If you were a fat cat/banker/public sector worker etc
Poll: If you were a fat cat/banker/public sector worker etc
Total Members Polled: 133
Discussion
Q. Would you keep quite and just take the money?
I know everyone is complaining about how unfair the public pension scheme is and how all these bonuses are disgraceful etc but if you were/are one if these people would you think "It's my money, stuff you lot" or would you hold your hands up and admit it's unbalanced?
Let's not go into the in's and outs of the above in this thread this purely to gauge whether it's a case of "it's not fair" or actual morals!
I know everyone is complaining about how unfair the public pension scheme is and how all these bonuses are disgraceful etc but if you were/are one if these people would you think "It's my money, stuff you lot" or would you hold your hands up and admit it's unbalanced?
Let's not go into the in's and outs of the above in this thread this purely to gauge whether it's a case of "it's not fair" or actual morals!
I'd keep silent. It's my money, I worked for it and bargained a good deal.
Is it fair? To a certain degree, yes, it is fair. If someone gets a big bonus that he/she has rightfully earned by making their targets, good for them. If someone gets a bonus for doing nothing extra and only because it is in their contract (as a sort of payrise) then I think it is less fair, but not on behalf of the employee. I see it more as unfair from the employer in giving someone something they don't deserve.
All-in-all it's pretty shady. Some people cry outrage over the high salaries and bonusses, but looking at the outcome of the poll when I voted, 9 out of 10 would keep silent... I believe it's more a case of envy.
Is it fair? To a certain degree, yes, it is fair. If someone gets a big bonus that he/she has rightfully earned by making their targets, good for them. If someone gets a bonus for doing nothing extra and only because it is in their contract (as a sort of payrise) then I think it is less fair, but not on behalf of the employee. I see it more as unfair from the employer in giving someone something they don't deserve.
All-in-all it's pretty shady. Some people cry outrage over the high salaries and bonusses, but looking at the outcome of the poll when I voted, 9 out of 10 would keep silent... I believe it's more a case of envy.
If i worked in private sector, I would keep quiet as a private business is nothing to do with the members of public (despite what the nutters at UKUncut think) and what I am awarded / award myself is none of their business.
In the public sector, I would accept that my pay would be dictated by the economic position of the country and would agree that pensions / pay etc need to be reduced, and would encourage others to do the same to prevent huge job losses which is the other option.
In the public sector, I would accept that my pay would be dictated by the economic position of the country and would agree that pensions / pay etc need to be reduced, and would encourage others to do the same to prevent huge job losses which is the other option.
If you're a FOREX trader, you've got a billion pound account, and you double it, you deserve riches beyond the imagination. However, if you're a f
king councillor, never done anything to make any sort of profit, work in the public sector, paid on taxes, you should get a modest income.
However, it's not the councillor's fault, it's Blair's. So he shouldn't feel guilty about it, he's just taking what's offered for his services.
king councillor, never done anything to make any sort of profit, work in the public sector, paid on taxes, you should get a modest income.However, it's not the councillor's fault, it's Blair's. So he shouldn't feel guilty about it, he's just taking what's offered for his services.
MaxAndRuby said:
If you're a FOREX trader, you've got a billion pound account, and you double it, you deserve riches beyond the imagination. However, if you're a fking councillor, never done anything to make any sort of profit, work in the public sector, paid on taxes, you should get a modest income.
However, it's not the councillor's fault, it's Blair's. So he shouldn't feel guilty about it, he's just taking what's offered for his services.
What if a council official saves his council £100m should he be rewarded for that?king councillor, never done anything to make any sort of profit, work in the public sector, paid on taxes, you should get a modest income.However, it's not the councillor's fault, it's Blair's. So he shouldn't feel guilty about it, he's just taking what's offered for his services.
Why's it Blair's fault how much council officials/councillors get paid?
If someone is prepared to give me a shed load of money (or pension) for doing my job, then so be it. Alternatively, if I am able to negotiate a damn good contract that sees me lining my pockets for decades then great.
I am not the fat cat banker / public sector worker - I am not the fool here. The company / public body that is prepared to do this is the fool here! I merely was able to get paid that amount!
Of course I would keep quiet!
I am not the fat cat banker / public sector worker - I am not the fool here. The company / public body that is prepared to do this is the fool here! I merely was able to get paid that amount!
Of course I would keep quiet!
markh1973 said:
What if a council official saves his council £100m should he be rewarded for that?
Don't you mean "What if a council official gets better value and doesn't spend £100m"? Isn't part of the role of most public sector organisations to achieve best value? If so, he's already being paid for that?
As to the original question though, suspect very few people would vote to economically disadvantage themselves...
I'd keep quiet more because that's the English way. Not to talk about one's money.
In a very over simplified way of looking at it. As much as I'd like to be in charge. I'm not. If I've done my job and you agreed to give me X amount for doing that then keep your end of the bargain and pay me what was agreed. It's not my fault that you fked up your figures. If you have messed up that bad then I'd want an indepth discussion on what compromise we can come to.
In a very over simplified way of looking at it. As much as I'd like to be in charge. I'm not. If I've done my job and you agreed to give me X amount for doing that then keep your end of the bargain and pay me what was agreed. It's not my fault that you f
ked up your figures. If you have messed up that bad then I'd want an indepth discussion on what compromise we can come to. LooneyTunes said:
Don't you mean "What if a council official gets better value and doesn't spend £100m"?
Isn't part of the role of most public sector organisations to achieve best value? If so, he's already being paid for that?
As to the original question though, suspect very few people would vote to economically disadvantage themselves...
But then couldn't you argue that the role of the fx trader is to make money for his clients and he is already being paid for that.Isn't part of the role of most public sector organisations to achieve best value? If so, he's already being paid for that?
As to the original question though, suspect very few people would vote to economically disadvantage themselves...
LooneyTunes said:
Isn't part of the role of most public sector organisations to achieve best value? If so, he's already being paid for that?
Why single out the public sector? Surely the same is true of every job.In answer to the original question, I don't think "fair" has a place in a capitalist society. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, is obviously a matter of personal opinion.
I think the government screwed up and created the worst of both worlds when they bailed the banks out. You can't have a situation where shareholders and employees reap rewards when times are good, but are bailed out by the state when times are bad, that's the worst possible mixture of public and private ownership.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 10th March 16:54
markh1973 said:
MaxAndRuby said:
If you're a FOREX trader, you've got a billion pound account, and you double it, you deserve riches beyond the imagination. However, if you're a fking councillor, never done anything to make any sort of profit, work in the public sector, paid on taxes, you should get a modest income.
However, it's not the councillor's fault, it's Blair's. So he shouldn't feel guilty about it, he's just taking what's offered for his services.
What if a council official saves his council £100m should he be rewarded for that?king councillor, never done anything to make any sort of profit, work in the public sector, paid on taxes, you should get a modest income.However, it's not the councillor's fault, it's Blair's. So he shouldn't feel guilty about it, he's just taking what's offered for his services.
Why's it Blair's fault how much council officials/councillors get paid?
It's Blair's fault for producing economic growth via the public sector, and putting it all on our credit card.
Tsippy said:
If i worked in private sector, I would keep quiet as a private business is nothing to do with the members of public (despite what the nutters at UKUncut think) and what I am awarded / award myself is none of their business.
Even when the private business (I'm presuming you don't actually mean a private business, but a busines in the private sector?) is being bailed out with public money?FWIW I work in the public sector and one of the obvious perks is my pension. I obviously dont want to lose my final-salary pension, but if I do I won't complain about it. I'll probably just move back into the private sector.
markh1973 said:
What if a council official saves his council £100m should he be rewarded for that?
Why's it Blair's fault how much council officials/councillors get paid?
Oh aye, and just how would they go about doing that?Why's it Blair's fault how much council officials/councillors get paid?
ETA: Just to elaborate, our council plan to 'save' around £200k a year in running costs of their offices.... by having brand new ones built at a cost of £28million. That it'll take about 80 years to see these savings appearts to be irrelevent.
Edited by Oakey on Thursday 10th March 17:03
GTIR said:
Q. Would you keep quite and just take the money?
I know everyone is complaining about how unfair the public pension scheme is and how all these bonuses are disgraceful etc but if you were/are one if these people would you think "It's my money, stuff you lot" or would you hold your hands up and admit it's unbalanced?
Let's not go into the in's and outs of the above in this thread this purely to gauge whether it's a case of "it's not fair" or actual morals!
What about a third option "society bases wages on supply and demand, not via a committee, and so I found a job where demand has driven wages through the roof"?I know everyone is complaining about how unfair the public pension scheme is and how all these bonuses are disgraceful etc but if you were/are one if these people would you think "It's my money, stuff you lot" or would you hold your hands up and admit it's unbalanced?
Let's not go into the in's and outs of the above in this thread this purely to gauge whether it's a case of "it's not fair" or actual morals!
There's no "stuff you", and not much lording it over anyone, just a feeling of satisfaction at having managed to make my way up to where I am now.
As it stands, I don't want to say "stuff you", to anyone, but I do feel that it's my money, once it's been paid and the taxman has taken his half.
It is well established that,
1. "Free markets" are more efficient than controlled economies, and
2. "Free markets" allowed to run wild end up in abuse, monopolies and anti-competitive prectices.
The problem in the City is a combination of factors which enable some people to take from the economy more than their fair share. That will always be a political question requiring a political solution.
In my opinion people in society who are doing a useful job but are not "money motivated" should be paid a fair wage. It is regrettable that the earnings gap between the top and the bottom has become so wide.
1. "Free markets" are more efficient than controlled economies, and
2. "Free markets" allowed to run wild end up in abuse, monopolies and anti-competitive prectices.
The problem in the City is a combination of factors which enable some people to take from the economy more than their fair share. That will always be a political question requiring a political solution.
In my opinion people in society who are doing a useful job but are not "money motivated" should be paid a fair wage. It is regrettable that the earnings gap between the top and the bottom has become so wide.
Ozzie Osmond said:
It is well established that,
1. "Free markets" are more efficient than controlled economies, and
2. "Free markets" allowed to run wild end up in abuse, monopolies and anti-competitive prectices.
.
3. People are happier under communism, maybe we give to much importance to the free market1. "Free markets" are more efficient than controlled economies, and
2. "Free markets" allowed to run wild end up in abuse, monopolies and anti-competitive prectices.
.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp3409.html
In the transition from socialism to capitalism in Eastern Europe life satisfaction has followed the V-shaped pattern of GDP but failed to recover commensurately. In general, increased satisfaction with material living levels has occurred at the expense of decreased satisfaction with work, health, and family life. Disparities in life satisfaction have increased markedly with those hardest hit being the less educated and persons over age 30; women and men have suffered about equally. The asymmetric response of life satisfaction to decreases in GDP in transition countries and increases in GDP in non-transition countries is arguably due to loss aversion.
On the other hand, the difference in happiness levels seems to be marginal at best.
In all of this obsessing over what other people earn, it's maybe sometimes worth stopping to wonder what it exactly that people would want to do with the money if it really could be distributed their way (not that I think that it could be, we seem to have organized our society so that the poor are some of the richest poor in the world already).
It seems to me that it's quite often the case that the people earning a lot are the ones who value high earnings, and that, for example, the history teachers are doing something that makes them about as happy as is the banker doing thirteen hour days in the hope that it gets him a big bonus.
If both are about as happy as each other, then why take money off the former to give to the latter?
If one person in a restaurant wants extra chips but no sausages, and the other wants more sausages, but no chips, then is society right to step in and rearrange their plates to even out the portions?
If that's a bit esoteric, how abou this; what is a fair salary uplift in exchange for my never having had any time at home in the evenings throughout my thirties? If I've freely chosen the route that pays well, and someone else preferred to become a nurse, then why should we look at one aspe t, the wage, and argue that it's out of line?
Should teachers be made to sit in detention for four hours a night to make work hours equal with mine?
In all of this obsessing over what other people earn, it's maybe sometimes worth stopping to wonder what it exactly that people would want to do with the money if it really could be distributed their way (not that I think that it could be, we seem to have organized our society so that the poor are some of the richest poor in the world already).
It seems to me that it's quite often the case that the people earning a lot are the ones who value high earnings, and that, for example, the history teachers are doing something that makes them about as happy as is the banker doing thirteen hour days in the hope that it gets him a big bonus.
If both are about as happy as each other, then why take money off the former to give to the latter?
If one person in a restaurant wants extra chips but no sausages, and the other wants more sausages, but no chips, then is society right to step in and rearrange their plates to even out the portions?
If that's a bit esoteric, how abou this; what is a fair salary uplift in exchange for my never having had any time at home in the evenings throughout my thirties? If I've freely chosen the route that pays well, and someone else preferred to become a nurse, then why should we look at one aspe t, the wage, and argue that it's out of line?
Should teachers be made to sit in detention for four hours a night to make work hours equal with mine?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff