the TUC says the public won't stomach the cuts because they are regressive, unfair and let the rich off the hook

[harpsichordcarrier]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11276452

a little poll-tax style civil disobedience?
can you anticipate this happening?
can you anticipate joining in?

LadyBlaBla and pocketmonster - of course not all public sector workers are bone-idle.

However, there are far too many who are (often, but not always, those most interested in union activities) - and far more than in the private sector, where they would get promptly sacked.

I don't currently "have" a company in terms of owning it outright - though I have done in the past - but I am in a sufficiently senior management position in my current job that I can make hiring decisions. I don't want to talk about my work on MN because I value my anonymity, so will leave it there!

"However, there are far too many who are (often, but not always, those most interested in union activities) - and far more than in the private sector, where they would get promptly sacked."

You realise that sounds delusional don't you?

You have dealt with a few people at a planning office who probably just didn't do as you demanded and that is it

Have you ever dealt with incompetence at a call centre?

Have you ever dealt with incompetence in a shop ?

Have you ever dealt with incompetence on transport?

Have you ever dealt with incompetence with your utilities?

I am presuming the answers are all no to those questions

Really really really LFN, you need to learn the art of rational decision making and critical thinking.

The maths is simple. The UK Govt spends more than it collects in taxes. That creates a Budget deficit or Public Sector Borrowing Requirement. The major part of Govt spend is people.

We can raise some taxes but the cost of public sector workers has to be cut more, either by reducing numbers or reducing wages.

There is no choice. Why will the public sector and unions not see this logic? The international bond markets will not lend the UK unlimited amounts of money. Just look at Greece and Ireland. We are at the Keynsian Endpoint. Do you really want to have indiscriminate austerity cuts forced on the country by foreign investors? Do you not remember the IMF rescuing the UK in the 1970s?

People need to get real.

THERE IS NO MORE MONEY!

I will be more pissed off with those on strike than the government - some stupid feckers in this country do not see what a huge mess we are in and striking and expecting the tab to grow bigger rather than pay it pack will not work.

I changed for banking to working for the NHS a year ago and it is a bloody money pit with people thinking it their divine right to go off sick for god knows how many days a year - half the people where I work would have lost their job due to their bloody sickness record! And cannot believe how much you get paid - loads more than anywhere else for working locally - and your pension much better for public sector workers.

Ladyblahblah - most of those who are crap at their jobs in the private sector swiftly get moved on - they just fester away in the public sector being crap at their jobs whilst accruing their pension and getting a guaranteed 2% each year payrise!

Beenbeta - the only way the government are going to get a huge pay day is when the shares in the banks they bought rise and they cash in - hopefully it will be used to do good and then the poor little people who are striking and kicking up a stink will realise that it was an asset backed loan that the government so helpfully dished out and the bankers are not to blame for all of the ills of the world!

LadyBlaBla Of course there is incompetence in the private sector too.

However, let's just take one measure of productivity - days lost to sickness. I refuse to believe that public sector employees get sick more often than private sector employees.

Applying Occam's razor, the explanation is that public sector workers just pull far more sickies because there are no consequences for bad behaviour.

Remember: only 10 state school teachers have been sacked for incompetence in 8 years. That just isn't credible.

The main problem, I think, is the union culture - which constantly puts the interests of the public sector, warts and all, ahead of the interests of the public and the taxpayer.

My fear is that the Govt will not be tough enough with the cuts in the upcoming PBR.

If the UK were a business I would go in and shut 20% of Govt departments straight off the bat. DTI, DfID, Welsh, Scottish,N Ireland Office, DCLG. The list goes on of departments and quangos with no real purpose.

Then I would decapitate the top 5 -10% of the civil service pay grades (other than high skill technical experts who personally deliver a frontline service) because that is where the resistance to change is being organised. Then I would impose a pay freeze, hiring freeze on every other dept.

It really is that simple. No one would notice any impact on front line services and 25% of the Govt budget would be saved.

Remember: never trust statistics

A teacher at DS2's school has just been moved to "floater" cos she is shite. She will be out very soon.......not 'sacked' though, not on any statistics

Occam's razor - KISS right?

But don't forget - don't oversimplify.

You are right Beenbeta - we have a consultant at work who is sick more days than he is in - an SHO can do 95% of of his work. In the private sector some bright spark would have costed having the SHO and a duty Dr on call and found it costs far less than the consultant, duty Dr (to cover said consultants sickness) and SHO's wages - but no one questions it in the public sector - it is amazing.

@ pocketmonster

Public sector workers earn more than private sector

Many in the public sector do seem to be unaware of how things are in the private sector.

No sick pay for example so if you're off sick you dn't et paid. Many many private sector companies have that (except SSP).

Just the state 6 weeks maternity pay at 90% of pay.

Long working hours without over time.

People forecd to accept 4 day weeks with pay cuts whether they like it or not.

Working veyr hard to pay for pensins wich the private sector don't have and we cannot now afford as a nation.

Easier to sack people in the private sector if they are useless.

Massive waste which wouldn't be tolerated for one day in the private sector.

Anyway the two sides will never agree but the reality is Labour proposed massive 20% cuts and the coaltion are just about doing the same but just a bit more and doing it better.

The cuts have to affect most people. You can't target a group of people who are 0.001% of the population (the very rich) or you won't balance the books. Therefore we have to make cuts which bite on lots of people.

My SIL works in public sector and got breast cancer. She was on SSP after 4 weeks. Any private company I have worked for would be more generous than that - there is no way I would have put up with that - and I always had private healthcare.

I got 6 months 50% pay maternity pay in the private sector (12 weeks at full pay). THat is more generous than anywhere in the public sector ( and that was 6 and 9 years ago)

When people talk about the NHS they think they can compare it to a private company whose main criteria is to make profit and grow profit. The NHS should never ever be about that. It should always have care first - thats the point.

Xenia - IIRC the previous government planned to reduce the deficit over two parliaments or a decade, forget which. While the current lot are planning to do it in half the time. That makes a huge difference.

Funny how the richest always go on about what a huge contribution they make to the country, but when it comes to sharing the pain of cuts and tax rises, suddenly it's not worth asking them to join in because there are so few of them. Bit of a have your cake and eat it stance.

I don't see the contradiction in that at all. If Big companies and their owners moved out of the UK there would be fewer jobs and the poor would have much less money. The wealth creation benefits the poor. There are indeed very few of the rich but they disproportionately help the poor and create jobs and wealth. We are lucky to have them.

The top 1% of earners pay 24.1% of the total income tax take (or they did, in December 2009).

The top 10% of earners pay 53.3% of the total income tax take.

How much more should the top 1% pay? More to the point - how much more will they stomach, given they are highly mobile, and quite often, already have homes in many countries?

The data for that last post comes from this

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm

Also interesting that (thanks to Darlings recent tax increases - kept by Osborne) the top 10% of earners are actually 'sharing the pain' by more than any other decile group (except the bottom 10%).

IFS Report - look at the chart half way down.

Well I think it's quite clear they have reached tipping point. I know people quite a few who have said to me 51.5% or whatever top tax and NI is now (I think it's more as you also lose personal allowance and pension tax relief so for some is almost 70% in effect depending on income) is tipping point and that if more than half what you work for goes to the state then you might as well work 9 - 5 not 70 hours a week as all those extra hours are not largely for your own gain so you might as well instead be home more or you just go abroad or spend more time organising affairs to minimise tax in the same way couples do who ensure both work part time so they get 2 personal allowances for tax rather than only one full time. That is a waste of resources.

If tax rates were lower people work harder and more tax is generated and less time is wasted organising matters to be most tax efficient.

However the jealousy of the poor of the rich and resentment of the rich to pay for the poor is irrelevant now. The reality is that the cupboard is bear because of the huge debts labour took on so there is simply no money to dole out as we had been.

Xenia, the conditions in the private sector sound atrocious. If I were you I'd join a union asap :)

So, it'll just be me, LadyBlahBlah, edam and pocketmonster on the stop the cuts demos then.

Xenia, I think you and I both know, there are very few, if any, super rich who pay anything near 51% income tax

Lady you say that but many of the richest in the country are empolyees or in partnerships.
There's little scope in those circumstances not to pay your taxes.

I'm not including non-doms here, as they are not included in the 1% of tax contributors.

I am constantly encouraged to pay myself in dividends - 20%ish tax

And I am nowhere near super rich and not unusual

Lady B - I am confused - are you suggesting that the majority in the top decile - aren't paying a marginal rate of 50+ %. Because I can't see how the IFS came up with their figures in that case .

Or are you talking about some 'other' group of people who are outside the normal income tax system?

LadyBlahBlah - you make a good point. The rich do not pay 51% tax on all or indeed anywhere near most of their earnings. There are many ways to legally reduce that effective rate.

The 51% mostly hits people hardest who are well qualified and well paid but not quite rich enough to be able to afford to take adantage of special tax avoidance schemes or just live off their investments.

Capital gains tax is still 28% and there are legitimate ways of reducing that. The dividend tax rate after allowances is around 20%.