[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[Dean]

What concerns people who work in factories is that the Politicians have done sweet FA to support the manufacturing industry, and Labour who purport to represent the working classes are just as guilty. There were more job losses in manufacturing under Tony Blair's Labour government than under Margaret Thatcher. Barbara Castle presided over 1,000s of job losses in the textile industry in Blackburn and did nothing to help . It was a Labour Government that cosied up to the Bankers in the knowledge that they'd get enormous tax receipts each month/year to spend on the public sector. During those long years in office they created an environment so that the financial sector flourished at the expense of manufacturing and manufacturing jobs.

You'll probably find an overwhelming majority of current Labour members agree with that assessment of New Labour.

Whatever you think of the merits of the current Labour leadership, I'm sure there's another thing we can both agree on; it bares little resemblance to the Labour you talk about there.

[onlyonetugay]

I'd say the current leader and his shadow chancellor are true to their principles, Having said that I've still to be convinced that Jeremy Corbyn really believes in the EU

What I can't understand is John McDonnell joining a picket line of middle class highly paid doctors ( 30% of whom are privately educated) in their dispute over Saturday overtime pay. If we're honest , we all know it's nothing to do with saving the NHS or patient welfare. Doctors are famous for resisting change, unless it's whacking great pay rises .

Aneurin Bevan once denounced the BMA as " a small body of politically poisoned people" From what I've heard and read not much has changed.

Labour needs to get back to representing ordinary working people, the type that have just lost their jobs in the plastic bag factory

[jim mk2]

That's utter nonsense.

Taxpayers and borrowed money, distributed by the government , rescued the banks , the public sector had nothing to do with it

https://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/taxpayer-support-for-uk-banks-faqs/

The government and the public sector are one and the same, or they were last time I looked unless the Tories have sold Whitehall and parliament off to their mates in the private sector like everything else. Even you should be able to understand this.

https://www.macroberts.com/government-public-sector/

FYI, in 2008-09, the Labour government injected billions into RBS to stave of bankruptcy and liquidation. These vast cash bailouts left the state (the public sector) with an 82% share in the company, and potential liabilities of over £300bn. And that's not counting the bailouts for Northern Rock, Lloyds and a multitude others.

That's the glory of the private sector for you.

[onlyonetugay]

The government and the public sector are one and the same, or they were last time I looked unless the Tories have sold Whitehall and parliament off to their mates in the private sector like everything else. Even you should be able to understand this.

https://www.macroberts.com/government-public-sector/

FYI, in 2008-09, the Labour government injected billions into RBS to stave of bankruptcy and liquidation. These vast cash bailouts left the state (the public sector) with an 82% share in the company, and potential liabilities of over £300bn. And that's not counting the bailouts for Northern Rock, Lloyds and a multitude others.

That's the glory of the private sector for you.

Our money dear boy , our money . The government was but a conduit . We ( the taxpayer) own/ed part of the banks you refer to

https://www.macroberts.com/government-public-sector/

A Scottish firm of lawyers ? You're getting desperate !

[jim mk2]

Your money is that which is left after the government's taxes have been deducted. Those taxes belong to the state to spend as it wishes. But then you knew that already.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-pay-and-terms-guidance-note

http://www.ey.com/UK/en/Industries/Government---Public-Sector

[onlyonetugay]

Your money is that which is left after the government's taxes have been deducted. Those taxes belong to the state to spend as it wishes. But then you knew that already.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-pay-and-terms-guidance-note

http://www.ey.com/UK/en/Industries/Government---Public-Sector

You can cut and paste from as many websites as you want, although I accept those two are an improvement on your desperate use of a Scottish firm of commercial lawyers.

That must be a first on brfcc !!

It's my money, the government spends it on my behalf , but then again that's been communicated to you over and over again in the "dim " and distant past

[yoda]

The government and the public sector are one and the same, or they were last time I looked unless the Tories have sold Whitehall and parliament off to their mates in the private sector like everything else. Even you should be able to understand this.

https://www.macroberts.com/government-public-sector/

FYI, in 2008-09, the Labour government injected billions into RBS to stave of bankruptcy and liquidation. These vast cash bailouts left the state (the public sector) with an 82% share in the company, and potential liabilities of over £300bn. And that's not counting the bailouts for Northern Rock, Lloyds and a multitude others.

That's the glory of the private sector for you.

That would be the deregulated banks courtesy of Gordon Brown giving them free reign to play with the money of others, that had worked hard for it

[jim mk2]

It's my money, the government spends it on my behalf , but then again that's been communicated to you over and over again in the "dim " and distant past

It's isn't your money - it belongs to the government. Your money is that which is left after all your taxes have been paid.

That would be the deregulated banks courtesy of Gordon Brown giving them free reign to play with the money of others, that had worked hard for it

Ah yes, the glorious City of London which Call Me Dave said in opposition was "over-regulated" by Labour and called for less regulation.

So Labour were damned if they did and damned if they didn't

[Al]

It's isn't your money - it belongs to the government. Your money is that which is left after all your taxes have been paid.

Don't start that again. It's been done to death.

[onlyonetugay]

It's isn't your money - it belongs to the government. Your money is that which is left after all your taxes have been paid.

Don't start that again. It's been done to death.

Al you're a spoilsport I had a blast yesterday when MacRoberts , the Scottish firm of commercial lawyers were used as a research tool !

[jim mk2]

Al you're a spoilsport I had a blast yesterday when MacRoberts , the Scottish firm of commercial lawyers were used as a research tool !

From the horse's mouth.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes

But then the "public sector's got nothing to with government". :wstu:

[Al]

From the horse's mouth.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes

But then the "public sector's got nothing to with government". :wstu:

Proves nothing but I'm not being drawn again. Last word on the subject.

[onlyonetugay]

https://www.nao.org....-uk-banks-faqs/

.......and it was taxpayers money ( our money, my money) that saved the banks. Think I've already mentioned that

So you find a website that has "the government, public sector and taxes in the same sentence" and you think that proves some sort of point ?

Then you do a bit more research and find a couple of " hilarious emojos " You're a real comedian

You were doing better when you cut and pasted MacRoberts

[jim mk2]

Taxpayers money in the government coffers belongs to the government. If you think it's your money, try getting it back. Or better still, not paying it at all. Good luck with HMRC and the courts.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Taxpayers money in the government coffers belongs to the government. If you think it's your money, try getting it back. Or better still, not paying it at all. Good luck with HMRC and the courts.

People do try getting it back, its called voting for a party that sets a lower tax rate (or higher thresholds). If all tax belonged to the government, they'd set it at 100% of pay and nobody could complain because its not their money.

[onlyonetugay]

Taxpayers money in the government coffers belongs to the government. If you think it's your money, try getting it back. Or better still, not paying it at all. Good luck with HMRC and the courts.

https://www.nao.org....-uk-banks-faqs/

I've posted it again . Not sure if you've read it , but click the link and you'll see the headline :

Taxpayer support for UK banks

That's us , by the way . Then look at the FAQ's , go down to question (7)

Will we get all the money back?

We is "us" the taxpayer, the government used our money to support the banks and the National Audit Office are posing the question "will we get all the money back". If it was the government's money the question would be " Will the government get all the money back "

Right that's the grown up explanation.

If you're still struggling, I've got this link for you from Newsbeat , a kiddies news programme , which explains it in kiddies terms .The tax we pay is "our " money , although the presenter uses the term " your money " It might be worth your while clicking that link too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32496003/how-the-government-spends-your-tax-money

I'm guessing you're either a public sector worker or a retired public sector worker and can't face up to the fact that I'm paying part of your wage or have funded part of your pension with my taxation. To tell you the truth I'm having difficulty with it too

However if it makes you feel better to think it's the government's money and it's the "Lord Snootys" that are funding you , so be it .

[Al]

Leave it Tugay. Jim is like a dog with a bone. He won't give in and is so obviously wrong that it is not worth reasoning with him. Just don't humour him.

[jim mk2]

People do try getting it back, its called voting for a party that sets a lower tax rate (or higher thresholds). If all tax belonged to the government, they'd set it at 100% of pay and nobody could complain because its not their money.

Different argument altogether.

[Mike E]

Different argument altogether.

It really, REALLY isn't.

[ultrablue]

I think he means that even if a change in govt means a change in tax rates, you arent going to get back the taxes you had to pay under the previous govt. Tax rates change but there are no rebates.

The whole arguement is so obscured from reailty it is entirely pointless. Private sector workers pay taxes, public sector workers pay taxes. We pay tax when we buy things, when we drive and when we die. The complicated movement of money from production to service, individual to investment bank and government to enterprise cannot be reduced to such stubborn orthodox.

Even if you are of the view that private sector individuals pay public sector individuals, then perhaps you are simply paying for the education, protection and infrastructure that helped you land that job. Conversely, try funding our government without the production of capital.

Its like arguing who is more responsible for making a baby - mum or dad. It's nonsense that goes nowhere.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I think he means that even if a change in govt means a change in tax rates, you arent going to get back the taxes you had to pay under the previous govt. Tax rates change but there are no rebates.

The whole arguement is so obscured from reailty it is entirely pointless. Private sector workers pay taxes, public sector workers pay taxes. We pay tax when we buy things, when we drive and when we die. The complicated movement of money from production to service, individual to investment bank and government to enterprise cannot be reduced to such stubborn orthodox.

Even if you are of the view that private sector individuals pay public sector individuals, then perhaps you are simply paying for the education, protection and infrastructure that helped you land that job. Conversely, try funding our government without the production of capital.

Its like arguing who is more responsible for making a baby - mum or dad. It's nonsense that goes nowhere.

Agree with most of that post but not the argument that its pointless or disconnected from reality. Very much the opposite, if everyone pays taxes then everyone has a stake in what the government spends it on. Hence the outrage at some of the shameful things MPs were claiming expenses on, or the considerable concern at the cost of the Olympic Games, or the questioning as to why we're giving aid to say India who have a space program.

These things bother people because if money weren't spent on them, then the government would need less, therefore it could lower taxes and therefore people would get to keep more of their money. I mean that's simplifying it but its perfectly logical and is why I completely disagree with Jim.

So if people care about the government spending it on a 4th holiday home for their local MP, it stands to reason they're also going to care about the government spending it on a pay-rise for junior doctors, or indeed any issue regarding the public sector. So the final salary pensions that are infinitely better than private sector ones that until recently were the norm or the almost comically poor absence rate such as 6 months off for stress that everyone seemed to be claiming. On the other side of the argument, there's the perpetually increasing class sizes teachers have to deal with, or the increasing propensity for people to go to A&E for a mild illness and put strain on hospital services.

Whether the argument is this bit of the public sector needs more money for this reason, or that needs less for that reason, its an argument everyone has a right to care about because its the primary driver for how much comes out of people's wages. The only difference is if you are a public sector worker, you might see a direct benefit to increased government spending which may offset your annoyance about an increase in tax.

[ultrablue]

Oh very true SKH. Public spending is an extremely important issue. But when people are claiming superiority because of the type of job they do, then they are missing the point.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Why who was doing that? My argument is for the elimination of superiority. As I've said in a previous post, UK manufacturing has seen enormous job losses in the last 50 years because in most cases it was no longer profitable, or put another way financial outgoings were exceeding incomings. Which is pretty much the same situation as the public sector during that time, outgoings exceed incomings, the government spent more than it made in taxes. Except instead of enormous job losses, successive governments opted for enormous borrowing and subsequently enormous debt instead.

Now the government finally is trying to balance the books and the public sector is up in arms. Well that's fair enough, I expect the manufacturing sector was when this first started happening to them, but it happened anyway because the money man in the private sector is the business owner who through sheer pragmatism needs to be ruthless (its his livelihood at stake). The direct money man in the public sector is the government, but the ultimate money man is the taxpayer. And that's the big difference, governments aren't ruthless because its not their money, and taxpayers aren't ruthless because they either don't join the dots and realise its their money (helpfully dissuaded from the notion by people like Jim) or because its relatively only a bit of each person's wage that they're losing.

So instead of widespread redundancies at the first sign of financial unviability, you get decades of ignoring the financial unviability and when that's no longer an option, widespread redundancies. So when the junior doctors are waving placards saying "save YOUR nhs" and the Guardian is having a meltdown and George Osborne is being branded the anti-Christ, and the quiet majority are still voting for the Conservatives, it might be worth the doctors etc figuring out why and being a bit more realistic and open to compromise.

[K-Hod]

You make some very good points re the manufacturing industry, but to draw on the final point about the junior doctors.

I saw a graphic the other week saying that if a junior doctor did a full week like Jeremy Hunt is proposing, their hourly rate would equate to a Lidl employee. Why should someone go through (7?) years of training when their earnings for a full week they could earn the same doing a much less stressful job at a supermarket. It's no wonder many doctors are clearing off abroad for better pay/working conditions and a better climate in a lot of cases. Let's not forget the cost of training Doctors isn't cheap and these guys need to repay student loans etc. Then we have to get Doctors in from abroad in a lot of cases.

Our NHS is vital to this country so it does need to be saved. Unless you're fortunate enough to be able to afford to go private, which I definitely can't!

[onlyonetugay]

Regarding doctors hours the NHS employers want to cut them from an absolute maximum 91 to 72 a week which must be a good thing. There normal hours will be around 48. They'll also get a pay rise of nearly £3,000 which will take their basic starting salary from £22,600 to £25,500 and when they are fully trained they'll get £55,000.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/junior-doctors-contract-offer-main-points/junior-doctors-contract-offer-main-points

The BMA is a joke, or as Aneurin Bevan once denounced it, " a small body of politically poisoned people" They represent a group of middle class highly paid doctors ( 30% of whom are privately educated) in what has now got down to a dispute over Saturday overtime pay. If we're honest , we all know it's nothing to do with saving the NHS or patient welfare. Doctors are famous for resisting change, unless it's whacking great pay rises . Labour usually give them those and get nothing in return, because they can't be seen to underfund the NHS.

With regard to their training, I'd insert another clause in their contracts. After they've left medical school ,if during the first 5 years, they decide to leave the country and practise overseas , they have to repay a pro - rated proportion of their training costs back to the UK taxpayer , because as has already been mentioned training a doctor costs a fortune.