The years of discontent, 2022/23

[Billy Jean King]

And yet your solution would increase the gap in pay between the lowest and highest earners - something you've been bleating about being a problem for years on here.
The difference is that this suggestion would affect you personally and you're squealing about it.

Eh it wouldn't as I haven't worked there for some time now.

I openly admit I am comfortable enough for the current rises to be absorbed but by the same token that doesn't mean you don't notice or feel them I doubt many who post on here are totally immune or oblivious to an erosion of their disposable income. It's about levels and your 35k is below where imo the axe should be falling given the numbers in this country who earn 3, 4, 5 even 10 times that amount. Your broad shoulders approach seems to me to be those on the next ring or 2 up making the sacrifice for those at the bottom while yet again those most able to take the strain get off scot free with you no doubt giving some piss poor diatribe about not being able to get the money out the richest. That is where the change needs to happen, not simply a shrug and say "it's too hard" so let's just take it from those we can.

[vikingTON]

12 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

 In any workplace there will be pay grades on a scale but tapered pay deals quickly erodes that structure and you end up regrading thus negating the whole thing.

Fine in theory but doesn't really work in practice.

Sounds like it worked just fine in practice - reducing hardship for those who need help - but didn't meet the theory of wage-based hierarchy that you and countless other middle-rankers rely on for self-worth. 

Somehow I think that the public sector can push on past your bruised ego on this occasion though. 

[Billy Jean King]

Mate, you can abuse all the statistics you like to show how you're really one of the pack but if you're on £35k, you are well above the average wage and by default need to be helping out those at the bottom.
If you're not prepared to do that, that's fine but you can give it a rest with your pretend left wing views.

At least we finally have an answer to your "cut off" point for a rise !

The only fake left wing views I see in here are yours, Oaky the Socialist, heard it all now.

[Billy Jean King]

Sounds like it worked just fine in practice - reducing hardship for those who need help - but didn't meet the theory of wage-based hierarchy that you and countless other middle-rankers rely on for self-worth. 
Somehow I think that the public sector can push on past your bruised ego on this occasion though. 

Whit ???

Of course you have never been part of the public sector or have you ???

[vikingTON]

11 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

I openly admit I am comfortable enough for the current rises to be absorbed but by the same token that doesn't mean you don't notice or feel them I doubt many who post on here are totally immune or oblivious to an erosion of their disposable income. It's about levels and your 35k is below where imo the axe should be falling

Special pleading.

Quote

given the numbers in this country who earn 3, 4, 5 even 10 times that amount. 

How many people are earning 3-5 times more in the public sector? What will you do to make this relatively small group pay for the collective 10% pay rises that you want to see below the axe that you've magically set, no doubt just above where it affects you?

And why would this be a fairer approval to dealing with a cost of living crisis anyway, as opposed to giving higher increases for those at the bottom - who spend a far greater portion of their income on essential goods/utilities to begin with - and tapering support to groups who already have an objectively large amount of income and assets to dispose of? 

Edited July 27, 2022 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, Billy Jean King said:

Whit ???

Of course you have never been part of the public sector or have you ???

I don't think we need a team of crack anthropologists to figure out the unique culture of Scottish public sector workers M8.  

[Billy Jean King]

How many people are earning 3-5 times more in the public sector? What will you do to make this relatively small group pay for the collective 10% pay rises that you want to see below the axe that you've magically set, no doubt just above where it affects you?
And why would this be a fairer approval to dealing with a cosy of living crisis anyway, as opposed to giving higher increases for those at the bottom - who spend a far greater portion of their income on essential goods/utilities to begin with - rather than to groups with an objectively large amount of income and assets to dispose of? 

The "this affects me" part is nonsense as I openly admitted. I have said before on here I work with the PS in Scotland but not for them. My post is externally funded by software suppliers and my only connection with the PS is that the software I work on pertains to LA systems along with other PS bodies like DWP and the NHS but you keep banging out your assumptions. At least I'm open about what I actually do for a living unlike some !

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, Billy Jean King said:

8 minutes ago, virginton said:

How many people are earning 3-5 times more in the public sector? What will you do to make this relatively small group pay for the collective 10% pay rises that you want to see below the axe that you've magically set, no doubt just above where it affects you?
And why would this be a fairer approval to dealing with a cosy of living crisis anyway, as opposed to giving higher increases for those at the bottom - who spend a far greater portion of their income on essential goods/utilities to begin with - rather than to groups with an objectively large amount of income and assets to dispose of? 

The "this affects me" part is nonsense as I openly admitted. I have said before on here I work with the PS in Scotland but not for them. My post is externally funded by software suppliers and my only connection with the PS is that the software I work on pertains to LA systems along with other PS bodies like DWP and the NHS but you keep banging out your assumptions. At least I'm open about what I actually do for a living unlike some !

That spit-flecked rant didn't actually answer any of the questions in the post you quoted.

Let's try one as a starter: if we magically secured enough money to address rising costs across society, why should we give a 10% rise to someone earning £35k per year and 10% to someone on UC (under £5k)?

Edited July 27, 2022 by vikingTON

[SlipperyP]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

I was though because that's who train drivers in Scotland overwhelmingly work for. So there's no profit and no dividend-earning fatcats to take the rhetorical slack: where does that money come from to turn a £50k wage into a £55k wage across the board? 

Except that the shite suppliers are typically chosen because they're the cheapest option. That's the folly of the private market for you. 

To fix that problem requires higher spending on infrastructure in the railway sector, not lower. Which strikes me as another of the 2570 higher priorities for spending public money than making sure that someone earning nearly twice the median salary does not lose a single penny in 'real terms income'. 

So, looking at your at your analyst.

We should be like you? Stop fingering your own arshole, while people are lOOking.

Shut yer puss, the hardcore going to drop a tune. Up to you? Tune or battered?

[vikingTON]

4 minutes ago, SlipperyP said:

So, looking at your at your analyst.

We should be like you? Stop fingering your own arshole, while people are lOOking.

Shut yer puss, the hardcore going to drop a tune. Up to you? Tune or battered?

^^^ trying too hard

The '16 year old drinks a can of Stella for the first time' post is cringy enough now, never mind coming from a fully grown man who still pretends that he's too pished to type. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

29 minutes ago, virginton said:

That spit-flecked rant didn't actually answer any of the questions in the post you quoted.

Let's try one as a starter: if we magically secured enough money to address rising costs across society, why should we give a 10% rise to someone earning £35k per year and 10% to someone on UC (under £5k)?

TBH the first priority of ANY fucking help with CoL assistance should be to bin the ludicrous gap whereby the UC monthly Standard Allowances for Under 25s vs Over 25s are £265.31 and £334.91 respectively. Do bills magically cost 20% less because you're under 25? A ridiculous state of affairs where we're having to keep young folk going with foodbank referrals, social supermarket vouchers and any grant funding we can find to stop them from drowning. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Day of the Lords

[SlipperyP]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

^^^ trying too hard

The '16 year old drinks a can of Stella for the first time' post is cringy enough now, never mind coming from a fully grown man who still pretends that he's too pished to type. 

sitting behind the black ball. Your shot cunto. I've got some chalk......

[SlipperyP]

The tune has come, to all the helpers, 

 

[ICTChris]

56 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

 It's about levels and your 35k is below where imo the axe should be falling given the numbers in this country who earn 3, 4, 5 even 10 times that amount. Your broad shoulders approach seems to me to be those on the next ring or 2 up making the sacrifice for those at the bottom while yet again those most able to take the strain get off scot free with you no doubt giving some piss poor diatribe about not being able to get the money out the richest. That is where the change needs to happen, not simply a shrug and say "it's too hard" so let's just take it from those we can.

I don't want to intrude into this argument/debate but there are actually not that many people in Scotland who earn 3-10 times £35k a year.

Around 10% of Scottish adults pay the higher rate of tax and less than 1% pay the top rate of tax.  You pay the higher rate if your wages are over £43,663 and you pay the top rate if your wage is over £150,000.  I'm sure I saw somewhere that there are about 20,000 people in Scotland who pay the top rate.  That's a very small number of people, you can't just say "the people earning £200,000 a year should pay!" because there aren't enough of them.  I'd imagine a significant number of this group will be 'mobile' and could relocate to England, at least on paper, if they were getting taxed a lot more.

The truth is if you want to increase the tax take and spend more, a significant part burden of it is going to have to fall on people who earn just above the average.  Obviously there are many discussions about whether increasing taxes on higher earners has that affect, what unintended consequences it would have, if there are other taxes (wealth tax, land tax etc) that could raise more funds.

[Left Back]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Literally everyone n this thread is going to feel the increase in costs.

Nobody, least of all me, has said any differently.

It's about prioritising help.

Do they give financial support to those who might have to cancel a family holiday to pay for the increase in food and fuel or to those who will starve or freeze to death in a few weeks time?

Nobody on £35k or above is going to be anywhere near that latter camp.

It's probably unfair to say nobody on £35k+ will be near the latter camp.  There will be some who have committed large chunks of their income to other things.  Mortgage/rent/car loan/buying stuff on tick etc.  Affordability checks for credit in theory should stop people getting into that situation but they aren't perfect and won't have catered for the current situation.  It's probably fair to say the overwhelming majority won't be starving or freezing though.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

23 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I agree with this as well.

That is a fucking scandalous state of affairs right there and I know we've discussed that in the past. At least I think it was you.

Probably. I have seethed about the injustices of the benefits system on many occasions, however that's one of the worst. I have vague recollection of that odious little c**t IDS justifying it on the basis that U-25s were more likely to get sucked into zero hours/shite jobs able to get work. It's not just a UC thing - it was dragged over from JSA and ESA where under 25s got a similarly reduced payment. 

If we get a harsh winter and your average council flat heating/leccy bill hits £200 a month (entirely feasible), how the f**k is anyone going to get by off 65 quid a month (once they've shelled £25 quid for water and sewerage).

[19QOS19]

You pay the higher rate if your wages are over £43,663 and you pay the top rate if your wage is over £150,000. 

Always find this batshit crazy. Someone on £43K paying the same % of tax as someone on a 6 figure income. I don't know how they decide tax percentages but I'd have thought 30% for those on say £43k-99K would have been more appropriate as opposed to the 20% jump after 43K.

[Michael W]

6 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

 

Always find this batshit crazy. Someone on £43K paying the same % of tax as someone on a 6 figure income. I don't know how they decide tax percentages but I'd have thought 30% for those on say £43k-99K would have been more appropriate as opposed to the 20% jump after 43K.

 

It doesn't quite work like that in practice. Although the income in the band is taxed at the same rate, the person earning £43k pays less as a percentage of their earnings as someone earning £100k. 

[19QOS19]

It doesn't quite work like that in practice. Although the income in the band is taxed at the same rate, the person earning £43k pays less as a percentage of their earnings as someone earning £100k. 

Aye that's true.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

8 minutes ago, Michael W said:

It doesn't quite work like that in practice. Although the income in the band is taxed at the same rate, the person earning £43k pays less as a percentage of their earnings as someone earning £100k. 

The one on £100k gets a 10% NI discount after about £50k though.