Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
geezer466

Are The Bbc Coming On Board?

Recommended Posts

The public sector workers who top PM's pay

9000 + earn more than the PM who has executive decision in this Country!!

Is the genie finally out of the bag or is the role of PM not at important as some others?

The BBC's salaries were included because the BBC is funded by the £145.50 licence fee paid by UK households. There are 331 managers at the BBC earning more than £100,000.

FFS how can this be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking I'm not sure if the BBC counts as public sector or not, because paying for it is voluntary. You can choose, as I and around 2% of the population have done, not to have a television and therefore, quite legally, not to give them any money. But on the other hand, it's a monopoly (because you have to pay the BBC for the legal right to watch its' rivals output) mandated by the state (i.e. a Royal Charter). It's a difficult one.

As for the public sector pay story, that Royal Charter could be part of the reason behind it. The BBC's left-leaning instincts, enshrined by Reith and maintained ever since, are second only to its survival instinct as a corporate motivation. They are well aware that if pushed too far, governments can and do wade in and take action against broadcasters, as Thames found out the hard way in the aftermath of the Death On the Rock broadcast. That, combined with Jeremy Hunt making noises about freezing the licence fee long term and giving some of the money to C4, is probably causing them to rethink their socialist tune (i.e. defending public sector mega-earners on the grounds that they're worth it and us plebs should be grateful for being told what to do by such visionary leaders, which is essentially their line to date), or at least moderate it. And they know full well that if the next election brings a full-scale Conservative government, they're in serious trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public sector workers who top PM's pay

9000 + earn more than the PM who has executive decision in this Country!!

Is the genie finally out of the bag or is the role of PM not at important as some others?

FFS how can this be true?

For the same reason that there are many private sector jobs which beat the PM's salary, surely? Doctors, dentists, business advisers etc?

Surprising really that people tolerate some obscene salaries in business, but the same is not true of top level jobs in the public sector.

Unless you think we should privatise the entire public sector? Please start with healthcare...I can't wait to start getting this private sector salaries myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I`m tired of a greedy few taking so much of the nation`s income. Imo no one should make more than the prime minister. And the easiest way to solve that is just to make the top marginal tax rate 100% at anything above what the PM makes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This gets trotted out frequently and the PM's income alone should not be used. Along with other ministers, he gets free transport around the world. He also lives for free at a choice of homes whilst in office and earns a massive pension, for life.

I'm mildly surprised to read that Gordon waived his right to it and will tak a minister's pension "only." This from the Telegraph in May:

Regardless of how long he or she serves, any former Prime Minister is entitled to half his £194,250 salary index-linked against inflation for the rest of his life. Mr Brown voluntarily waived his right to this payment – but the entitlement remains in legislation for whoever his successor might be.....

Also:

It would cost more than £3.6m for a private sector saver of Mr Brown’s age to buy a guaranteed income for life with full inflation-proofing, according to Billy Burrows of annuities specialists Burrows Cummins.

Full article:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100005545/number-10-defends-gordon-browns-gold-plated-pension/

Edited by deflation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Todays' Bury Journal well its not todays its just the paperboy does it on a Sunday evening.

States that the cheif of Bury Council is to jack in his £179,000 or was it £165,000 year job (paper has already been used to clear up a mess so can't check) to help balance the budget, how on earth a local council guy can make £165K+ I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public sector workers who top PM's pay

9000 + earn more than the PM who has executive decision in this Country!!

Is the genie finally out of the bag or is the role of PM not at important as some others?

FFS how can this be true?

Are they counting higher education? I'd imagine there is at least 1000 people earning in excess of 100k in that sector. But most of this will be the bloated salaries of the upper management at councils - in no way justifiable IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking I'm not sure if the BBC counts as public sector or not, because paying for it is voluntary. You can choose, as I and around 2% of the population have done, not to have a television and therefore, quite legally, not to give them any money.

The TV licence was reclassified as a tax wasn't it?

The BBC is publicly funded. Argue over whether you do or do not pay it elsewhere.

They are taking the pee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ministerial pay is kept artificially low for reasons of political expediency - they are worried that raising it to match remuneration to comparable jobs in the private sector would be exploited by the media and be spun to go down very badly among voters. Its because the likes of the Daily Mail hold the all the cards to the threat of public dissent over making pay levels more reasonable, this expediency is having a detrimental effect on the nation. It deters the best candidates for applying for ministerial jobs and leads to ex-PM's selling themselves to private corporations in return fir divulging key knowledge and access to contacts. In essence this particular instance of sanctimoniousness is self-defeating but voters can be relied upon to be too stupid to understand that and the corruption continues.

Most people accept that a backbench MP's pay should be lower than those of ministers and the PM. Raising the PM's pay to match those of corporate executives would have led to paying our MPs more and reduced the temptation of cheating on expenses. That is, by paying our representatives a decent level of pay, we could avoid a great deal of temptation that leads to corruption and the disastrously corrosive effect it has on our country.

*Ex-ministers make up for relatively low pay after they leave office by working for banks or writing their memoirs or both in Blair's case.

Edited by Dave Spart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit unfortunate that the benchmark is the PM's salary. Comparitively few (9000) earn more than this so the savings to be made are quite meagre. If you look further dwon however we see that over 38,000 earn more than £100k. 38,000 times £100k is £3.8bn -that's the minmum cost because £100k is the minimum- then add on the employers pension contribution etc you won't see any change from £5bn.

I'm just putting this forward as an order of magnitude type thing. You could reduce these salaries to yield a £1bn saving for example.

Then we get to the ones on less than £100k but still generous salaries. Say £50k plus, massive scope for savings I am sure.

But.... but ....then they wouldn't be able to pay massive mortgages, then house prices might go down......Oh dear can't have this can we..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It deters the best candidates for applying for ministerial jobs and leads to ex-PM's selling themselves to private corporations in return fir divulging key knowledge and access to contacts.

You really think that it deters the best candidates? It deters those who are far more interested in personal gain than the job, that's true, but that isn't a bad thing IMO. I wouldn't be inclined to put the fact that we've got permamently hopeless government down to pay for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This gets trotted out frequently and the PM's income alone should not be used. Along with other ministers, he gets free transport around the world.

Only for travel as part of his job, as far as I'm aware. Unless he also gets leisure transport on the public tab, I wouldn't call that a perk or a benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Across the UK, the NHS has the highest number of high earners, with more than 26,000 people on more than £100,000. Of those, nearly 6,500 earn more than Mr Cameron. The top NHS earner is a GP on at least £475,000 and seven out of the top 10 in the NHS are GPs

So, out of 38,000 PS employees earning over £100,000 pa. 26,000 are in the NHS. Around 70%.

The National HelpYourself Service.

£475k p.a. for writing out little green slips ffs.

Edit: Btw, I'm not very bothered about what the PM earns. Avge pay ought to be the benchmark, not one person in a unique role.

Edited by Frank Sidebottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think that it deters the best candidates? It deters those who are far more interested in personal gain than the job, that's true, but that isn't a bad thing IMO. I wouldn't be inclined to put the fact that we've got permamently hopeless government down to pay for the job.

Well, if you don't believe relatively low salaries deter the best candidates tell your boss you are happy to take a pay cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I`m tired of a greedy few taking so much of the nation`s income. Imo no one should make more than the prime minister. And the easiest way to solve that is just to make the top marginal tax rate 100% at anything above what the PM makes.

Oh don't be mental aa3, that would simply result in offshoring and whatnot a go-go. Plus it's unnecessary & immoral - if a person creates the wealth then good for them.

The answer in the public sector is easy as we are the employer. Just don't offer the jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, out of 38,000 PS employees earning over £100,000 pa. 26,000 are in the NHS. Around 70%.

The National HelpYourself Service.

£475k p.a. for writing out little green slips ffs.

Edit: Btw, I'm not very bothered about what the PM earns. Avge pay ought to be the benchmark, not one person in a unique role.

The list of GPs on the BBC site is quite eye opening. £475K not once but twice, how is this possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for me its not a case of what you earn its a case of what you do/how you earn your money.

in the private sector there are pleanty of jobs that are just not needed and or pay well above what they should. but they have to show worth to the company or that they add value. and at the worst case (read High earners, as they are generally at the top of the company IE CEO etc) the share holders have to agree these types of pay/benifits/perks for that job. if they [share holders] beleive that the person is not doing the job employed for, or the job is not required then that person is asked to leave.

pay in the private sector is set by how much that job is "worth" in the open market, IE what other companies are willing to pay for a similar or the same job, as to be competitive and entice people to join that company. the company is trying to get that positioned filled for the least fainicial outlay where the (prospective) employee is trying to get the most money possible. this will continue untill that persons employment finishes (pay rise etc).

yes in some cases there are high earners with big bonuses etc, and that is also true in the public sector.

i can not understand how a footballist (or any other professional sports person) can command upto £50k per week, as i do not beleve they are "worth" that. i also can not understand how they continue to get these saleries when their club is in debt to massive numbers. But as thats a private company i do not care that much.

but when its the public sector i want ot know that i am (as an employeer/financier of the public sector( share holder if you like)) want to know that i am getting value for my money. i dont not care how much they earn, but are they genuinly earning it? i understand that some jobs will demand higher wages when running an organisation of 2000 people, and that (arguealbly) requires the experience of a CEO from a private company, where they can earn massive renumeration packages.

its not the employees fault how much they get piad, its the people paying them and to allow this to happen. if they add worth/value and demonstrate that they are worth it, than just ideally point towards the private sector saying "well they get it why dont we" wont work. if you are scared of loosing your pay then YOU must feel that your not worth it, and thus by your admission need culling.

there are some jobs IMO that are worth every penny and more, but from what i can see there is 10 jobs which are either a waste of money or over paid for evey one thats right in the public sector.

the public sector should be run like a private company, with proper budgeting, accounting and accountability. gone are they days of just paying our taxes and not knowing where it went or to whom. my CEO knows how much money the company made/lost etc, and he tasks each department ot make sure that all proffit is maximised, due to current ecconomic circumstances all payrises for every employee has to be put to board before its signed off, that means it goes from line manager to department manager to office director to discipline director - capability director then to the board, and at each step it has to be agreed and justified, its a long winded process, but its to make sure that it is correct, if at any point its challenged it is for the management before to prove their decission. we just cant go to our customers (oh we want a 10% bonus this year, so all your prices will go up by 15%" they wouldnt agree to that, they would go to our competitors and we would go bust.

the public sector must realise that this is how it works in the private sector and that they should be like that. we (the tax paying public) are not a cash cow and serious reforms on how the public sector pays show be formally reviewed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

monkey, you are spot on throughout your post.

Sadly there is a defensive arrogance about high pay in the public sector that rejects your arguments not merely as flawed but as offensive.

People saying this stuff get accused of wanting to throw babies onto the streets when of course all you want is to see a connection between value and pay, and to see that proven. After all, you're paying for it. Sadly that is an impossible dream because the public sector does not need to earn its income, it is simply taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pay in the private sector is set by how much that job is "worth" in the open market, IE what other companies are willing to pay for a similar or the same job, as to be competitive and entice people to join that company. the company is trying to get that positioned filled for the least fainicial outlay where the (prospective) employee is trying to get the most money possible. this will continue untill that persons employment finishes (pay rise etc).

Doesn't the public sector compete for jobs in the open market and so set their pay accordingly?

yes in some cases there are high earners with big bonuses etc, and that is also true in the public sector.

i can not understand how a footballist (or any other professional sports person) can command upto £50k per week, as i do not beleve they are "worth" that. i also can not understand how they continue to get these saleries when their club is in debt to massive numbers. But as thats a private company i do not care that much.

but when its the public sector i want ot know that i am (as an employeer/financier of the public sector( share holder if you like)) want to know that i am getting value for my money. i dont not care how much they earn, but are they genuinly earning it? i understand that some jobs will demand higher wages when running an organisation of 2000 people, and that (arguealbly) requires the experience of a CEO from a private company, where they can earn massive renumeration packages.

I think many public sector organisations could be run as independent non-profit organisations. They could be run in a 'lean' way with an objective of continuous improvement and provision of an agreed level of service for the lowest possible cost. This requires good management, leadership and vision. Many people simply don't want 'choice' in many of their services - they just want a basic service that works well.

Edited by shipbuilder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, out of 38,000 PS employees earning over £100,000 pa. 26,000 are in the NHS. Around 70%.

The National HelpYourself Service.

To be fair, if anyone deserves £100,000pa it's the people that save lives all day every day - surgeons, GPs etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, if anyone deserves £100,000pa it's the people that save lives all day every day - surgeons, GPs etc

GPs save lives do they? Rubbish. In my experience they are mostly clueless and certainly overpaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the PM be paid a salary? I think it should be a privilege to serve the country and promote and preach your political ideology and plenty of people would do it for free. Not only that but it should be means tested as he clearly doesn't need the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 239 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.