Chesterfield Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 The problem is the spending in Whitehall is nothing compared to the rest of the public sector, and I would hope that their salaries are fixed as per other public sector workers too. I very much doubt that they will remove teachers pensions, well they cant, but what they can do is remove the link to final salary for new entrants. That will no doubt get the unions angry and they will kick up a fuss (even though it will be for NEW entrants. People who havent even started yet, nevermind paid any union subscriptions)... Final salary pensions are just about extinct in the private sector, the reason being is that they end up bankrupting companies. People live longer in retirement than they used to, and final salary schemes just result in massive deficits for the companies. In the public sector its compounded by the fact you get to retire earlier too! This is why private sector industries dont have them anymore. Yet for some reason, the unions feel that the same basic mathematics of "more out than in" should not affect their industries. So what if we are spending more money on pensions than we get in from pension contributions - the taxpayer will cover it right?.... Thats always been the mentality. What happens when the tax payers run out of money too? Somethng has to give, and this time its bringing the public sector back to reality whether they like it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 i f my final salary pension is cut i'll quit teaching. its on eof the small benefits to the job fo rbeing under paid and over worked. and to be honest thats the opinion of every teacher going. alot of us do it because we know that although we'll never earn much we will at least be looked after in our old age. current retirement age for teachers my age is now apparently 67. the thought of 50 years on the front line does not excite me one bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bounty78 Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Some managers in NHS and the CEO (the pen pushers behind the desk that don't work weekends or nights) gets paid a lot more than doctors, nurses, professionals allied to medicines ie the backbone of NHS. A CEO can earn up till 6 figures a year for coming up with lots of crap that makes no difference to the NHS trust whatsover. All they are interested is meeting Government targets. And none of this people had any background in medicine and half the time they are not on the same wavelength as people who actually work their socks off to save lives. Now that is a no brainer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maz0 Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 as a public sector worker i don't like my pay freeze, but i do understand why its needed. what i struggle with is that my pay is less than my friends in the private sector. i have slowly been working towards an equal salary compared to some one in the private sector with the same qualifications, time in job, experience etc. my pay stopped moving in 2 years when i hit thresh hold. I am in the exactly the same boat as you. Albeit not a teacher. There is about 15K of a difference in pay between my public sector wage and my mate who left our unit to work in the same job for a private sector bank. I'll never reach his wage as I'm capped about 10k away from it. If I were to look at other posts across the country which are the same as mine, I see that the average salary for this job is around 15k higher than me (private sector). Only reason I'm not on that wage is because I'm public sector. I was once told by one of our HR big wigs that I was to relate it to the Coop and Marks and Spencers, why does a Coop shelf stacker earn less than a M&S shelf stacker? But when I pointed out the end product quality of M&S compared to Coop, and asked if he expected me to work at a lesser standard than private sector seeing as I'm on the lower wage, he soon got the point. This thread has shown me that the problem doesn't lay with the majority of public sector workers, but with a minority who are abusing it, or perhaps not abusing it, but becoming a 'lifer' as Chesterfield put it. I should point out that even as a 'lifer' your not on wage rises for life, eventually you reach your cap and will only really get cost of living increases which are minimal. Many folk in Scotland recently got hit by the 'Cosla Job Evaluation Consortium' which I can't even express how much of a joke it was. But the jist of it was that majority got their wage cap reduced even further. And you say that we are exempt from the risky volatility of holding a job in private sector, but that's not the case, when my wage cap was recently reduced I was told sign the new contract and accept or your fired. I think the upset that most are feeling is that public sector has been targeted to foot the bill, when there are other areas that could be looked at. Look at the nuclear weapons program in place, 200 billion on these new submarines...or the war in Afghanistan. It was mentioned the countries debt increases at £10k a second, well I can bet a good chunk of that is thanks to the cost of running an army abroad with food, fuel, and ammunition. You might just say, well why not quit and go work private, well I actually really enjoy my job, and I'm sure rtbiscuit does as well. I just wished that the folk up top would some day get a grip and start paying fair wages in relation to the rest of the country, but my prayers were answered in reverse and I've now inherited a 2 year wage freeze. I suppose you should be careful what you wish for! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedrush Posted June 23, 2010 Author Share Posted June 23, 2010 i'm probably going to get flamed for this because its a bit biased as im a non smoker and a only drink on special occasions. I cant believe they havent put the tax up on booze and fags. Why should everyone suffer with a 2.5% vat increase and public sector workers have there pay frozen when a luxury which no one any good goes untouched. i.e joe bloggs who is a nhs worker giving his 110% everyday helping needy people has a pay freeze no matter how hard he works and how much he deserves it but people who smoke and drink for the better of no one doesnt suffer in anyway. i think that is crazy. In the most part i agree but i would have thought they would have looked at luxuries first before anything I think you are right, on tobacco especially they should of put the tax way up, all smoking does is cause more problems to the individual and NHS end up getting the back end of it when people have lung problems and other health problems due to the cause of smoking. I wonder if no one smoked how much would be saved in the health sector? I saw the news last night and it had this chavy mum pushing baby in pram saying how she is upset with the budget because she is going to get less, she doesnt work nor does her husband, all I could think of was... GOOD tell your husband to get a job like everyone else you lazy waste of space !!! About time these people were put out in the real world instead of sitting in the park with chavy mates pushing a pram and drinking cider, scum bags !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 a bit of a different debate but smokers have paid for their health care ten fold in the amount of tax they already pay on it. if it was such a major health concern then why haven't they banned it altogether. oh hang on that will be because they'll loose a massive chunk of tax gain they get from it already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunGodRA Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 a bit of a different debate but smokers have paid for their health care ten fold in the amount of tax they already pay on it. if it was such a major health concern then why haven't they banned it altogether. oh hang on that will be because they'll loose a massive chunk of tax gain they get from it already. +1 A 20 pack of Marlboro is over £6 now - £5 of that is tax - its ludicrous enough as it is thank you very much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedrush Posted June 23, 2010 Author Share Posted June 23, 2010 sorry didnt know how much a pack cost, thought it was like a £1. how much does the company get of the £5 and how much is tax? Also how much does the government spend on advertising on the dangers of smoking? And be interesting to note how much does it cost the NHS to help those with medical conditions caused by smoking. Be good to find out how much of the taxed cigarettes are used up on these two sectors alone as well as providing outside ashtrays, designated smoking areas, cleaning cigarettes butts and packaging from the streets... e.t.c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 very little will actually hit the NHS, it will all get used to pay for pram faces to stay at home and pop sprogs out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevlo Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 a bit of a different debate but smokers have paid for their health care ten fold in the amount of tax they already pay on it. if it was such a major health concern then why haven't they banned it altogether. oh hang on that will be because they'll loose a massive chunk of tax gain they get from it already. +1 A 20 pack of Marlboro is over £6 now - £5 of that is tax - its ludicrous enough as it is thank you very much! i still think they should put it up. yes your paying for it but as stated above its a luxury and benefits no one, seeing as some one has got to foot the bill why not this instead of the nhs workers as discussed above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 a bit of a different debate but smokers have paid for their health care ten fold in the amount of tax they already pay on it. if it was such a major health concern then why haven't they banned it altogether. oh hang on that will be because they'll loose a massive chunk of tax gain they get from it already. +1 A 20 pack of Marlboro is over £6 now - £5 of that is tax - its ludicrous enough as it is thank you very much! i still think they should put it up. yes your paying for it but as stated above its a luxury and benefits no one, seeing as some one has got to foot the bill why not this instead of the nhs workers as discussed above. because they are already taxed to buggery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedrush Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 a bit of a different debate but smokers have paid for their health care ten fold in the amount of tax they already pay on it. if it was such a major health concern then why haven't they banned it altogether. oh hang on that will be because they'll loose a massive chunk of tax gain they get from it already. +1 A 20 pack of Marlboro is over £6 now - £5 of that is tax - its ludicrous enough as it is thank you very much! i still think they should put it up. yes your paying for it but as stated above its a luxury and benefits no one, seeing as some one has got to foot the bill why not this instead of the nhs workers as discussed above. because they are already taxed to buggery Had this argument with my friend, I said to her that she theoretically costs us more in taxes due to nhs medical bills to cure people with illnesses caused from smoking, she turned round and said, smokers dont live as long as non smokers, so theoretically you cost the nhs more complaining about your back and old age and hip replacement than me who will sit quietly in my coffin happily looking like a cuban cigar... I was erm speechless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunGodRA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 a bit of a different debate but smokers have paid for their health care ten fold in the amount of tax they already pay on it. if it was such a major health concern then why haven't they banned it altogether. oh hang on that will be because they'll loose a massive chunk of tax gain they get from it already. +1 A 20 pack of Marlboro is over £6 now - £5 of that is tax - its ludicrous enough as it is thank you very much! i still think they should put it up. yes your paying for it but as stated above its a luxury and benefits no one, seeing as some one has got to foot the bill why not this instead of the nhs workers as discussed above. Chocolate is a luxury - lets stick £5 tax on that - Mars bar £6 - would that be fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dene8 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Had this argument with my friend, I said to her that she theoretically costs us more in taxes due to nhs medical bills to cure people with illnesses caused from smoking, she turned round and said, smokers dont live as long as non smokers, so theoretically you cost the nhs more complaining about your back and old age and hip replacement than me who will sit quietly in my coffin happily looking like a cuban cigar... I was erm speechless Smokers usually don't die quietly tho' ......... oxygen tanks and drugs a plenty to pre-long their life don't come cheap..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedrush Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 a bit of a different debate but smokers have paid for their health care ten fold in the amount of tax they already pay on it. if it was such a major health concern then why haven't they banned it altogether. oh hang on that will be because they'll loose a massive chunk of tax gain they get from it already. +1 A 20 pack of Marlboro is over £6 now - £5 of that is tax - its ludicrous enough as it is thank you very much! i still think they should put it up. yes your paying for it but as stated above its a luxury and benefits no one, seeing as some one has got to foot the bill why not this instead of the nhs workers as discussed above. Chocolate is a luxury - lets stick £5 tax on that - Mars bar £6 - would that be fair? If I eat a bar of chocolate does that effect your health? If you smoke a cigarette and Im standing near by, does that effect my health? Is chocolate a luxury that kills? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunGodRA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 a bit of a different debate but smokers have paid for their health care ten fold in the amount of tax they already pay on it. if it was such a major health concern then why haven't they banned it altogether. oh hang on that will be because they'll loose a massive chunk of tax gain they get from it already. +1 A 20 pack of Marlboro is over £6 now - £5 of that is tax - its ludicrous enough as it is thank you very much! i still think they should put it up. yes your paying for it but as stated above its a luxury and benefits no one, seeing as some one has got to foot the bill why not this instead of the nhs workers as discussed above. Chocolate is a luxury - lets stick £5 tax on that - Mars bar £6 - would that be fair? If I eat a bar of chocolate does that effect your health? If you smoke a cigarette and Im standing near by, does that effect my health? Is chocolate a luxury that kills? You are missing the point mate - the point is that ciggies are already extremely over taxed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maz0 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 a bit of a different debate but smokers have paid for their health care ten fold in the amount of tax they already pay on it. if it was such a major health concern then why haven't they banned it altogether. oh hang on that will be because they'll loose a massive chunk of tax gain they get from it already. +1 A 20 pack of Marlboro is over £6 now - £5 of that is tax - its ludicrous enough as it is thank you very much! i still think they should put it up. yes your paying for it but as stated above its a luxury and benefits no one, seeing as some one has got to foot the bill why not this instead of the nhs workers as discussed above. Chocolate is a luxury - lets stick £5 tax on that - Mars bar £6 - would that be fair? If I eat a bar of chocolate does that effect your health? If you smoke a cigarette and Im standing near by, does that effect my health? Is chocolate a luxury that kills? I think the point you make is more favoured toward an outright ban, nevermind further taxing. I'm all for an outright ban mind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demolition49 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Absolute joke isn't it. I think they should bring back the death penalty to cut the deficit, I don't see why we should support the sick bastards locked up, especially Venables. So what if your accused of rape, proven of it 20 years from now a new DNA analysis method comes out proves you innocent but your dead... thats NOT the way to tackle prisoners... instead they should be made to work and generate income for the prison to become self sustainable. The government no matter how much they tax us DO NOT use the money effectively... and the jobs the councils do are not done properly either... all of them are crap... in my honest opinion... + smokers and drinkers should be taxed heavier, it will reduce the spending on NHS as people wont be able to afford so much "bad stuff" on top of this less money spent on police dealing with the drunk and disorderly... That is the correct way to go... i understand people want to have a good time, but sorry you cant have it when your smoke can cause cancer to others around you.... I also think drink limit for driving should be 0 as the limit at the moment encourages people to drink and they ah its ok ill get away with it... 16 year old can go sign up to the army but cant vote... this country is twisted... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dene8 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 You are missing the point mate - the point is that ciggies are already extremely over taxed imo there's no such thing as over taxation when it comes to cigarettes....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunGodRA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 this is an old article (1998) - but it basically says that smoking costs the NHS £1.4-£1.7 billion a year, yet the revenue raised from taxing cigarettes is £8.7 billion a year. This was over 10 years ago when cigarettes where half the price they are now. So basically smokers more than pay for there own health care!! I smoke, and I agree its a bad habit and I would love to quit and probably will soon - but this article does floor any arguments you have put forward! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backg ... /86599.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maz0 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 this is an old article (1998) - but it basically says that smoking costs the NHS £1.4-£1.7 billion a year, yet the revenue raised from taxing cigarettes is £8.7 billion a year. This was over 10 years ago when cigarettes where half the price they are now. So basically smokers more than pay for there own health care!! I smoke, and I agree its a bad habit and I would love to quit and probably will soon - but this article does floor any arguments you have put forward! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backg ... /86599.stm That argument should actually be insulting to you as a smoker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dene8 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 this is an old article (1998) - but it basically says that smoking costs the NHS £1.4-£1.7 billion a year, yet the revenue raised from taxing cigarettes is £8.7 billion a year. This was over 10 years ago when cigarettes where half the price they are now. So basically smokers more than pay for there own health care!! I smoke, and I agree its a bad habit and I would love to quit and probably will soon - but this article does floor any arguments you have put forward! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backg ... /86599.stm But what percentage of the £8.7 billion actually gets allocated to the NHS....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich5259 Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Updated figures from last year - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8086142.stm Smoking costs the NHS five times as much as previously thought, researchers have calculated. Treating disease directly caused by smoking produces medical bills of more than £5bn a year in the UK. In 2005, smoking accounted for almost one in five of all deaths and a significant amount of disability, the Oxford University team said. The British Heart Foundation who funded the research said tighter regulations were needed on the sale of tobacco. The figure of £5bn in 2005-06 equates to 5.5% of the entire NHS budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunGodRA Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Updated figures from last year - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8086142.stm Smoking costs the NHS five times as much as previously thought, researchers have calculated. Treating disease directly caused by smoking produces medical bills of more than £5bn a year in the UK. In 2005, smoking accounted for almost one in five of all deaths and a significant amount of disability, the Oxford University team said. The British Heart Foundation who funded the research said tighter regulations were needed on the sale of tobacco. The figure of £5bn in 2005-06 equates to 5.5% of the entire NHS budget. http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-smuggling.aspx "UK Tobacco Market Summary Expenditure & Revenue Consumer spending on tobacco products in 2008 amounted to an estimated £13.1 billion, 90% of this on cigarettes. Tax revenue from tobacco in 2008/09 amounted to £10.0 billion - £8.2 billion in excise duty plus £1.8 billion in VAT. The total tax burden (excise duty plus VAT) accounts for 90% of the price of the cheapest cigarettes on sale in the UK." Arguement still stands - still overtaxed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 How much of the road tax is spent on roads????? It's invalid. Smoking and drinking is a luxury which you don't need. Same as a car.... sort of. So they tax the hell out of it! I'll happily pay extra for a pint down the pub or for a bottle of beer at the supermarket as I'm not the biggest drinker so it has little effect on me. Stick a penny or two on fuel and I feel it as motoring is my passion and it costs a lot to keep my little jeep, My Zed and my other Zed in fuel. Ask someone that doesn't own a car and spends all their time smoking and drinking.... They will cry if a penny is put on a pack of fags and a pint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.