Samsung Galaxy S9 review
A Banker, a School Teacher, a Tory MP and a Daily Mail reader are sat around a table. In front of them is a plate, on which there are ten biscuits. The Banker scoffs nine of the biscuits, then the Tory turns to the Daily Mail reader and whispers in their ear "watch out, that teacher is after your biscuit"
I find this a strange viewpoint.
Whatever the current arguments about bankers' pay, the banking and finance sector has contributed massively to the exchequer over, at least, the last few decades. The banker (if he is on a high income) will be paying large amounts of income tax. The fact that the taxpayer (which includes the 'bankers') has had to bail out the banks is not really the point. We need the banks to be successful for the economy to flourish. We need them to be successful so that they, and their employees, continue to pay large amounts of income tax in order to help pay for the state support of the poor and needy. I agree that a lot of the higher levels in banking seem to be over-rewarded and insensitive in still paying themselves large bonuses, but this is not why the public service pension system needs changing.
After reading many comments about public sector pensions, I get a very strong feeling that only an extremely small percentage of the critics of the proposed system (including those on strike who were interviewed by the media) have read the Treasury paper setting out the current offer. For example, there have been comments about firemen being forced to work until they are 68. This is untrue. The paper clearly states that no decision has been made yet, but the recommendation is for them to retire at 60.
If anybody is interested in the facts, the Treasury paper can be found here.
Open another packet of biscuits?
"The banker (if he is on a high income) will be paying large amounts of income tax"
If you really believe that, then it's very clear how we should view the rest of your post! One of the problems is always that those on high incomes can easily mitigate their tax, with a half-decent accountant.
Even if they 'mitigate' their tax , they still pay a large amount. In a recent television program, Nick Robinson of the BBC, stated that the top 1% of earners pay 27% of the income tax collected. I have no reason to doubt this ( I have previously heard a figure of 25% quoted). The banks themselves also pay a huge amount in tax.
I don't see how your disagreement with that point means should affect people's view of the rest of my post. Do you think that we don't need the banks to be successful? Do you think that public sector pensions are being 'cut' because of bankers' high pay?
You quite happily state it doesn't matter if the taxpayers have to bail out the banks, and then watch inflated bonuses and salaries!
Ok, that's your view.
That's not what I said. I suggest you read my post.
Anyone with any sympathy for the public sector would do worse than to read this http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2068056/Public-sector-workers-pensions-worth-20-times-value-contributions.html
A nice rich tea, washed down with bourbon should settle any digestive trouble... well that's the opinion of the fruit shortcakes at the kit kat club!
I thought the title of this post, at first glance was about:-
The Penguins' Dispute - An Anthology...
An ornithological CD about Global Warming....
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.