Pigging Parasites

[SplatSpeed]

national debt should never be allowed to increase again!

[munky]

TeamD said:

Fairly quick conclusion you get to there, touched a nerve have we?

Besides, if I understand my sisters explanation correctly (who used to be a sister but for some reason isn't now) the managements prime objective is to get in the way of patients being cared for and going on jollies (50/50 split) But it always sounds better if you wail about cutting frontline staff (that most of the public think of the as nurses, porters etc and feel are worth the money and more) doesn't it?

Hang on, your sister is no longer your sister? Either way, she's unbiased then?

The people at the sharp end - the doctors and nurses - only comment about managers when the money is cut. Who controls the money? Central government. NHS managers then have the unenviable task of deciding where to apply those cuts. However when that isn't happening, and they're doing a great job running the place more efficiently, making purchasing savings for example that mean more cash goes to front line services rather than drug companies, do the nurses and doctors notice? Sometimes. Do they run about extolling the virtues of higher efficiency and write praises on internet forums? No.

I used to think that NHS managers were a daft waste of money, back when I knew nothing about the subject either. And no, I am not one of them, I have never and will never work in the healthcare or medical sector in any way.

So here's a question. Two questions. 1) Would you rather nurses and doctors spent their time treating patients as they are trained to do, or tucked away in a room poring over spreadsheets and accounts all day, which they are not trained to do? Which is a better use of their time and skill set? 2) When the budgetary axe falls periodically, and fall somewhere it must after Labour's spending splurge (which spent billions with very little to show for it), how many nurses (if they were in charge of the PCT budget) would voluntarily say "close my ward!"? How many doctors or consultants would volunteer their hospital, ward, or area of specialism to be first in line for the cuts? Those are the issues with letting the medical staff run the budget - they are better utilised doing what they do best, and they would always protect their own patch.

[Mark Benson]

munky said:

I used to think that NHS managers were a daft waste of money, back when I knew nothing about the subject either. And no, I am not one of them, I have never and will never work in the healthcare or medical sector in any way.

You're making the assumption that the only alternative to too many managers with no clinical experience is to have clinicians managing the budgets.

There's a middle ground which allows people with clinical knowledge but who are not currently 'on the front line' to more effectively and compassionately deploy resources.
The situation we have in the NHS, and to a greater or lesser extent many other publicly funded organisations is of a level of management with absolutely no experience of the areas under their responsibility, answerable to PR and political whims, rather than the demands and needs of a complex and hugely demanding organisation.

The NHS needs a major rethink in the way it's managed and delivered as it's bankrupting the nation. Unfortunately anyone suggesting such a thing is immediately shouted down and accused of wanting to dismantle the 'great institution' we have.

[TeamD]

munky said:

Hang on, your sister is no longer your sister? Either way, she's unbiased then?

She's still MY sister...awww you know what I mean!

munky said:

So here's a question. Two questions. 1) Would you rather nurses and doctors spent their time treating patients as they are trained to do, or tucked away in a room poring over spreadsheets and accounts all day, which they are not trained to do? Which is a better use of their time and skill set? 2) When the budgetary axe falls periodically, and fall somewhere it must after Labour's spending splurge (which spent billions with very little to show for it), how many nurses (if they were in charge of the PCT budget) would voluntarily say "close my ward!"? How many doctors or consultants would volunteer their hospital, ward, or area of specialism to be first in line for the cuts? Those are the issues with letting the medical staff run the budget - they are better utilised doing what they do best, and they would always protect their own patch.

So whom would be to blame as regards the complete waste of money presided over by the folk with spreadsheets? Surely sacking them for incompetence would save a bit of cash?

[gtdc]

XitUp said:

I was at the march on saturday with my father and girlfriend.

I'm not really surprised to see the moronic Daily Mail type rants on PH, but a little bit disappointed.

Some on the march were calling for no cuts, I don't agree with this, we need to make savings. What I do agree with is that the cuts are far too much and too quick and that they will do more harm than good.

Have you actually understood that NuLab were promising pretty much the same degree of cutting?

[XitUp]

whoami said:

Marching with a load of other idealistic dreamers is easy.

What's your solution to the problems the country faces?

Moaning with a load of other dreamers on the internet who pretend they don't use public services is easy.

We face lots of problems, you're not being very specific.

But a few things to help out budget wise could be:
getting rid of the benefit culture created by successive tory AND labour governments by putting making all of those fit and able to work do so or take park in, lets say 16 hours community service per week if they want their money. Housing benefit needs capping much lower also;
closing loopholes used by those who get away without paying the billions in tax they owe;
scrapping the replacement for Trident and putting that money in the nuclear power stations we're going to need;
repeal the daft prohibition laws we have and put money into the treasury through taxes rather than into to pockets of gangsters;
I think a freeze in wages is needed for the next year (yes, even for me!), but without huge job cuts. Those in the highest paid council and civil service roles could take a small pay cut.

I'm sure there are loads of other things that could be done without creating mass unemployment and damaging our public services.

TeamD said:

It's not too difficult to see where your left-leaning tendencies come from in that you profile claims that you are a teaching assistant. I'd have more sympathy for you if you had a job that involved generating revenue rather than being a sinkhole for it.

You do know there are certain things that the private sector can not do, right? You're not thick enough to think that any work that isn't about generating revenue is pointless, right?

TeamD said:

Exactly, times were a teacher could teach an entire class without having a bunch of flunkies to make their life easier

Times were when class sizes were much smaller.

Also, try running a class of children with profound learning difficulties with just one teacher and see how well it goes.

illmonkey said:

I love the fact they decide to protest about all of these cuts, then causes a stupid amount of police to have to patrol the area and ensure nothing too bad comes of it all.

That'll have cost them a fair bit then! Now there is even less in the big pot of money.

I don't quite see your point.
I was on the march and I didn't ask for the police to be there watching me.
They were not there for the hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors, they were there for the handful of dheads out to cause trouble. I left the march for a bit to get dinner and saw the band of dheads marching in the opposite direction on my way back. Some scrote shouted that I should join them and I declined. If I'd seen anyone near me damaging public or private property I would have had a word with them about it.

Zod said:

So, would you March along behind Ed and Ed shouting "Only 80% of the Tory cuts"?

Doesn't sound quite so resonant when you have to admit the truth. the heavy-handed cuts are being made by Labour councils in an attempt to exaggerate the overall scale of the cuts and embarrass the government.

I'm not a Labour supporter so please don't try to tar me with that stty brush.

gtdc said:

Have you actually understood that NuLab were promising pretty much the same degree of cutting?

And? See above.

[mantis84]

One of my friends attended the march on Saturday. Chatting to her on Friday night I asked what her alternative to the cuts would be and she stated that she wanted no cuts to the public sector at all and for the banks to pay for everything. I asked what would happen to the country if the banks decided the UK tax regime was too heavy and they set up elsewhere, leaving us with far less tax revenue.

Not one of them could answer and they just kept obliviously beating the 'bankers are bds' drum. Then they all looked at each other completely dumbfounded, after saying bankers shouldn't be paid bonuses for the next 10 years, when I pointed out to them that approximately 50% of all bonuses paid by banks go to the treasury by virtue of the 50% tax rate, thus actually being of benefit to the taxpayer - e.g. RBS pays £100m in bonuses, tax man gets £50m, whereas if no bonuses are paid and the bank retains that cash in its reserves, tax man doesn't get that £50m.

My point is, the majority of those protesting have very little real economic awareness and although honestly held, their views have next to no connection with reality.

[XitUp]

You were chatting to the majority then? Or just a few of your mates? Maybe you need to use a bigger sample group for making these hypotheses. Or just get brighter mates


If its a bank that we didn't bail out then I have no problem with them paying bonuses for doing a good job. If it's a bank that fell on its arse and needed the tax payer to help it out then they've shown that they don't really deserve a bonus.

Some bankers are sts, and the way they operate needs to change, but scaring them away would be a bad idea.

[MiniMan64]

TeamD said:

whoami said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

TeamD said:

you are a teaching assistant. I'd have more sympathy for you if you had a job that involved generating revenue rather than being a sinkhole for it.

Can't help wondering where the TeamD offspring got/are getting/will get their education if you don't approve of teachers? Do please let us know.

From teachers (rather than teaching assistants)?

Exactly, times were a teacher could teach an entire class without having a bunch of flunkies to make their life easier

Indeed and times were there weren't 35 to a classroom designed for 25, that teachers wouldn't face the very real threat of physical violence and abuse and that parents actually gave a st about their kids. Plus TA's get paid next to fk all anyway.

You ought to visit a school once in a while perhaps.

[Ozzie Osmond]

TeamD said:

You're just being stupid there.

Nope. Just drawing attention to the inadequacy of your argument. See someone's comments above on the subject of class sizes.

[munky]

TeamD said:

munky said:

Hang on, your sister is no longer your sister? Either way, she's unbiased then?

She's still MY sister...awww you know what I mean!

munky said:

So here's a question. Two questions. 1) Would you rather nurses and doctors spent their time treating patients as they are trained to do, or tucked away in a room poring over spreadsheets and accounts all day, which they are not trained to do? Which is a better use of their time and skill set? 2) When the budgetary axe falls periodically, and fall somewhere it must after Labour's spending splurge (which spent billions with very little to show for it), how many nurses (if they were in charge of the PCT budget) would voluntarily say "close my ward!"? How many doctors or consultants would volunteer their hospital, ward, or area of specialism to be first in line for the cuts? Those are the issues with letting the medical staff run the budget - they are better utilised doing what they do best, and they would always protect their own patch.

So whom would be to blame as regards the complete waste of money presided over by the folk with spreadsheets? Surely sacking them for incompetence would save a bit of cash?

As far as I see, Labour threw cash at the NHS (and schools) across the board without having had much thought about where it should be targetted - it was scattergun. You can't blame NHS managers for that - if all PCTs receive a pot of cash, they will spend it. What they are unlikely to do is say to their neighbouring PCT "you know what, we don't need this - you have it". Just like you wouldn't if you suddenly received some money unexpectedly. I've seen this in schools - my daughter's tiny primary school (ages 4 to 7 only) received cash it didn't ask for.. so it now has smartboards (not cheap!) in all the rooms and a multitude of new shiny computers, while some schools are literally falling down.

For sure some NHS managers are probably crap, just as some people are crap in any area of life / business. Doesn't mean they all are. And if they are crap (rather than just playing with the bad hand they were dealt) they should be fired, just like anyone else.

[mantis84]

XitUp said:

You were chatting to the majority then? Or just a few of your mates? Maybe you need to use a bigger sample group for making these hypotheses. Or just get brighter mates


If its a bank that we didn't bail out then I have no problem with them paying bonuses for doing a good job. If it's a bank that fell on its arse and needed the tax payer to help it out then they've shown that they don't really deserve a bonus.

Some bankers are sts, and the way they operate needs to change, but scaring them away would be a bad idea.

I wasn't just referring to the people I mentioned, but the protesters interviewed referred to above and the general attitude of banker bashing which seems to be in the majority.

Banks are always likely to use bonus-based pay packages just like other big businesses, so if the people on the ground are hitting their targets (most of them are turning a profit now) then not paying bonuses hurts a bank's ability to recruit the best talent. As the Treasury now owns significant shareholdings in the bailed out banks, it could be argued that it's in its own interests to ensure such banks are able to pay bonuses, improving its ability to retain and recruit the most profitable bankers and thus maximising the banks value which will eventually be returned to the taxpayer.

[cal72]

Is there a march or not ?? I could use the 3x2 and 6'inch to better use.

[TeamD]

MiniMan64 said:

TeamD said:

whoami said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

TeamD said:

you are a teaching assistant. I'd have more sympathy for you if you had a job that involved generating revenue rather than being a sinkhole for it.

Can't help wondering where the TeamD offspring got/are getting/will get their education if you don't approve of teachers? Do please let us know.

From teachers (rather than teaching assistants)?

Exactly, times were a teacher could teach an entire class without having a bunch of flunkies to make their life easier

Indeed and times were there weren't 35 to a classroom designed for 25, that teachers wouldn't face the very real threat of physical violence and abuse and that parents actually gave a st about their kids. Plus TA's get paid next to fk all anyway.

You ought to visit a school once in a while perhaps.

I do, regularly, and as far as I can see the class sizes are SMALLER than when I was at school! So don't believe the hype sucker.

[TeamD]

mantis84 said:

RBS pays £100m in bonuses, tax man gets £50m, whereas if no bonuses are paid and the bank retains that cash in its reserves, tax man doesn't get that £50m.

I think you'll find the tax man still gets a nice slice because the retained cash counts as profit on which Corp Tax has to be paid. The terminally hard of thinking seem to be oblivious of the most simple realities of business life, but there you go, how could they hold their bizarre points of view without their brains crashing? Either that or they're just being deliberately bloody-minded.

And as for the folk who think spending a budget just because you have some cash is a valid way to behave...just grow up! FFS, you ever saved some money for a rainy day? Perhaps these muppets should have thought about that eh?

[mantis84]

TeamD said:

mantis84 said:

RBS pays £100m in bonuses, tax man gets £50m, whereas if no bonuses are paid and the bank retains that cash in its reserves, tax man doesn't get that £50m.

I think you'll find the tax man still gets a nice slice because the retained cash counts as profit on which Corp Tax has to be paid.

The corporation tax would have to be paid on the profits anyway, regardless of whether the same is subsequently paid out as bonuses or retained by the bank.

Edited by mantis84 on Tuesday 29th March 09:31

[TeamD]

mantis84 said:

TeamD said:

mantis84 said:

RBS pays £100m in bonuses, tax man gets £50m, whereas if no bonuses are paid and the bank retains that cash in its reserves, tax man doesn't get that £50m.

I think you'll find the tax man still gets a nice slice because the retained cash counts as profit on which Corp Tax has to be paid.

The corporation tax would have to be paid on the profits anyway, regardless of whether the same is subsequently paid out as bonuses or retained by the bank.

Edited by mantis84 on Tuesday 29th March 09:31

Surely not? Because a bonus paid to an employee is not the same as a dividend. I think you'll find that distributing profits via bonuses results in a tax liability for the employee but reduces the corp tax liability for the business paying the bonus. Although I shall stand corrected should EricMc disagree

[mantis84]

TeamD said:

Surely not? Because a bonus paid to an employee is not the same as a dividend. I think you'll find that distributing profits via bonuses results in a tax liability for the employee but reduces the corp tax liability for the business paying the bonus. Although I shall stand corrected should EricMc disagree

Ah yes - I stand corrected, however I still think it's probably more beneficial to pay bonuses. Taxman gets 50% via income tax instead of 28% via corporation tax, shirley? I could be wrong though, I don't know enough about tax to figure out if the reduced corporation tax liability leaves the Treasury better or worse off.

[TeamD]

mantis84 said:

TeamD said:

Surely not? Because a bonus paid to an employee is not the same as a dividend. I think you'll find that distributing profits via bonuses results in a tax liability for the employee but reduces the corp tax liability for the business paying the bonus. Although I shall stand corrected should EricMc disagree

Ah yes - I stand corrected, however I still think it's probably more beneficial to pay bonuses. Taxman gets 50% via income tax instead of 28% via corporation tax, shirley? I could be wrong though, I don't know enough about tax to figure out if the reduced corporation tax liability leaves the Treasury better or worse off.

I think the important thing is that many of those that are still harping on about cuts and bank bonuses show their ignorance in this area, after all, someone/thing pays tax regardless so the bonus issue is merely a smoke-screen for jealousy and envy do you agree?