Public sector watch

[mph1977]

pork911 said:

sd477667 said:

And what of those public sector bods in places like Iraq and Afghanistan that don't fight are in no danger yet still receive bonuses? Those involved in creating a £35bn black hole with whacky procurement practices, what about them? They should be charged for their incompetence then taken out and shot by the soldiers whose lives their incompetence put in danger.

Of course we need binmen, coppers, soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen, paramedics, doctors, librarians etc but there are all the other non essential types and only a weapons grade retard would think that all state jobs are essential and can't be done away with tomorrow without anybody noticing.
High time we had state austerity as we haven't come close yet.

but do we need all the binmen, coppers, soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen, paramedics, doctors, librarians we have and do they have to be paid as much as they do given the 'public service' badge that's so often worn so heavily?

I wonder what a lot of highly paid and powefully built PHers would be paid if we put their job through the NHS Agenda For Change JE tool - especially given that outside of building trades there are few long term R+R premiums paid ...

also the use of Agency Nurses is very rare in many trusts - where IT contracting is rampant among the PHers - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ...

[grumbledoak]

Countdown said:

So yes, the Nurse pays tax and NI regardless of who pays her wages.

I presume you realize that you are quite wrong in this and are simply attempting to conflate to confuse?

Both nurses pay VAT on their subsequent purchases, but one does not pay income tax and NI. They used to be paid that way, but they were encouraged to compare public sector net pay with private sector gross whenever the unions wanted to rabble-rouse. So they are now shown an effective gross. It isn't real.

[Countdown]

grumbledoak said:

Both nurses pay VAT on their subsequent purchases, but one does not pay income tax and NI. They used to be paid that way, but they were encouraged to compare public sector net pay with private sector gross whenever the unions wanted to rabble-rouse. So they are now shown an effective gross. It isn't real.

I need the Notsureifserious meme

[grumbledoak]

Countdown said:

I need the Notsureifserious meme

I need the 'God I hope that he is not, and yet somehow know that he is, in charge of public sector funds" meme.

[Countdown]

grumbledoak said:

Countdown said:

I need the Notsureifserious meme

I need the 'God I hope that he is not, and yet somehow know that he is, in charge of public sector funds" meme.

So you ARE being serious ? ok.......

Nurses get paid £Xk. That's their contractual salary. From their contractual salary the Payroll dept deducts Tax, Employees National Insurance (and some other deductions).

If they moved into the same role with BUPA, or any other private sector healthcare provider exactly the same procedure would be applied.

I have no idea what you are on about when you talk about "Effective Gross". Could you perhaps provide an internet link? Assuming it isn't something you've just made up?

[grumbledoak]

Countdown said:

I have no idea what you are on about when you talk about "Effective Gross".

Clearly. I'll try to restate what was said earlier: if the government 'pays' an HNS nurse £30k less £10k 'tax' it has not raised £10k in revenue. It has simply paid someone £20k. The numbers on the payslip are for comparison with private sector gross where the £10k paid in tax really would be £10k revenue.

[mph1977]

grumbledoak said:

Countdown said:

So yes, the Nurse pays tax and NI regardless of who pays her wages.

I presume you realize that you are quite wrong in this and are simply attempting to conflate to confuse?

Both nurses pay VAT on their subsequent purchases, but one does not pay income tax and NI. They used to be paid that way, but they were encouraged to compare public sector net pay with private sector gross whenever the unions wanted to rabble-rouse. So they are now shown an effective gross. It isn't real.

so why are NHS salaries quoted gross, deductions made from pay and a P60s issued ?

I wonder if you are getting confused with military pay in the 1950s which was quoted and paid net of tax, ration and accom charges.

[eccles]

Countdown said:

grumbledoak said:

Countdown said:

I need the Notsureifserious meme

I need the 'God I hope that he is not, and yet somehow know that he is, in charge of public sector funds" meme.

So you ARE being serious ? ok.......

Nurses get paid £Xk. That's their contractual salary. From their contractual salary the Payroll dept deducts Tax, Employees National Insurance (and some other deductions).

If they moved into the same role with BUPA, or any other private sector healthcare provider exactly the same procedure would be applied.

I have no idea what you are on about when you talk about "Effective Gross". Could you perhaps provide an internet link? Assuming it isn't something you've just made up?

I think he trying to say that a NHS nurses salary comes from the public pot of money, so effectively their tax and NI is just money going around a loop. Out of one public purse then back into another.
Yes, their pay statement says they pay it, but these types seem to think all public money should be judged the same.

[Countdown]

grumbledoak said:

Clearly. I'll try to restate what was said earlier: if the government 'pays' an HNS nurse £30k less £10k 'tax' it has not raised £10k in revenue. It has simply paid someone £20k. The numbers on the payslip are for comparison with private sector gross where the £10k paid in tax really would be £10k revenue.

All the Government has done is acted as a middleman. "It" doesn't have any money of its own. So it takes money from EVERYBODY and uses these to provide State services for EVERYBODY. If the Govt disappeared tomorrow then you would still have Doctors and Nurses (although for microeconomic reasons they would be a lot more expensive) And you would still pay for them, just directly rather than through a middleman. And they would be more expensive because less people would want to or be able to pay for them.

If your local NHS hospital changed its name to LocalHospital Plc and became private (like Circle Healthcare) NOTHING would change. They would be providing a service and their employees would be paying tax.

[Los Endos]

UK Doctors are grossly over paid too, pay them less and then we can pay the nurses / porters etc more.

Are you kidding me !
A UK Doctor ( Consultant ) is paid a little under 90k ( with no benefits package to speak of ) a Director with an average Blue Chip Company is paid around 90 to 110k but with the package this rolls up to around £140k, Board members you can triple that figure.

I think you confusing a st NHS Salary with a Doctor who supplements his / her salary for private work, a lot of Doctors do no private work at all.

Now I am not saying £90k is to be sniffed at but they could all work in IT / Law / Industry and earn a far better salary, package and working condition.
Unless you think everybody should get 22k, but its okay if they are divvy footballers and c list celebs ?

Edited by Los Endos on Thursday 20th June 19:13

Edited by Los Endos on Thursday 20th June 19:14

[grumbledoak]

Countdown said:

If your local NHS hospital changed its name to LocalHospital Plc and became private (like Circle Healthcare) NOTHING would change. They would be providing a service and their employees would be paying tax.

Wrong. I am free to not pay Circle Healthcare. A very big difference that you seem unwilling to grasp.

Let's try it the other way 'round and see if it makes any sense. I, as dictator, nationalize said Circle Healthcare. All nurses salaries are now £250k p.a. (income tax and NI amounting to £230k). The public and the nurses all still go to the same place for care, so NOTHING has changed. All the nurses are overjoyed at being so rich and my government can pay off the National Debt in a few weeks just from these hard working nurses alone. Just think what I'll do next week(*)! Good plan, eh?


---
* scarper with some misappropriated money and a few of the prettier nurses.

[bobbylondonuk]

Countdown said:

grumbledoak said:

Clearly. I'll try to restate what was said earlier: if the government 'pays' an HNS nurse £30k less £10k 'tax' it has not raised £10k in revenue. It has simply paid someone £20k. The numbers on the payslip are for comparison with private sector gross where the £10k paid in tax really would be £10k revenue.

All the Government has done is acted as a middleman. "It" doesn't have any money of its own. So it takes money from EVERYBODY and uses these to provide State services for EVERYBODY. If the Govt disappeared tomorrow then you would still have Doctors and Nurses (although for microeconomic reasons they would be a lot more expensive) And you would still pay for them, just directly rather than through a middleman. And they would be more expensive because less people would want to or be able to pay for them.

If your local NHS hospital changed its name to LocalHospital Plc and became private (like Circle Healthcare) NOTHING would change. They would be providing a service and their employees would be paying tax.

A lot of people have explained this concept to you a lot of times. Either you are thick, or you are in denial. Whichever way you try to spin it, you are wrong!

The private sector pays taxes out of profits from an activity. Those taxes are paid by the treasury as spending on services etc. the people employed in the public sector have a book adjustment from the total budget allocated for their wages. The individuals feel they are paying taxes, but the money is not generated by them nor is it paid by them. IT IS AN ADJUSTMENT!

The exception is private sector businesses providing services to the public sector, they are the tax recycling/public stimulus situation. Bupa is not one of those, they are a private enterprise that supplies their services for the public sector to buy.

[Countdown]

grumbledoak said:

Let's try it the other way 'round and see if it makes any sense. I, as dictator, nationalize said Circle Healthcare. All nurses salaries are now £250k p.a. (income tax and NI amounting to £230k). The public and the nurses all still go to the same place for care, so NOTHING has changed. All the nurses are overjoyed at being so rich and my government can pay off the National Debt in a few weeks just from these hard working nurses alone. Just think what I'll do next week(*)! Good plan, eh?

You missed the rest of that picture. You (as Dictator) would tax those nurses. You would use that tax to employ and pay for

Farmers
Housebuilders
Teachers
Butchers, bakers and candlestick makers

You would tax each of them to pay for the nurses.

That is how things work in an economy. People are both producers and consumers. Money goes round and round. As I said earlier you could have a completely Free market (as in Somalia) or you could have a theoretical Command Economy (Stalinist Russia?). Both systems have their pro's and cons. The ideal economy is a mixed one.

[Countdown]

bobbylondonuk said:

A lot of people have explained this concept to you a lot of times.

Nobody has "explained" it to me. Just as nobody has explained the difference between taxes paid by the following people;

NHS nurses
IT contractors working temporarily for NHS
Subcontractors employed by LAs to carry out work on LA properties

Or the difference in taxes when Mr Smith moves from Shaggalot Comprehensive to Shirtlifters Public School?

Maybe you could explain how a Command Economy or a pure Free Market are supposed to work (and where the money comes from in both scenarios).

Because, based on what you're saying, a Command Economy can't possibly have any money because everybody is Public sector.

Edited by Countdown on Thursday 20th June 19:55

[johnfm]

Countdown said:

So you ARE being serious ? ok.......

Nurses get paid £Xk. That's their contractual salary. From their contractual salary the Payroll dept deducts Tax, Employees National Insurance (and some other deductions).

If they moved into the same role with BUPA, or any other private sector healthcare provider exactly the same procedure would be applied.

I have no idea what you are on about when you talk about "Effective Gross". Could you perhaps provide an internet link? Assuming it isn't something you've just made up?

Are you being intentionally daft as some sort of Internet persona? Or are you actually this daft in real life?

Are you really unable to undertake a simple analysis of what happens to direct tax revenues between publicly and privately funded employees?

Clue: in one case the total direct tax revenue increases. In the other it doesn't.

Can you figure out which group does not make a contribution to direct tax revenues?

[sd477667]

Countdown said:

No it isn't. Are taxes paid by a BUPA nurse different to taxes paid by an NHS nurse?

Where does the money come from to pay said nurses?

One from private funds one from state funds.

capiche?

[mph1977]

sd477667 said:

Countdown said:

No it isn't. Are taxes paid by a BUPA nurse different to taxes paid by an NHS nurse?

Where does the money come from to pay said nurses?

One from private funds one from state funds.

capiche?

Except of course where the NHS contracts with the following providers
- 'Private' Hospitals
- GMS General Practice
- Foundation Trusts
- Trading Units of none-Foundation Trusts
- Charities

[Countdown]

sd477667 said:

Countdown said:

No it isn't. Are taxes paid by a BUPA nurse different to taxes paid by an NHS nurse?

Where does the money come from to pay said nurses?

One from private funds one from state funds.

capiche?

And where do State funds come from? They come from private funds. The payment to the nurses (whether BUPA or NHS) comes from individuals. Either it goes directly (and people pick and choose what they want to buy) or people give the money to the Govt and the Govt bulk-purchases the service on their behalf.

The thing is, there are so many services which can be provided either directly or via the State. But people can't seem to understand that, regardless of the procurement method, the taxes paid by the "producers/suppliers" are EXACTLY the same.

[grumbledoak]

No mate, you are the one with the comprehension problems.

Still, no point arguing with an idiot. Aaaarm Ooot.

[Countdown]

johnfm said:

Are you being intentionally daft as some sort of Internet persona? Or are you actually this daft in real life?

I don't think aim daft (well, not in this topic ). I have a degree in Economics and 20-odd years of working in Finance. I don't expect everybody to be an expert in Economics. However what IS daft is when they patently don't know what they're talking about but INSIST that they do.

johnfm said:

Are you really unable to undertake a simple analysis of what happens to direct tax revenues between publicly and privately funded employees?

Clue: in one case the total direct tax revenue increases. In the other it doesn't.

No, I'm sorry but that's complete rubbish. Tax revenues increase as the supply of goods and services (GDP) within the Economy increases. It is completely irrelevant whether that production/consumption occurs within the Private Sector or the Public sector. Again for those people who don't understand economics;

Private Sector
You pay Bupa for nursing > Bupa pays employee > Employee pays tax

Public sector
You pay Govt for nursing > Govt pay NHS > NHS pays Employee > Employee pays tax OR
You pay Govt for nursing > Govt pay Circle Healthcare Ltd > CHL pays Employee > Employee pays tax

So, there is no difference in the
Person buying the service
Person providing the service
Amount of tax generated