Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Maths or Reading doesn't appear to be your strong point does it?

One of the signs of a failing state is the government funding its own activities via the public sector to the detriment of the private sector (the part that actually generates income) so despite a so called wage freeze it comes as no surprise to discover that the public sector still is growing and on average earns 15% more than an equivalent job in the private sector (not to mention the pension and job security perks)
Still the figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) were seized upon by the TUC as proof that the public sector earns less than the private sector.
PUBLIC sector workers still earn more than private sector staff – despite three years of austerity-driven wage restraint, official figures showed yesterday.
On average, state-paid workers get nearly 15 per cent more pay, according to the Office for National Statistics.
The ONS based its data on its Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, which looks at one per cent of all tax returns.
Its calculations did not factor in the self-employed, overtime pay, pensions, company cars or health insurance.
On average, public sector workers in 2013 were paid £16.28 an hour – 14.5 per cent higher than the private company average of £14.16.
Comparing median pay – the middle range of pay rates being sampled – public sector workers got 35 per cent, or £3.67 an hour, more than private sector staff.
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Not only do public sector workers now earn less than staff in the private sector, they also face greater job insecurity as hundreds of ­thousands are set to go in the coming years.”
Yes, Frances O'Grady seems to believe that 15% more or in certain instances 35% more actually means that the public sector workers are being paid less. One wonders what her school report card said for maths, probably something along the lines of 'could do a lot better' or somesuch.
Whilst there are some areas in which we need a public sector, you do have to wonder why we need one quite so large (although the EU has something to do with it) still it sucks the taxes from the areas which make a profit and distributes it to those who do not and in some cases are not good value for money.
Politicians often talk about pruning public sector spending, I maintain that taking a chainsaw to it (particular middle and higher management) would be the preferred option as they seem to be costing us an awful lot in order to see we get value for money.
Still it is interesting to see the leftard spin on getting paid less whilst actually being paid more.
For given values of interesting....

7 annotations:

Barman said...

I'm not sure he is so thick...

He made his statement and the paper printed it. His supporters and Labour voters will believe it...

The MSM just doesn't seem to question anything these days.

Kath lissenden said...

I remember when my ex husbands private sector employers told them there would be no wage increase till further notice that was 3/4 years ago. He was on minimum wage then and our income heavily supported by tax credits, without which we would have drowned.
at the same time (4 years ago) and despite the government call for wage freezes
the public sector employees got a 5% rise that year. The unions have always been good at fixing figures and making it up as they go along. Being in the public sector is the place to be, nice work if you can get it but usually these days you have to be foreign, LGBT or disabled and it really helps if you can hardly speak a word of English.

Sarah said...

It's not relevant to the topic but Frances O'Grady is a She, not a He. Just saying like......

Quiet_Man said...

My mistake, thank you I'll correct it.

Edward Spalton said...

Not forgetting the enormously more lavish pension provision in the public sector.

This was revealed in the accounts of a Northern Ireland public service union, IPSA .

The union had an undertaking that its own employees should receive no less favourable terms than their members in public employment.

The books revealed that the cost of this provision required an insurance premium of 40 per cent of salaries. So the difference between that and the amount which public servants pay into superannuation is unfounded and being ripped off the taxpayer - again.

Anonymous said...

My wife's in NIPSA (not IPSA btw). She's expecting to retire at 55 with a pension of 50% of her final salary, which is quite a generous one. I suspect she'll be disappointed as the State will help itself to the pension fund sooner or later, if in fact it hasn't done so already. Also, her salary is taxed and superanned until she's lost nearly half of it. However, I tell her that since her money has been collected from the productive sector at gunpoint via taxation, she hasn't been taxed at all; the State is merely keeping some of the money they've stolen from the populace under the guise of taxation and using her salary deductions to make it look legal. She can't follow this logic, and an argument tends to develop if the subject is pursued. Maybe I'm wrong, and her high salary does make things easier for me since I'm currently unemployed.

Edward Spalton said...

Thank you for your clarification, Anonymous.

Having been self-employed, I have to admit to bring just a little envious!

Gordon Brown raided our pension fund contributions massively - an apparently painless tax which never appeared on anybody's payslip.

Then annuity rates are very poor because they are related to interest on government stock. So an accumulated " pension pot" may appear adequate but the income it will generate is much reduced.

So, like many, I opted for the "draw down" which means I still own my " pot" and can draw out some of the income and capital growth ( if any) as pension, according to a formula by the GAD ( Government Actuary's Department). This is reviewed every three years. On the last review, the amount I was permitted to withdraw was reduced by 40 per cent - again because of the government's low interest rate policy because the actuary uses the interest rate as its yardstick.

When I took the policies out, I discounted the insurance companies' forecasts by half and though it would be a liveable income. Then Gordon Brown took away a chunk of potential growth - now this!

I congratulate your wife on an excellent bargain and have no animosity about things - I am still better off than many. But you are quite right that her good fortune has been bought by taxes on me and those like me