Coucil Tax Rises To Pay For Public Sector Pensions

[Fudge]

I'm sure most will admit that envy is involved when a large number of people are getting exceptionally generous benefits paid for by those with next to nothing. Pathetic - I'll give you that to a certain extent but there's also a sense of injustice.

We in the private sector (not saying everyone or even necessarily including myself - 'we' is just easier) have stood by as companies reduce benefits to the point where the majority will never be able to give up work and still eat. They ignored the real-terms stagnation in most people's wages and the fact that state employees they are paying for were now earning a lot more than non-state if you include pensions. They ignored all this because they were able to maintain a good lifestyle thru credit. People in my experience don't worry about what anyone else is doing so long as they have the basic comforts themselves.

Are we to blame for allowing this to happen? Yes. The result is we can no longer afford the products and services we could before. People are waking up to just how horrific our tax bills are and how low wages have fallen when there's no 'free' money to hide it. They are cutting back in services - getting rid of stuff they don't need. The premium TV channels go. The broadband drops down to a basic package and only if needed for work. The car is downsized or dropped altogether in a city. The holidays go. Food comes in those UN food drop like packages from the 'value' ranges at the supermarket. Heating goes off and cold foods or those that don't need a pre-heated oven become popular. Despite the cutting down in every other area, there seems to be one bill that we don't seem to be allowed to cut back on even a little bit and that's public services - the very services we didn't agree to pay for to start with.

Why should everyone be forced to pay for something they can no longer afford even if it's their own fault they can no longer afford it? Can't they just pay less and receive a lower standard of service, or pick the services they do want?

Even if the did drastically cut back public services do you think they would ever cut taxes or council tax ?

I dont. That money has already been given to prop up the banks.

Taxes will go up and you will next to nothing in public services to show for it.

[Guest absolutezero]

I'm sure most will admit that envy is involved when a large number of people are getting exceptionally generous benefits paid for by those with next to nothing. Pathetic - I'll give you that to a certain extent but there's also a sense of injustice.

We in the private sector (not saying everyone or even necessarily including myself - 'we' is just easier) have stood by as companies reduce benefits to the point where the majority will never be able to give up work and still eat. They ignored the real-terms stagnation in most people's wages and the fact that state employees they are paying for were now earning a lot more than non-state if you include pensions. They ignored all this because they were able to maintain a good lifestyle thru credit. People in my experience don't worry about what anyone else is doing so long as they have the basic comforts themselves.

Are we to blame for allowing this to happen? Yes. The result is we can no longer afford the products and services we could before. People are waking up to just how horrific our tax bills are and how low wages have fallen when there's no 'free' money to hide it. They are cutting back in services - getting rid of stuff they don't need. The premium TV channels go. The broadband drops down to a basic package and only if needed for work. The car is downsized or dropped altogether in a city. The holidays go. Food comes in those UN food drop like packages from the 'value' ranges at the supermarket. Heating goes off and cold foods or those that don't need a pre-heated oven become popular. Despite the cutting down in every other area, there seems to be one bill that we don't seem to be allowed to cut back on even a little bit and that's public services - the very services we didn't agree to pay for to start with.

Why should everyone be forced to pay for something they can no longer afford even if it's their own fault they can no longer afford it? Can't they just pay less and receive a lower standard of service, or pick the services they do want?

When it reaches the point where no-one can afford the service I provide then I lose my income. Even if that is in no way my fault it's still tough titties for me - life isn't fair and no-one owes me a living. Why do those working for the government seem to think they are different?

It's your first sentence that gets me. That's just the problem. The majority will never admit it's envy based and keep claiming it's economic based. See the other thread for loads of denial.

I really wouldn't mind the whole debate if they actually admitted it was based on jealousy.

Thank you for that very reasoned response. You're the first to actually stand up and say there is an envy component.

I ask you this question though.

The overwhelming majority of our current problem was caused by the greed of the private sector.

Why should the public sector carry the can for the private sector's greed?

Edit

Another thought.

The private sector workers were daft enough to look short term when they allowed their own so called "gold plated" pensions to be stolen from them.

Are private sector workers now regretting their short termism and 'I'm Alright, Jack' attitude realising there is a use to having a unionised workforce after all?

I mean there's no use in having a union when times are good and you're not having any bother, is there?

Edited August 2, 2009 by absolutezero

[Injin]

It's your first sentence that gets me. That's just the problem. The majority will never admit it's envy based and keep claiming it's economic based. See the other thread for loads of denial.

I really wouldn't mind the whole debate if they actually admitted it was based on jealousy.

Thank you for that very reasoned response. You're the first to actually stand up and say there is an envy component.

I ask you this question though.

The overwhelming majority of our current problem was caused by the greed of the private sector.

Why should the public sector carry the can for the private sector's greed?

I don't eny you.

I pity you.

You have put your faith in phantoms of the mind and will die poor because of it.

[Guest absolutezero]

I don't eny you.

I pity you.

You have put your faith in phantoms of the mind and will die poor because of it.

I'm sorry for you Injin.

Some of what you say is good but the fact you're deluded and don't believe countries exist and get orgasmic over the notion of state failure reduces your credibility somewhat.

It's a bit like David Icke. What he says sounds fairly plausible until he mentions the lizard people who control the Earth.

No-one remembers the interesting stuff Icke says. All they remember is the stuff about shape-shifting lizards.

You are just the same.

[impatient_mug]

It's your first sentence that gets me. That's just the problem. The majority will never admit it's envy based and keep claiming it's economic based. See the other thread for loads of denial.

I really wouldn't mind the whole debate if they actually admitted it was based on jealousy.

Thank you for that very reasoned response. You're the first to actually stand up and say there is an envy component.

I ask you this question though.

The overwhelming majority of our current problem was caused by the greed of the private sector.

Why should the public sector carry the can for the private sector's greed?

Edit

Another thought.

The private sector workers were daft enough to look short term when they allowed their own so called "gold plated" pensions to be stolen from them.

Are private sector workers now regretting their short termism and 'I'm Alright, Jack' attitude realising there is a use to having a unionised workforce after all?

I mean there's no use in having a union when times are good and you're not having any bother, is there?

I addressed that in my last point. It's not fair that the public sector should suffer along with those who's fault this but if there's no money to pay then what's the option? You can only tax people so much before they are forced to stand up and say 'no more'.

As for a unionised workforce - that only works for a small subsection of jobs that can't be performed anywhere else. Transportation, physical services (supermarkets, restaurants) and construction. Science and technology jobs can be performed anywhere with an internet connection and electricity. Manufacturing can be performed anywhere with transportation and infrastructure to support whatever industry that is. If we got too militant then companies would just say 'sod it' and move everything off-shore. The short term pain would be offset by the long term gain. I suspect the fact that we've been willing to accept a slow erosion of pay and conditions has meant that some companies have kept work here as the cost and risks associated with moving were greater than the reduced costs of employing people here. In IT for example if people had campaigned to keep late 90s and early 00s conditions then there wouldn't be an IT industry here beyond on-site support for hardware and the odd self employed 'pop the HD in another PC, copy the stuff, re-install Windows, copy it back' man driving around in a van.

[Injin]

I'm sorry for you Injin.

Some of what you say is good but the fact you're deluded and don't believe countries exist and get orgasmic over the notion of state failure reduces your credibility somewhat.

Countries don't exist.

I don't get excited about state failure - it's bloody terrifying. All the tame and broken humans suddenly released into the wild, it'll be bloody chaos.

I have hopes for what comes afterwards, but no more than that and they are slim at best.

It's a bit like David Icke. What he says sounds fairly plausible until he mentions the lizard people who control the Earth.

No-one remembers the interesting stuff Icke says. All they remember is the stuff about shape-shifting lizards.

You are just the same.

Seriously - countries don't exist. They are merely arbitary made up fictions, no more real than santa.

[DiggerUK]

It's a bit like David Icke. What he says sounds fairly plausible until he mentions the lizard people who control the Earth.

No-one remembers the interesting stuff Icke says. All they remember is the stuff about shape-shifting lizards.

You are just the same.

To any intelligent person, the only interesting part of what Mr.Icke says is to do with shape shifting lizards.

[threetimesdead]

I'm sure most will admit that envy is involved when a large number of people are getting exceptionally generous benefits paid for by those with next to nothing. Pathetic - I'll give you that to a certain extent but there's also a sense of injustice.

We in the private sector (not saying everyone or even necessarily including myself - 'we' is just easier) have stood by as companies reduce benefits to the point where the majority will never be able to give up work and still eat. They ignored the real-terms stagnation in most people's wages and the fact that state employees they are paying for were now earning a lot more than non-state if you include pensions. They ignored all this because they were able to maintain a good lifestyle thru credit. People in my experience don't worry about what anyone else is doing so long as they have the basic comforts themselves.

Are we to blame for allowing this to happen? Yes. The result is we can no longer afford the products and services we could before. People are waking up to just how horrific our tax bills are and how low wages have fallen when there's no 'free' money to hide it. They are cutting back in services - getting rid of stuff they don't need. The premium TV channels go. The broadband drops down to a basic package and only if needed for work. The car is downsized or dropped altogether in a city. The holidays go. Food comes in those UN food drop like packages from the 'value' ranges at the supermarket. Heating goes off and cold foods or those that don't need a pre-heated oven become popular. Despite the cutting down in every other area, there seems to be one bill that we don't seem to be allowed to cut back on even a little bit and that's public services - the very services we didn't agree to pay for to start with.

Why should everyone be forced to pay for something they can no longer afford even if it's their own fault they can no longer afford it? Can't they just pay less and receive a lower standard of service, or pick the services they do want?

When it reaches the point where no-one can afford the service I provide then I lose my income. Even if that is in no way my fault it's still tough titties for me - life isn't fair and no-one owes me a living. Why do those working for the government seem to think they are different?

Nicely put

I would only say that the majority of those "services" now are of a such an inferior standard that given a choice and ability to pay one will certainkly choose private over public INSPITE even of his upbringing revolting at it!

And so you either get a crappy service or pay twice

I know of dozens successful businesses in realeconomy, producing real goods that had to impose pay freezes and cut 10-15% of their workforce increasing productivity and workload in order to stay competitive

Why does this approach not apply to schools, universities, hospitals, local authorities?

Edited August 2, 2009 by threetimesdead

[deeplyblue]

Countries don't exist.

I don't get excited about state failure - it's bloody terrifying. All the tame and broken humans suddenly released into the wild, it'll be bloody chaos.

I have hopes for what comes afterwards, but no more than that and they are slim at best.

How far back are you prepared to go in the retreat to a Hobbesean "state of nature", devoid of Civil Society?

db

[Guest absolutezero]

I addressed that in my last point. It's not fair that the public sector should suffer along with those who's fault this but if there's no money to pay then what's the option? You can only tax people so much before they are forced to stand up and say 'no more'.

As for a unionised workforce - that only works for a small subsection of jobs that can't be performed anywhere else. Transportation, physical services (supermarkets, restaurants) and construction. Science and technology jobs can be performed anywhere with an internet connection and electricity. Manufacturing can be performed anywhere with transportation and infrastructure to support whatever industry that is. If we got too militant then companies would just say 'sod it' and move everything off-shore. The short term pain would be offset by the long term gain. I suspect the fact that we've been willing to accept a slow erosion of pay and conditions has meant that some companies have kept work here as the cost and risks associated with moving were greater than the reduced costs of employing people here. In IT for example if people had campaigned to keep late 90s and early 00s conditions then there wouldn't be an IT industry here beyond on-site support for hardware and the odd self employed 'pop the HD in another PC, copy the stuff, re-install Windows, copy it back' man driving around in a van.

What I'm saying it make the cuts in things that actually should be cut. I.e. All the non-frontline, non-jobs in the public sector.

Don't have a go at the pensions. Have a go at the ridiculous jobs. If it's not frontline it should be canned.

With regard to your second paragraph, the private sector's problem is really with globalisation, not the public sector.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

People may have to stop paying council tax in order to eat or fund their own pension.

Edited August 2, 2009 by TheCountOfNowhere

[Guest absolutezero]

To any intelligent person, the only interesting part of what Mr.Icke says is to do with shape shifting lizards.

Have to disagree on that.

The whole bit about symbolism and the relationships between rulers/governments of all the various countries is very interesting.

Also don't forget Icke was banging the drum about debt and bankers long before it became fashionable.

[Injin]

How far back are you prepared to go in the retreat to a Hobbesean "state of nature", devoid of Civil Society?

db

I'm going forward.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Countries don't exist.

I don't get excited about state failure - it's bloody terrifying. All the tame and broken humans suddenly released into the wild, it'll be bloody chaos.

I have hopes for what comes afterwards, but no more than that and they are slim at best.

Seriously - countries don't exist. They are merely arbitary made up fictions, no more real than santa.

"Countries" is not a term anyone should be using anyway. Are you talking about nations or states or nation-states? And what do you mean by "exist"?

[Injin]

"Countries" is not a term anyone should be using anyway. Are you talking about nations or states or nation-states? And what do you mean by "exist"?

I mean is present in the real material world.

Nation states don't exist either.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

I mean is present in the real material world.

Nation states don't exist either.

First, does the material world exist independent of consciousness?

[Injin]

First, does the material world exist independent of consciousness?

Yes.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Yes.

OK. But how do you know that?

[Stars]

OK. But how do you know that?

Because any other arrangement would be daft

[Injin]

OK. But how do you know that?

Via our senses.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Because any other arrangement would be daft

Classic objectivism, I guess. This is about the primacy of existence, and that existence exists, in this case independent of conciousness. Think of it like this - does your consciousness perceive or create existence? And how would you know?

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Via our senses.

Esse est percipi?

[Biffo the Bear]

Via our senses.

But are our senses only there to perpetuate a subjective consensual take on reality? I don't think it's possible to prove a definitive objective reality; your blue may be my green, or your triangles my circles, but I will never know unless I saw through your eyes.

[Injin]

Esse est percipi?

Remfa eesa, unhukt er bar.

[Injin]

But are our senses only there to perpetuate a subjective consensual take on reality? I don't think it's possible to prove a definitive objective reality; your blue may be my green, or your triangles my circles, but I will never know unless I saw through your eyes.

Yes, you do.

The fact that you post to me proves it.