Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dog

Tax Abuser Of The Week

Recommended Posts

Tax abuser of the week

Strategic Director - Children and Young People

Nottinghamshire County Council

Nottinghamshire

Circa £125,000 pa

We need now is an ambitious and determined professional to join our strategic directorate team and bring vision, make the decisions that matter, and provide the leadership that counts.

This just has to be repeated again

Chief Executive

Birmingham City Council

West Midlands

£195k

Chief Executive is required.

Lets all have new jobs and big salary rises abuser of the week

Head of Customer Services - Peterborough City Council - £60,000 - £73,000

Head of Strategic Property - Peterborough City Council - £60,000 - £73,000

Head of Human Resources - Peterborough City Council - £60,000 - £73,000

City Centre Director - Peterborough City Council - £55,000

Most puffed up non job of the week

Director of Community Services

EAST LOTHIAN COUNCIL

Scotland

£98,000 plus benefits

Responsibilities – and opportunities – don’t come much bigger than this – where you can realise your vision for our future, while securing your vision of your own.

Silliest job of the week

Head of Harm Reduction

COI National Crime Squad

Central London

£63,345 - £71,616 (Currently under review)

You will be responsible for the delivery of a range of harm reduction strategies which support and compliment the operational and intelligence faculties within the Centre.

Other tax abusers

Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses

Veredus

West London

£120k

You'll: - champion the interests of victims and witnesses - advise the Government on how they should be supported - drive change and modernisation through the criminal justice system

Chief Executive

West Midlands Local Government Association

West Midlands

£115k

We are looking for an outstanding individual to lead the West Midlands Regional Partnership, which includes the West Midlands Regional Assembly and the West Midlands Local Government Association.

Executive Director

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

Lancashire

£107,000

Your main task will be to plan and oversee strategy in a specific programme area. The programme area which you occupy may well not relate to your existing professional background.

Director of Corporate and Customer Services

Bracknell Forest Borough Council

Berkshire

£96k - £104k per annum plus benefits

Director of Corporate and Customer Servicesx is required.

Chief Executive

Woking Borough Council

Surrey

£100,000

If you think you have the qualities to sustain our success as a strong, energetic and inspirational leader, then we need you.

Chief Executive

Wigan and Leigh Housing

Greater Manchester

c.£100k plus benefits

At a more strategic level you will be a pivotal member of the wider, mutually supportive and joined-up leadership of the borough; benefiting all our citizens and contributing to the Council's 'excellent' performance rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog

Please get a life and stop this weekly drivel about people who work in the public sector. Sober up, have a brain transplant or whatever, and then look at the size of the bonuses some City traders have got for gambling with other peoples' money. Or look at what the average, someaht stupid footballer is earning a WEEK.

Then, please, take a long holiday in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog

Please get a life and stop this weekly drivel about people who work in the public sector. Sober up, have a brain transplant or whatever, and then look at the size of the bonuses some City traders have got for gambling with other peoples' money. Or look at what the average, someaht stupid footballer is earning a WEEK.

Then, please, take a long holiday in Iraq.

Embarassed public servant speaks out.

Edited by dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

City boys and footballers operate in a competitive environment with money that has ultimately been sourced from voluntary sources. They directly provide a return for that investment and are measured against others success.

None of these tax funded, nepotist jobs have such attributes.

Dont like the bankers, dont use them to invest.

Don't like footballers, dont pay per view or go to matches.

Don't like local council exec's... tough shit.. now cough up your tax little man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog

Please get a life and stop this weekly drivel about people who work in the public sector. Sober up, have a brain transplant or whatever, and then look at the size of the bonuses some City traders have got for gambling with other peoples' money. Or look at what the average, someaht stupid footballer is earning a WEEK.

Then, please, take a long holiday in Iraq.

Trouble is , you can choose not to go to a football match , you cant choose not to pay taxes which of course pays the PS wages.

Keep it up dog , I enjoy it.

Dames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax abuser of the week

Strategic Director - Children and Young People

Nottinghamshire County Council

Nottinghamshire

Circa £125,000 pa

We need now is an ambitious and determined professional to join our strategic directorate team and bring vision, make the decisions that matter, and provide the leadership that counts.

This just has to be repeated again

Chief Executive

Birmingham City Council

West Midlands

£195k

Chief Executive is required.

Lets all have new jobs and big salary rises abuser of the week

Head of Customer Services - Peterborough City Council - £60,000 - £73,000

Head of Strategic Property - Peterborough City Council - £60,000 - £73,000

Head of Human Resources - Peterborough City Council - £60,000 - £73,000

City Centre Director - Peterborough City Council - £55,000

Most puffed up non job of the week

Director of Community Services

EAST LOTHIAN COUNCIL

Scotland

£98,000 plus benefits

Responsibilities – and opportunities – don’t come much bigger than this – where you can realise your vision for our future, while securing your vision of your own.

Silliest job of the week

Head of Harm Reduction

COI National Crime Squad

Central London

£63,345 - £71,616 (Currently under review)

You will be responsible for the delivery of a range of harm reduction strategies which support and compliment the operational and intelligence faculties within the Centre.

Other tax abusers

Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses

Veredus

West London

£120k

You'll: - champion the interests of victims and witnesses - advise the Government on how they should be supported - drive change and modernisation through the criminal justice system

Chief Executive

West Midlands Local Government Association

West Midlands

£115k

We are looking for an outstanding individual to lead the West Midlands Regional Partnership, which includes the West Midlands Regional Assembly and the West Midlands Local Government Association.

Executive Director

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

Lancashire

£107,000

Your main task will be to plan and oversee strategy in a specific programme area. The programme area which you occupy may well not relate to your existing professional background.

Director of Corporate and Customer Services

Bracknell Forest Borough Council

Berkshire

£96k - £104k per annum plus benefits

Director of Corporate and Customer Servicesx is required.

Chief Executive

Woking Borough Council

Surrey

£100,000

If you think you have the qualities to sustain our success as a strong, energetic and inspirational leader, then we need you.

Chief Executive

Wigan and Leigh Housing

Greater Manchester

c.£100k plus benefits

At a more strategic level you will be a pivotal member of the wider, mutually supportive and joined-up leadership of the borough; benefiting all our citizens and contributing to the Council's 'excellent' performance rating.

Thanks dog. I really appreciate this column. It gets really boring collecting The Guardian every week. Just two request to make it more stategically relevant to my objectives. Could you concentrate on the SE particularly regional locations, and could you focus on jobs in the 30-40K range :D

Elizabeth

Edited by Elizabeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Embarassed public servant speaks out.

Private sector employee until last year. Now, I work harder in the public sector by far. I don't want to get too far off-topic, but public sector pay is really not a great problem, and has not contributed to HP inflation.

Chief Execs who under-perform and get vast bonuses anyway (which is most FTSE 100 companies) are a problem but you ignore this because you think they don't directly cost you anything. Wrong.

I'm not playing the politics of envy or anything else. It just makes me despair of the mentality of a certain group of people on this site who recognise the price of everything and the value of nothing, and who see the free market as an untouchable, godlike, entity (except in relation to house prices).

If you don't mind me saying, this is typical estate agent mentality...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private sector employee until last year. Now, I work harder in the public sector by far. I don't want to get too far off-topic, but public sector pay is really not a great problem, and has not contributed to HP inflation.

Chief Execs who under-perform and get vast bonuses anyway (which is most FTSE 100 companies) are a problem but you ignore this because you think they don't directly cost you anything. Wrong.

I'm not playing the politics of envy or anything else. It just makes me despair of the mentality of a certain group of people on this site who recognise the price of everything and the value of nothing, and who see the free market as an untouchable, godlike, entity (except in relation to house prices).

If you don't mind me saying, this is typical estate agent mentality...

What vital service do you perform for the tax payer? With your attitude, I bet you work in local government.

You failed to reply to the point that others have already made that we all have to pay for public sector non jobs, while contributing towards the pay of a FTSE 100 chief exec is voluntary, either as a customer or as a shareholder. Therein lies the problem with the public sector. We, the tax payers are not viewed as customers but as annoying sh!ts who bother your otherwise pleasant and stress free days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harrumph harrumph etc.

Actually, and interestingly, I moved out of working for the UK Government recently and now earn approximately 3 times my previous salary, together with Private Health Care, for no more work. ;)

(and met at Dinner the other night a lovely ex-lawyer who had just come into Government and was shocked at how hard people were working i.e. very, although enjoying the work considerably as she felt she was actually contributing something to society).

I know my experiences refer to central Government but hey, peace, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harrumph harrumph etc.

Actually, and interestingly, I moved out of working for the UK Government recently and now earn approximately 3 times my previous salary, together with Private Health Care, for no more work. ;)

(and met at Dinner the other night a lovely ex-lawyer who had just come into Government and was shocked at how hard people were working i.e. very, although enjoying the work considerably as she felt she was actually contributing something to society).

I know my experiences refer to central Government but hey, peace, man.

What did you do before and what do you do now? I am sure that there are easy and over paid jobs in the private sector, but I dont care, because I dont have to pay their wages.

As for hard work, maybe central government is different, but have you ever tried to phone your local council at 8.55 am or 5.05 pm and had the phone answered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to work in a part of Government that deals with Foreign Policy issues and now work in the security sector.

In Government I was usually in at 0830 and not away till around 1900 most days. This was fairly average, or even slightly less than average as I always tried to keep my hours down.

You do pay my wages indirectly. If any part of industry sells to any part of anything you consume then yes, indirectly, you pay the wages of private sector folk: be it the football season ticket you think costs far too much but you are too loyal a fan not to buy one, be it the car you can't do your job without, be it the sophisticated fighter plane that patrols your skies in the air-force and built at great cost by a defence firm in a cosy contract, the oil supplied to you by a cartel or the food purveyed to you a select group of supermarkets who have cornered the market....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you do before and what do you do now? I am sure that there are easy and over paid jobs in the private sector, but I dont care, because I dont have to pay their wages.

As for hard work, maybe central government is different, but have you ever tried to phone your local council at 8.55 am or 5.05 pm and had the phone answered?

Our unit has to answer the phone within 5 rings. According to the monitoring we manage that 98% of the time. We have an internal expectation that it will be 3 rings and I reckon we make 70% of that as well. Nobody likes a phone ringing out. It disturbs the ambiance and is not effective for generating productive workflow. Try not to generalise please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private sector employee until last year. Now, I work harder in the public sector by far. I don't want to get too far off-topic, but public sector pay is really not a great problem, and has not contributed to HP inflation.

Forget HPI, all this pointless tat explains why half peoples pay packet is extracted hook or by crook by our mutual friend in No 11.

Anyway, you just commented that the private sector was the big daddy of excess, so why have you switched to such a underpaid, overworked, god awful public sector job? You must be a saint, I don't know how the others manage, they're such worthy and noble people getting paid £150k to do **** all. It's like charity, it really is (actually I think that's better paid).

Also, if the wealth wasn't generated by work in the private sector who would pay for you?

Our unit has to answer the phone within 5 rings. According to the monitoring we manage that 98% of the time.

You're clearly over-staffed. <_<

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog

Please get a life and stop this weekly drivel about people who work in the public sector. Sober up, have a brain transplant or whatever, and then look at the size of the bonuses some City traders have got for gambling with other peoples' money. Or look at what the average, someaht stupid footballer is earning a WEEK.

Then, please, take a long holiday in Iraq.

OK, can I have my taxes back then?

Public sector salaries are paid from wealth generating tax payer's taxes (public sector workers don't pay tax - they get a salary and then give some of it back in a money shuffling exercise that generates more work for more public sector workers in the inland revenue).

Large public sector salaries are the business of every private sector worker, because they are paying for it, and they don't have a choice to pay tax. Traders and footballers on the other hand are paid by people who want to pay. Nobody has to buy shares or watch football if they don't like the workers involved getting paid a lot of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quite frankly, these salaries, as heads of depts, don't sound huge.

Yes, the headline job role title may sound fatuous, but the responsibilities and activities within that job role are not specified.

How much does everyone think these roles should be paid, considering they require a lot of man and line management responsibility, are probably target driven, demanding and depend upon much experience?

Remember, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Yes, I agree that much productivity is wasted in the PS due to bureaucracy, but the incumbent or next job role holder cannot be blamed for that.

Personally, it's not the salary / headline job role title that worries me about public sector jobs, it's

a ) nepotism, resulting in the role being filled by an unqualified person (either experience and / or qualification-wise),

and b ) the public sector pension rights resulting in a significant future tax-payer burden which currently far outweigh private sector.

These are the things that are not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

We don't pay peanuts and still get monkeys.

Most of these posts serve no purpose whatsoever. If entire departments disappeared nobody would notice let alone care.

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't pay peanuts and still get monkeys.

Most of these posts serve no purpose whatsoever. If entire departments disappeared nobody would notice let alone care.

can you substantiate that, or is it just your knee-jerk reaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quite frankly, these salaries, as heads of depts, don't sound huge.

Yes, the headline job role title may sound fatuous, but the responsibilities and activities within that job role are not specified.

How much does everyone think these roles should be paid, considering they require a lot of man and line management responsibility, are probably target driven, demanding and depend upon much experience?

Remember, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Yes, I agree that much productivity is wasted in the PS due to bureaucracy, but the incumbent or next job role holder cannot be blamed for that.

Personally, it's not the salary / headline job role title that worries me about public sector jobs, it's

a ) nepotism, resulting in the role being filled by an unqualified person (either experience and / or qualification-wise),

and b ) the public sector pension rights resulting in a significant future tax-payer burden which currently far outweigh private sector.

These are the things that are not right.

Maybe you could explain to me what all those diversity coordinators and directors of open spaces actually do?

ahhhhh... the sure sign of an argumentative uncertainty... to ask a further question in response to the first question!!

You have merely served to underline the first point of my first post on this thread... however fatuous the job role title, the actual responsibilities and activities of the job role are not specified. These could well be quite demanding, and will definitely have line management and target driven responsibilities, the equivalent of which could easily fetch more pay in the private sector.

Do you, as I asked, have any evidence that these roles ARE actually as fatuous as the job titles suggest, and that we really would not notice if these roles were deemed unnecessary?

Perhaps not in the next few weeks or months, but perhaps a detrimental and significant social effect would be evidenced after a few years? Remember that job role titles cannot state what the role is actually expected to deliver.

D you have evidence that these roles demand little in comparison to the remuneration? Do you have evidence that similarly skilled individuals in the private sector earn much less than the advertised public sector positions?

The title of the role has little to do with whether the role is value for money or not to the public purse.

It's the OVERALL compensation inc. pension (and other bens), plus nepotism that is more of a worry, rather than simply thinking "f*cking hell, what's a sodding "diversity co-ordinator / director of open spaces? I don't understand what they do, and I reckon in my ignorance that it sounds like b*llocks, therefore without further research on what it actually entails I shall openly declare it as absolute b*llocks and a waste of public expenditure."

All I am saying is that without fully understanding what these roles actually do, none of us are in a position to judge value for money, and it is nepotism, and benefits funded by the public which are BEYOND private sector employment benefits that worry me far more than a simple knee-jerk reaction to a one-liner public sector job title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have merely served to underline the first point of my first post on this thread... however fatuous the job role title, the actual responsibilities and activities of the job role are not specified. These could well be quite demanding

Obviously this is how things differ, in the private sector people have to justify their jobs and explain exactly why they're needed, in the public sector it seems the burden of proof is on others to prove exactly why they aren't needed. There's some implicit virtue it seems.

I'm just amazed we've been able to run the country for 800 years without these sort of jobs. I'm also amazed that a country that no longer has nationalised industries manages to employ over 5m public workers when the commanding heights have long been farmed out.

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously this is how things differ, in the private sector people have to justify their jobs and explain exactly why they're needed, in the public sector it seems the burden of proof is on others to prove exactly why they aren't needed. There's some implicit virtue it seems.

I'm just amazed we've been able to run the country for 800 years without these sort of jobs. I'm also amazed that a country that no longer has nationalised industries manages to employ over 5m public workers when the commanding heights have long been farmed out.

well, in the last 800 years we've also seen a huge amount of negative social activity that we would never want to see again! Burning "witches" at the stake, poor-houses, child labour, regional genocide and inter-county wars... However, even in the last 80 years, we've seen a huge shift in the rights of minorities (partially to do with "diversity co-ordinators" I assume, and a protection and maintenance of urban green spaces (to do with the other role you mentioned), that we would not have had without these roles.

So we might have done without these jobs in the past, but we as a society did not enjoy the benefits they brought, maybe because we did not need them THEN, but there is a requirement for them now.

Although agreed, the numbers of public servants is another issue entirely, and one I personally have a problem with, but I believe that is mainly due to central govt initiated bureaucracy... :angry:

Edited by xian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, in the last 800 years we've also seen a huge amount of negative social activity that we would never want to see again! Burning "witches" at the stake, poor-houses, child labour, regional genocide and inter-county wars...

Indeed, I somehow forget how bad things were before year-zero that was May 1st 1997.

Up until four years ago when they started recruiting five administrators for each doctor or nurse our society was just falling apart and now we live in a virtual utopia where millions are paid for hitting targets, ever upwards, ever forward, ever onward.

- edit, look at my sig, I don't care about green spaces, the ever vulnerable 94% of the country that isn't classified as urban is protected by unpaid reactionaries and malcontents that are motiviated simply by raw zeal. Hrm, it seems they like to poke their noses into urban affairs too, the superfluous directors of urban spaces simply cannot compete on this level.

Edited by BuyingBear

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 337 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.