h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's a basic function based on first principles. Those who can look after themselves do so, and those who need help get it. I'm sure humanity will find a way eventually but there will always be winners and losers.
I used monetary values to make a point, because in todays unfair world money rules. I could have said "Don't look for someone in a wheel chair to give you a lift" with a suggestion that if you want to help an old lady to cross the road you don't hand her 50p.
In the course of my life huge steps have been taken, I sincerely hope that during the course of your life humanity progresses as far again.
PS. I don't to explain anything. The post is an observation rather that an argument.

Click around the many :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918
Would the tax that this lot pay cover their own wage bill let alone make provision for their pensions ?

There are some people in the public sector who earn huge salaries and are overpaid. No argument about that.

However....

There are many, many more people in the private sector who earn huge salaries and are vastly overpaid. This seems to attract comparatively little attention.

The reason that executive pay in the public sector has risen so fast and so quickly is because of.... er.... "benchmarking" with private sector equivalents.

This "paid more than the Prime Minister" argument is a bit of a nonsense. The salary that the PM is paid is nowhere near what the salary should be, objectively speaking, if we were to measure it in purely market terms thinking about hours, workload, degree of responsibility etc. It's good that Cameron has taken a pay cut, but given that he and his family are massively independently wealthy already, it's hardly likely to have any effect whatsoever.

However... if you look at the numbers - 9187 - it's really very few people. Why the focus on the public sector? Why not on those paid vastly greater sums by the private sector, especially in banking? How many people in the private sector earn "more than the PM"?

Although I'd very much welcome some kind of maximum pay commission (one suggestion has been that no-one in an organisation can earn more than 10x the lowest wage, which seems like a sensible proposal to me, as a start), there's no intrinsic reason why this should be limited to the public sector alone. Otherwise it looks like yet another attack on the public sector as if high salaries are typical... nothing could be further from the truth, as the piece makes clear.

As for paying enough tax to "cover their own wage bill" - er.... what on earth are you talking about? Not sure anyone does this... not even sure it's possible under the current tax system.... And what's it got to do with anything?

AB,
So you'd rather not try and explain what you were actually suggesting with your hourly pay 'example'?

I guess that's understandable, since the likeliest possibilities are that you were either saying something bleeding obvious in a needlessly muddled way in an attempt to 'put it simply', or you weren't making any sense.

Possibly there's a third explanation, but if so, it's one you don't seem interested in giving.

I think, although it is just a guess based on the various ramblings, that he thinks you should only be paid in accordance with the amount of revenue you directly raise as a result of your efforts.

As the public sector largely provides services (eg. nurses don't directly generate money through their activities so in AB's worldview they aren't worth what they are paid. Although without their help the people who *do* generate money might not be able to) it is hard to see how this would be possible.

Otto and Potholer. It is not a public/private sector divide. At the moment the Public Sector has the stage.
Dare I put it simply. The Public Sector as it stands is unsustainable, with outgoings exceeding income in real and budgetary terms.
It is a great way of distributing money as long as the money is there to distribute and you get value for money. After tax income is in decline and those who have little want more. The private sector struggles to survive in a competitive world. Our main hope is that the public sector will take it's finger out.

Kelli says :-
No Kelli I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work.
She also says < As the public sector largely provides services (eg. nurses don't directly generate money through their activities so in AB's worldview they aren't worth what they are paid >
Sorry dear that is not my view at all. I have the utmost respect for charity workers.

I could say that my real view is that it is a pity that we have to be paid at all.

What your "real view" is remains far from clear... and not just to me.0

Other than a fondness for being patronising, and talking in riddles. I should have given up feeding the troll some time ago.

Don't worry Otto. Just let that philosophical mind of yours think about how you would reward someone if money did not exist. A kiss maybe or a kick up the arse.

AB, money doesn't actually exist.

Oh yes it does in the form of cash. Try this :- F19585?thread=6331578&skip=20&show=20#p76003178

<>

This is true, AB.

What it doesn't take into account is the fall in govt revenue caused by the recession, and the rise in welfare payments caused by the recession, so that under normal conditions of growth it *is* sustainable.

It also doesn't take into account the fact that higher taxes can close the gap. And it doesn't account for the fact that cutting govt spending during a recession is one good way of prolonging and deepening it.

It's also a lot harder to get people off benefits so big public sector layoffs make recovery all the more expensive and growth, when it does come back, anaemic for longer.

"Any privileges that I may have have been fully earned and paid for in full."

I doubt it. I seriously doubt it. You have privileges you don't even know about. Serious privileges.

TRiG.

You could be right TRiG. Tell me more about these serious privileges I know nothing about.

Education, healthcare, policing, firefighting, national defence, democracy, infrastructure, economic planning, courts... need I go on?

So have you paid for all of these in full?

This post has been removed.

>>"Dare I put it simply."

Dare you actually try and explain what you meant the *last* time you tried to put something simply?

Or are you just going to make dumb comments and then fail to meaningfully explain or defend them?

Unfortunately I am unable to make you understand that unless things change they will stay as they are. . I feel that the line the thread has taken constitutes an attack, is provocative and offensive. My understanding is that any attempt to try and explain things must surely break the house rules.

So you can't explain a "simple" economic point without being abusive or engaging in libel? How bizarre