £190K for a full week. Hardly strikes me as a huge amount, and way below what most people in the city would earn. There are chief executives of councils earning way more than that.

That was from Risso

Put your claws away dear, if you can't understand what was meant by the post you have quoted then...nevermind.

[Risso]

at an annual salary of £75,000, for a two day week!

Which would be just under £190K for a full week.

Some people are either spectacularly stupid, or are on a wind up.

[peterms]

Local authority CEs: it was reported earlier this year that the highest was Wandsworth at just under £300k, average county council was £204k (south east) and £159k (south west), district councils £118k (south east) and £104k (north west).

That compares quite poorly with the private sector, in terms of things like level of responsibility held, range of services they are responsible for, number of staff managed, or other things that would often be taken into account in measuring the size and difficulty of a job.

Comparisons with the PM are daft. Local authority CEs don't get free public housing (market rental value of Downing Street, I wonder?), free weekend retreats, virtually guaranteed massive earnings after leaving office (see how much Blair and Thatcher made, for example), or their wisteria trimmed at public expense.

Which is not to make a plea for local authority senior officers to be paid more, just looking for a bit of common sense in making comparisons (something best achieved by leaving the utterances of Eric Pickles well to one side).

[jonno_2004]

However life at Canary Wharf continues as normal as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) appoints a new Chairman

at an annual salary of £75,000, for a two day week!

Let not complain about this though...!

Its certainly not this that's a problem, its the fact that there are single mums cheating benefits by getting an extra school meal per day. Lets deal with this the real problem....! (sarcasm)

lol

weeey!

[Risso]

Maybe an apology needed, but I would not expect one

Indeed, I very much think an apology is needed. Likewise, I do not expect those involved to be man enough to offer one.

[peterms]

Who said single mums cheating benefits is the real problem?

There's been quite a few pronouncements about what a problem "benefit cheats" are, usually accompanied by detailed briefings to friendly journos and a couple of high-profile and extreme examples for local colour.

See for example David Cameron, or George Osborne, or Iain Duncan Smith, not to mention to constant drip-drip of this notion via the more reactionary parts of the popular press.

It's a diversionary tactic, drawing attention away from the real problems we face, and which the government is relentlessly making worse.

[drat01]

Maybe an apology needed, but I would not expect one

Indeed, I very much think an apology is needed. Likewise, I do not expect those involved to be man enough to offer one.

You wrote something that was obviously wrong. The meaning behind it may well have been to reflect an annual salary but that is NOT what you wrote.

What a shame that posts such as AWOL's and yours, both interestingly supporters of the right wing ideals in this thread at least, when this is pointed out resort to abuse. So much like Cameron and his Flashman stance in the HOC when his errors are pointed out.

Maybe a bit more clarity in your posts would help?

[Awol]

EDIT: F' it.

Note to self - always remember Gringo's sig..

[drat01]

Disregarding the usual abuse interesting that while nearly everyone says that jobs create wealth, the current problems this country face, some due to this Gvmt some due to the world issues ave resulted in 2 million jobs being lost since the recession kicked in. People working are one of the major keys to unlocking the problems that this country face at the moment.

Jobs will continue to be lost and not created though with massive funds not being reinvested either through legitimate taxes being avoided through morally wrong avoidance and by cutting public sector at the rate and severity that we have seen. VAT is higher than it has ever been, inflation is starting to go up more and more so people worried about job losses and the like are not spending, preferring to keep their money in accounts that pay little to no interest.

Also interesting is the widening of the North / South gap in terms of relative prosperity, again something that this Gvmt refuse to address.

Maybe a few pounds saved by Gerrymandering through boundary changes will help, or at least go some way to paying for elected police chiefs which apparently will cost more?

[Awol]

So if the law was changed to prevent legally acceptable tax avoidance and the Gov borrowed and spent more (the reinvestment you speak of) then all would be well?

I thought the latter was the now discredited policy that Ed Balls apologised for the other day?

[Risso]

at an annual salary of £75,000, for a two day week!

Which would be just under £190K for a full week.

Some people are either spectacularly stupid, or are on a wind up.

Some people are both spectacularly stupid AND on a wind up it seems.

[Risso]

Maybe an apology needed, but I would not expect one

Indeed, I very much think an apology is needed. Likewise, I do not expect those involved to be man enough to offer one.

You wrote something that was obviously wrong. The meaning behind it may well have been to reflect an annual salary but that is NOT what you wrote.

What a shame that posts such as AWOL's and yours, both interestingly supporters of the right wing ideals in this thread at least, when this is pointed out resort to abuse. So much like Cameron and his Flashman stance in the HOC when his errors are pointed out.

Maybe a bit more clarity in your posts would help?

Maybe something higher than a CSE grade 4 in English would assist you with basic English comprehension.

[drat01]

Again abuse? Why? I just pointed out why one of the other posters made his / her statement based on a badly written post from you Mart. You have explained what you really meant, not what you wrote, but from you (and AWOL), more abuse. How strange but not unexpected because as said it sort of follows a trait shown by other supporters of those policies such as Cameron. There is no need for the abuse or the tone of the posts, but I expect that will also either fall on deaf ears or be replied to with more abuse - or even both.

As PeterM pointed out your attempt to make out that the figure paid was in some way justified by relating it that to public servant was more a case of comparing apples with oranges than a real legitimacy case.

p.s. Grade B A level for the English :-)

[Eames]

Serious question Drat, what are these "massive funds" of which you speak? Is this the money that the Labour Government were borrowing at a wholly unsustainable rate? Or is there some secret pot of government cash that we don't know about it?

The public sector NEEDS to be streamlined because it is massivelty bloated and inefficient - I should know I work in it. It is notoriously difficult to sack the inept, let alone recruit anyone with anything about them.

Taxes are being avoided absolutely and this is an issue, but a balance has to be struck between the consequences of enforcement and the tax that IS being collected from those that avoid. If you squeeze the wealthy too hard, a clever accountant with a Cayman Islands bank account will mean that HMRC will actually collect LESS tax revenue.

There will always be a North South split because London is the major financial centre, national capital - I can tell you something for nothing though, living costs in London and the SE are a damn sight higher as well so us "wealthier" southerners pay for it.

It is interesting that you choose to see a reduction on MPs (surely a good thing) and a re-drawing of boundaries to make constituencies roughly equal in terms of numbers of voters as gerrymandering. Worried that Reddy Eddy won't be able to cling on to second place? - judging by his reception from his "supporters" at the TUC its the least of his worries......

[drat01]

So if the law was changed to prevent legally acceptable tax avoidance and the Gov borrowed and spent more (the reinvestment you speak of) then all would be well?

I thought the latter was the now discredited policy that Ed Balls apologised for the other day?

Legally acceptable? This is an old chestnut for VT at least about something being legal and being morally acceptable. As a non-UK resident you must benefits from Tax avoidance, while still retaining many rights that normal Tax payers enjoy? Even Cameron et al in the run up to the last election made (empty) promises about closing loopholes, something they continue to fail spectacularly to address. The simple argument is still that the richer in society benefit from tax avoidance schemes such as the IOM and many others, while the poorer have to pay taxes without the luxury or benefit of people looking at many ways to reduce them.

I have no idea why you mention Ed Balls other than maybe this is a deflection attempt, the last time I looked Ed Balls was not responsible for the taxes and their avoidance in the country, that fell to people like Gideon, Cameron and his cronies

The point that you missed through choice or by accident was one hilighted in the right wing media recently about how many jobs had been lost since the recession started and how that could be addressed.

[Awol]

but from you (and AWOL), more abuse.

Where? Quote this abuse so I can report myself to the MODs please, or stop making silly accusations.

[snowychap]

Taxes are being avoided absolutely and this is an issue, but a balance has to be struck between the consequences of enforcement and the tax that IS being collected from those that avoid. If you squeeze the wealthy too hard, a clever accountant with a Cayman Islands bank account will mean that HMRC will actually collect LESS tax revenue.

I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense in a discussion about tax avoidance.

Is your argument that clamping down on avenues of tax avoidance for a wealthy individual will decrease the amount that they cannot find ways of avoiding (i.e. that which they do pay)?

...a reduction on MPs (surely a good thing)...

Why is it 'surely a good thing'?

[drat01]

Serious question Drat, what are these "massive funds" of which you speak? Is this the money that the Labour Government were borrowing at a wholly unsustainable rate? Or is there some secret pot of government cash that we don't know about it?

Massive funds - as pointed out, and as being pointed out by the Deputy PM, massive funds need to be invested to create jobs. That is not happening, due to many factors including world events, but for those which this Gvmt have a real impact on the levels of cuts and the levels of incomes lost through Tax avoidance etc result in funds being not invested. Unless of course you do not agree that jobs are a major key to recovery?

The public sector NEEDS to be streamlined because it is massivelty bloated and inefficient - I should know I work in it. It is notoriously difficult to sack the inept, let alone recruit anyone with anything about them.

See you fall into that old right wing media trap of talking about the "public sector" as though it were one entity. It is not. You say it it is bloated and inefficient, but what parts are? Surely even if they were recovery and addressing this should be done as a structured well thought out approach? Interesting that this Gvmt, who claimed as a headline grabbing policy pre the election to "sort out the banks" are now giving them nearly 10 years to address their problem. BUT for the public sector as you call it with things like NHS attacks they are jumping in with two feet and slashing and closing (and privatising) without any real thought or understanding or even flexibility. Surely that is not right?

Taxes are being avoided absolutely and this is an issue, but a balance has to be struck between the consequences of enforcement and the tax that IS being collected from those that avoid. If you squeeze the wealthy too hard, a clever accountant with a Cayman Islands bank account will mean that HMRC will actually collect LESS tax revenue.

So what you are saying is that we should just accept it? You and I then are at totally different ends of that particular spectrum

There will always be a North South split because London is the major financial centre, national capital - I can tell you something for nothing though, living costs in London and the SE are a damn sight higher as well so us "wealthier" southerners pay for it.

Again headline policy from this Gvmt was to address this and again are failing. To quote a well know Tory if you don't like where you live "get on your bike". Seriously though is it healthy for the country to allow this divide to continue to grow? Again it seems you are happy for that? If so again different ends of the spectrum

It is interesting that you choose to see a reduction on MPs (surely a good thing) and a re-drawing of boundaries to make constituencies roughly equal in terms of numbers of voters as gerrymandering. Worried that Reddy Eddy won't be able to cling on to second place? - judging by his reception from his "supporters" at the TUC its the least of his worries.....

No I don't see the need for a reduction in the number of MP's as a good thing. I saw electoral change as a good thing but the country did not. What are the real benefits for the expenditure for these changes? Reddy Eddy - Oh dear ...... . Again deflection from the points, and interesting that you do not mention the election of Police chiefs as a good use of public monies?

[Risso]

Again abuse? Why? I just pointed out why one of the other posters made his / her statement based on a badly written post from you Mart. You have explained what you really meant, not what you wrote, but from you (and AWOL), more abuse. How strange but not unexpected because as said it sort of follows a trait shown by other supporters of those policies such as Cameron. There is no need for the abuse or the tone of the posts, but I expect that will also either fall on deaf ears or be replied to with more abuse - or even both.

As PeterM pointed out your attempt to make out that the figure paid was in some way justified by relating it that to public servant was more a case of comparing apples with oranges than a real legitimacy case.

p.s. Grade B A level for the English :-)

My post was completely clear and accurate, as it quoted a figure from Julie and then extrapolated the figure to a full year. And the only reason I made the comparison to a chief executive of a local authority was to show that it was roughly equivalent to other senior public sector salaries. Unless you think that a job working for the FSA/HM Treasury isn't a public sector job.

[tonyh29]

some due to this Gvmt some due to the world issues ave resulted in 2 million jobs being lost since the recession kicked in

The recession begin ..2008 ..the biggest jump in unemployment being in 2009.. as it's early and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet could you remind me when "this" government got into power ?

Also interesting is the widening of the North / South gap in terms of relative prosperity, again something that this Gvmt refuse to address.

a 2008 study by researchers at Cambridge University showed The North-South divide had widened to a 60-year high under Labour :-)

made his / her statement based on a badly written post from you Mart.

For the record I understood it perfectly and can't see why the last 2 pages have turned into a VT who has the best qualifications debate