Busses

[Eagle]

Hi Mike
I never had a council house to buy.
I do not draw a state pension as not 65.
I have had a number of holidays , but I am not pleading poverty.

Apart from that very amused by your post Mike. Well done.

[Tim Lund]

Eagle what are you talking about. You are totally wrong not me. Council tax or any other kind of tax does not fund the LGPS scheme however much you repeat it. You are the one who should apologise!

And now you are spouting more nonsense about highly paid local government workers. In 2007 57% of local government workers were earning less than 16k a year, 8k less than the average wage.

Tim the rich are richer than they have EVER been. The richest 1000 people alone could easily pay off the entire national debt and fund pensions. There is more than enough money as France has shown.

Eagle likes to do down low paid workers and laud the scrounging rich. Its sorry to see.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

National debt 1,000 billion, ignoring pension and other off balance sheet items. Total wealth of Sunday Times 1,000 richest 414 billion

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[cockneyrebel]

Fair enough so I'll change that to the richest 10,000 could pay off the entire national debt and far more. Indeed the richest 2% of the world own more than 50% of the worlds wealth and 50% of the world own less than 1% of the wealth. Income equality is growing and the rich have become massively richer. But I know, the problem is public sector pensions!

You can't help someone. It would be like one person taking 99/100ths of a cake and someone ignoring that but moaning about how other people were taking too much of the 1/100th that is left.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Sorry Tim just noticed CR again. I thought it had sunk into him that council tax and taxes pay most of his pension.
The figures you produced I believe said employers contribution twice that of employee. Where does he think the employers contribution comes from if not council tax and general tax.

I give up.

Your final comment also sums up the situation.

[cockneyrebel]

Yawn just because you repeat the same thing over and over doesn't make it so. The LGPS is currently self funding, there was no need to change it. There is no requirement to pay more taxes to fund it.

It's bad enough when the rich justify their massive scrounging privileges. They must be laughing all over the shop when some poor sap like you goes along with it!!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[cockneyrebel]

Also I love the way you go on about gold plated when the reality is that most local government workers earn below the national average wage and the average pension is 4k a year. Vote Tory, you can't help some people.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[14BradfordRoad]

Sorry Tim just noticed CR again. I thought it had sunk into him that council tax and taxes pay most of his pension.
The figures you produced I believe said employers contribution twice that of employee. Where does he think the employers contribution comes from if not council tax and general tax.

Money going into works pension schemes does ultimately come from the end user or consumer
who buys that particular service or product. A lucritive private pension scheme is also funded
by the end user or consumer of their product or service. It's just added on to the price the
consumer pays. We've probably all paid towards Rupert Murdochs Rolls Royce at some stage!
(That's assuming he has a rolls royce ) If you see what I mean!

We are all end users of public services who happen to supply their workers with a reasonable wage/pension benefits package, in my own case lower wages but pension plan included, I
wouldn't have considered the job for the wages alone and the pension deal isn't particularly
as golden as some reports would lead you to believe!
Private contractors (not the fly by night guy with unmarked white van) we use charge more
than enough to cover the job with a fair bit on top to cover the other bits: Public liability, running costs, Oh! and enough to build a little nest egg with (Pension plan)!
Public sector / Private sector are not so different if you think about it! Both are needed..

Why do you think some plumbers charge so much? (Ker-ching! £££££££'s - glug-glug!!)
NB: Not all plumbers I hasten to add..(Hee-hee).

Sorry to deviate, maybe we should get back to the buses! "Butler, get that bus out"!

[CaptainCarCrash]

[Eagle]

I agree 14BR let us get back to the buses.
Let us hope CR has not got a decision making job in LG , or maybe that would explain a lot. The inability to grasp basic facts is worrying.


Now Buses
Anyone been on the new 227 . Amazing , what an improvement. I expected the trolley to come down with refreshments.

Let us hope the drivers see the light and do not proceed with any more politically motivated walk outs.

[cockneyrebel]

Eagle I'm a relatively low paid job but I have helped to increase revenue in the team I'm in by around 1 million a year. In your desire to fall over yourself to fawn over the rich and privileged it is you who ignores basic facts.

Also how is a demand for a £500 Olympic bonus politically motivated lol. Maybe you could get a job being a doormat for Cameron?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

Fair enough so I'll change that to the richest 10,000 could pay off the entire national debt and far more. Indeed the richest 2% of the world own more than 50% of the worlds wealth and 50% of the world own less than 1% of the wealth. Income equality is growing and the rich have become massively richer. But I know, the problem is public sector pensions!

You can't help someone. It would be like one person taking 99/100ths of a cake and someone ignoring that but moaning about how other people were taking too much of the 1/100th that is left.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

cockneyrebel - you missed a trick there - as originally posted, I wrote 1,000 trillion - now edited to 1,000 billion. But it was during the Kirkdale Village pub quiz,



so lots of distractions, and I'm not so good on posting links from my mobile. So here they are - total wealth of Sunday Times Rich List 1,000 and UK national debt

One thing we certainly agree on is that "Income equality is growing and the rich have become massively richer". The standard way of measuring this is the GINI co-efficient, which rose strongly during the Thatcher era- and continued to rise under New Labour.

I find this troubling, because I prefer the idea of a more equal society than we have now, but I'm not sure how I could justify this feeling, since I don't want to live in a society with complete equality either; that would be a world in which the person who helps his team increase revenue by around 1 million a year ends up with the same as someone who can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning. So there has to be some level of inequality which I think is acceptable, but what that level is, I really couldn't say. I suspect you, and almost everyone else, are in the same position, and is why pointing out how much the rich in aggregate have got richer doesn't get us very far.

If you want to get people on your side in squeezing the rich, you have to make a case for why they don't deserve to be rich, or that they use their riches irresponsibly. I think the most effective enemy of the rich in the UK was Lloyd George, e.g. via the People's Budget of 1909

In order to raise the necessary funds to finance their progressive social measures, the Government proposed that income tax should be raised from 1s to 1s 2d in the pound, with a supertax of 6d in the £ on the amount by which incomes of £5,000 or more exceeded £3,000. The Budget plans also included proposals to raise indirect taxes on certain goods such as tobacco, whisky and petrol. But Lloyd George's most controversial plan was to tax the land of wealthy landowners, with increases in death duties and heavy taxes on the profits made from the sale and ownership of property

but behind this there was the justification that most of these landowners had merely inherited their wealth, so didn't deserve it - in contrast to the sometimes rather dodgy industrialists and other capitalists who were financing economic growth - and later Lloyd George's personal fortune in return for the sale of honours.

At any time, technological and other extraneous changes affecting the economy can throw up opportunities for a new class to get super-rich, so increasing inequality. If what these new classes deliver is useful - hopefully you find it useful that I can use Google to find links to back up the points I make - then why should we complain about the increase in inequality which comes from Sergey Brin joining the super rich?

But I think it does help to look at the behaviour of the super-rich as individuals, rather than in aggregate. So I want to know what Sergey Brin does with his billions, likewise Bill Gates, Warren Buffet - whoever. If they use it sensibly and worthily to get things done which governments fail to, then good on them. If they don't, then shame on them. That's why I feel the super-rich should be subject to public scrutiny, e.g. making their tax returns public, even though I'd not agree to taxing them at rates which will push them into tax avoidance.

[Eagle]

Noted this morning that LBC on the list of the top 10 local authorities for NOT collecting Council Tax.

About 35 million I believe last year. This is a disgrace. Why did they not enforce collection.

[cockneyrebel]

Eagle this is getting more and more bizarre, what has Council Tax collection got to do with this thread?! As it happens most council's have turned to private companies to collect council tax with very poor results in many cases. But you would support this I imagine.

TimL to be honest I don't care whether it's the top 1000 or 10,000 that could pay off the entire national debt, the fact is that is is tiny percentage of the population as so much wealth is kept in the top 1%

Equality to me means "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". I'm a socialist but that doesn't mean I think we should accept someone who can't be bothered to do anything all day and expects others to do this. However a fair percentage of people in that category in the current system are the super rich, who get their privaliged life style by exploitation.

In terms of your post I suspect the difference between us is that you are a progressive liberal and I'm a socialist/communist. I think the wealthy show every day of the year how barbaric they are in what they do, whether it's the fact they have ever more luxurious lifestyles while most of the world lives in abject poverty or their frequent wars around the world.

I think capitalism is an extremely inefficient system compared to what could be done if things were done collectively.

[Eagle]

Human nature does not favour Collective Societies. You only have to look at where it has been tried. Any good examples?

In an ideal world it would be the solution.

[Tim Lund]

Equality to me means "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

Cycling to work this morning I was thinking myself of the Critique of the Gotha Programme. I got here safely, nonetheless.

In terms of your post I suspect the difference between us is that you are a progressive liberal and I'm a socialist/communist.".

No disagreement there.

I think capitalism is an extremely inefficient system compared to what could be done if things were done collectively.

Evidence, or just assertion?

[Eagle]

Tim
Impressed you cycle to work. Do you go up Cannonbie Road ?

From each according to his or her ability to each according to need.

Sounds really great and if it worked we would have a great world.

I not saying just because it has never worked means that it could not but makes chances of success very slim.
It usually becomes a charter for those who want to do nothing.

[CaptainCarCrash]

Eagle this is getting more and more bizarre, what has Council Tax collection got to do with this thread?! As it happens most council's have turned to private companies to collect council tax with very poor results in many cases. But you would support this I imagine.

TimL to be honest I don't care whether it's the top 1000 or 10,000 that could pay off the entire national debt, the fact is that is is tiny percentage of the population as so much wealth is kept in the top 1%

Equality to me means "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". I'm a socialist but that doesn't mean I think we should accept someone who can't be bothered to do anything all day and expects others to do this. However a fair percentage of people in that category in the current system are the super rich, who get their privaliged life style by exploitation.

In terms of your post I suspect the difference between us is that you are a progressive liberal and I'm a socialist/communist. I think the wealthy show every day of the year how barbaric they are in what they do, whether it's the fact they have ever more luxurious lifestyles while most of the world lives in abject poverty or their frequent wars around the world.

I think capitalism is an extremely inefficient system compared to what could be done if things were done collectively.

Hear hear, well said and other such imperatives.

[Eagle]

I am afraid poor CR , who implies he lives in abject poverty , is difficult to explain things to.

Very sad as sure deep down he is a decent individual who naively believes the left wing views of youth , which undoubtably he will grow out of.

Again would like to bring the posts back to Buses , but have not anything further to say on that matter.

[14BradfordRoad]

Hundreds of workers employed on London's bike hire service are set to receive a £500 bonus for working during the Olympics.
The Community union said its 220 members on the so-called Boris Bike scheme - named after the capital's Mayor Boris Johnson - will also get improved overtime payments in recognition of their increased workload during the Games.

Above sampled from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 92543.html

So why not our noble Bus drivers too?

[CaptainCarCrash]

Apart from that very amused by your post Mike. Well done.

Glad you liked it

No rebuttal on voting Tory in 79 then?