panorama

[nikkershaw]

ok who else is really wound us by this!

mark thompson head of bbc is paid £800,000 how is that justified, very interesting programme, lets hope dave and co cut these high earners before attacking low earners

Wound up!

I am about to explode!

We need a law passing tomorrow mornng that bans all public sector workers from earning more than the PM. There is no limit - many of these jobs just get passed around between politically connected people.

\link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9010000/9010597.stm\more info here} shame it's just us two seething!

Surely, low paid public sector workers who may be facing pay and job cuts should be up in arms and demanding their bosses take a massive pay cut first.

I just dont sense that happening though.

Oh hell - now my indigestion has come on.

This is why I think the whole union fiasco with them braying about going on strike is misguided at best, stupid more like it.

Instead, if they had a mind to actually do something constructive rather than destructive then they should be making this call.

beyond infuriating.

not surprising, though.

did you see that 'undercover boss' with the head of manchester or liverpool or summat council?

he was making well into the six figures but was a clueless muppet.

beenbeta - I think I am more wound up at you ffs you spout this after all the crips on the other thread....going before my head eplodes

yes low paid public serive workers are not on a fliping jolly - they do the work and get badly paid - the £74 more is due to the wages at the top which need pruning

But then Justin King is on a mere 9 and a half million in the private sector

ivy - if I could understand your post I would respond.

your posts last week about cutting public service workers wages and making them take a pay cut, from the top workers and then all the workers throughout and how that would make savings... really simple you wrote about 25%

TBH I thought you were really harsh

you want tax on property - not wages cut at the top only or more tax on wages for high earners

I really don't understand i even went back and read your posts again to make sure I hadn't dreamt it

This was what you wrote *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?

this is what I don't understand, you think that the unions and the workers need to have their wages cut and can't understand why they want to strike

then on thsi thread you say that they shoudl be up in arms

I'm still not sure I understand your post but...

I want to see an immediate 25% cut in public sending starting at the top so frontline services can be preserved. I want at least 10% of all central and local Govt and Quangos shut down and I want tax to be fair to everyone and spread more evenly on untaxed earnings and capital gains.

Seems rational to me. I do not want the burden to fall on low paid frontline public sector workers.

Well this is what you said in antoher of your posts

In that case it wil have to be job cuts and not pay cuts. Sorry but the country cannot afford it. I know there wil be personal hardships and that does not make me feel happy but there is hardship already in the private sector with huge job losses. The pain has to be shared

the top earner arn't really going to have personel hardship are they not with job cuts and pay out and the earnign that they were on

I think you do understand my post, last week you thought public service workers should feel the pain and have job cuts

I do think there should be job cuts - startng at the top. Wage cuts too - starting at the top.

It is tricky to compare private to public as we are more tied to paying for public sector wages directly through our taxes than having any influence over private company CEOs.

It cannot be justified and it is annoying that the first cuts seem to always be the services we need. The very ones we pay our tax for. I don't pay my taxes for someone to earn a huge pay packet, the upper wages need to be capped so they earn no more than the PM. Perhaps then there wouldn't be so much pressure on the lower paid workers who are doing all the services after all.

ivykaty i have to pull you on this, am sorry - but i think its a bit weird to go quoting from another thread ..from last week.

i hope no one does that to me becuase i could change my mind from day to day.

just think its a bit not on and that we usually take things ona thread written at face value on that thread. dont we?

ivy - if I may quote from another recent post of mine. I also think private sector pay at the top is also out of control and it riles me that bosses in the private sector are slashing jobs, pay and pensions of workers while raising their own pay and grabbing huge bonuses.

"The truth is that private sector bosses get 200 - 500 x multiples of the lowest workers salaries because they can and not because they are worth it or produce stellar profits for shareholders. There is no effective control. Unfortunatley this phenomenon has now infected the upper echelons of the public sector too. It is even worse in America which is one of the most unequal societies in the World."

i'm sorry but £800,000 is obscene if they want those wages then go back to the private sector!

I do not really "get" the BBC at all. The licence fee is a tax by another name and we really do not need "public sector broadcasting" any more. And, if we do, it could be scaled down more than 50%. It is a completely unfair regressive tax.

Riven:

The private sector only has to "justify" its pay to shareholders. The public sector has to justify itself to all taxpayers. Some of the pay in the NHS, BBC etc is just not justifiable. A lot of the top cadre are ex nurses. I have nothing against nurses but the bar to entry to the profession is not exactly high. I struggle to see how people with very average academics are suddenly worth 200k+/annum. Some of them earn far more than the very intelligent specialists whom they supervise.

The quangos are another complete waste of money.

There are huge issues in the private sector as well (fund managers supporting ludicrous pay rather than end shareholders) but the solution to the public sector problem is much clearer.

The UK Puublic Sector Net Debt has just been reported at 64% of GDP - the highest ever recorded.

That figure does not include all the off balance sheet PFI deals and the public sector pension deficits and the debts in local authorities. Lets just say its really nearer to 100% of GDP.

We need to start cutting fast.

Beenbeta,

Absolutely. Gilts will take the strain otherwise. Will be back to the IMF, cap in hand.