public sector VS private sector

stevoman

Is anyone else just sick to the bloody teeth if this arguement?

Its just going around in circles and circles at this stage and everyone seems to be missing the point that its the terrible running of the banks, the bad leadership of the goverment in the last few years and the global downturn that has us in a recession.

EVERYONE is feeling the pinch in all corners of Irish society bar the elite few (on both sides of the fence i might add).

Why add fuel to the fire here everyday when it is neither the private sector workers or the public sector worker that have caused any of this? Its nonsense.

TheNog

I am sick to death of it. As far as I can see the Government created this rift between public & private to draw some attention away from themselves and the banks while they try to dig themselves out of the hole they put us all into.

Its sickening to think that our Government has to resort to this tactic rather than using some initiative and get the whole country to tackle this problem with some sort of unity.

bladespin

It was coming ever since benchmarking, the civil service started the divide with their claims about wages in private companies (some of which was pie in the sky TBH). They really painted a bullseye on their chests at the time.

meditraitor

Im sure the civil servants would love to go back to the good old days of no public scrutiny!

The economy is in tatters and the only place's real expenditure cuts can be made are Public/civil service and Social security.

Looking at both of them any reasonable person(not employed in CS/PS) would conclude that the public/civil servants should cough up first. Time to shape up boys, get rid of the fat because in the end it will kill us all.

r0nanf

Agreed, but just because it's irritating doesn't mean it won't go away or that there aren't legitimate complaints on both sides...however, it does seem to be another case of "divide and conquer". No different from the Bush administration's orange alerts, there is always some relatively minor headline grabber to deflect attention away from the big issue(s). Or with this case a couple of pokes to turn us against each other.

Look at all the "leaked reports" in the last couple of weeks, that provided shock factor for a day or two, conveniently distracting us from the growing lynch mob mentality. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but don't for one second think that this isn't within the realms of our governments ability.

JonathanAnon

The two things that are gonna cripple this country are 1) The overhead of the public service and 2) the overhead of having to pay for the banks.

And watching the wastage and duplication of tasks within the public sector last nite on Prime Time, I dont see this argument going away for a while.

jimmmy

JonathanAnon wrote: »

The two things that are gonna cripple this country are 1) The overhead of the public service and 2) the overhead of having to pay for the banks.

And watching the wastage and duplication of tasks within the public sector last nite on Prime Time, I dont see this argument going away for a while.

Yes....it was an interesting programme. Seeing as the 1,800,000 people or so from the private sector are the people who pay most of the tax to support the government ( who use much of it to pay their employees more than the average employee in the private sector, both during their working careers + in retirement ), and seeing as the govt is spending something like 60 billion + only taking 30 odd billion or so in tax revenue, this argument is certainly not going away for a while. There is a depth of feeling out there.

guinnessdrinker

jimmmy wrote: »

There is a depth of feeling out there.

We get it by now Jimmmy. You don't like the public service and the public service doesn't like you.

spank_inferno

Its a fight I'm sick of too

But I still feel that its an argument that has to happen.
Sooner or later the public sector are going to have to realise that the gravy train must end.

grahamo

Bored to death with this subject. There is no debate, no constructive comments, the same posts posted over & over.
A pension levy has now been brought in for public servants, even contract workers who won't ever receive a public sector pension have to pay this levy. They are now paying for their pension so move on please. Nothing more to see here.

ixoy

grahamo wrote: »

They are now paying for their pension so move on please. Nothing more to see here.

Nonsense - there's more to this than the pension levy (which isn't all that harsh relative to other areas). We need to look at what's actually needed:
Can certain departments or groups be almagamated?
Can we reduce numbers in departments?
Can we reform areas like PMDS and cut out dead wood while properly rewarding hard work (i.e. merit-based assessment in a proper form)?
Can we address the issue of pay reform properly (new benchmarking?) rather than slap out a pension levy (should there be virtually automatic increments for example)?

We should have addressed these quetions in the good time, but then we could afford not to ask them. Now we can't afford that luxury, so it's perfectly correct to bring up the questions (alongside a number of other questions relating to other areas of government activities, including NAMA).

P. Breathnach

stevoman wrote: »

Is anyone else just sick to the bloody teeth if this arguement?

Its just going around in circles and circles at this stage...

So people agree with stevoman, and then go on to say why it is the fault of the other side that the argument goes on and on.

I thought that we Irish were good at irony, but the irony here seems unintended.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Darragh29

stevoman wrote: »

Is anyone else just sick to the bloody teeth if this arguement?

Its just going around in circles and circles at this stage and everyone seems to be missing the point that its the terrible running of the banks, the bad leadership of the goverment in the last few years and the global downturn that has us in a recession.

EVERYONE is feeling the pinch in all corners of Irish society bar the elite few (on both sides of the fence i might add).

Why add fuel to the fire here everyday when it is neither the private sector workers or the public sector worker that have caused any of this? Its nonsense.

I agree with you to a certain extent but I think some of the salaries that are being paid to people in the public sector are just outrageous. There is also an issue with performance in the public sector, the measurement of performance and the transparency associated with that, these are issues that I have a problem with... I'm all for unions but I'm getting a bit sick to be honest with you of turning on my television and seeing some bearded public sector union official wagging his finger at me and threatening strikes.

Tester46

stevoman wrote: »

Is anyone else just sick to the bloody teeth if this arguement?

Do you work in the public or private sector? It seems to be mostly public sector people who are sick to the bloody teeth of this argument.

stevoman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

well in fairness i could hardly start a thread on the colour of brian cowens underpants to highlight it could i?

stevoman

Tester46 wrote: »

Do you work in the public or private sector? It seems to be mostly public sector people who are sick to the bloody teeth of this argument.

Im a civil servant. What does it matter what i do? Im just sick to the teeth of the whole arguement, hence i started the thread to highlight that and to see if anyone else was sick of it. But im interested to see how you have ascertained that its just people who have a "public sector wage" are sick of the arguement. Is that just a pulled out of the air comment or have you any figures to back up that arguement.

Fergus08

Yeah, this argument has been done to death. But it won't go away. The irrational hatred of the public sector that seems to have become embedded in people's consciousness will be kept on the boil by the government - who are NOT the public sector - and the media - who have their own, very specific, agenda.

Last night's Prime Time was a joke - I cracked up laughing. Sean Barrett and Frank Fitzgibbon spouting the usual nonsense about the public sector. No criticisms of the public sector stand any scrutiny now that the private sector are in the process of destroying and bankrupting the country. Sort that first, then come back and talk about public sector reform.

And, jimmmy, public servants pay tax out of all proportion to their numbers in the workforce.

In 2007 the total income tax take was 17 billion. There were over three million active income tax accounts. 800,000 or so of those 3.2 million did not pay any tax, at all. The overwhelming number of these will have been low paid private sector workers. Possibly all of them were. So, that leaves 2.4 million tax contributing accounts. 600,000 of these were self-assessed. It's reasonably safe to conclude that they weren't hit for the full whack of tax. Say they paid a fifth of the income tax take = 3.4 billion. That leaves 1.8 million workers who paid the remainder of 13.6 billion. Close to 400 thousand of these are public sector workers, who, as the public sector bashers complain constantly, are paid above the odds. So, for the sake of fairness we'll say that this group contributed another third of the 13.6 billion tax take, after taking into account the self-assessed. That's 4.08 billion. For the sake of argument allow that for duplication of active tax accounts so that, 400,000 public sector workers are responsible for 550,000 active tax accounts. Say some are also self-assessed for jobs they do outside of their work with the public sector. 550,000 active tax accounts for public sector workers is about a sixth of the total. Yet public sector workers contributed in 2007 over a quarter of the income tax take, quite possibly more, far more. These figures are generously weighted against the public sector.

So, 400,000 public sector workers contributed in 2007 at least 4.08 billion in incomes taxes. While the whole of business every corporation tax payer in the country, including some of the most profitable business in the world, contributed the princely sum of 7.3 billion. The contribution of public sector workers in 2007 was well over half of that of the whole of the business community in this country??? And the public sector are a burden??

ixoy

Fergus08 wrote: »

The irrational hatred of the public sector that seems to have become embedded in people's consciousness will be kept on the boil by the government - who are NOT the public sector - and the media - who have their own, very specific, agenda.

It's not irrational hatred by many of the posters here. It's a desire to debate the cost effectiveness of the PS/CS. It's far too easy to lash back at them, claiming they hate you, rather than look at the salient points that some (not all) have made.

No criticisms of the public sector stand any scrutiny now that the private sector are in the process of destroying and bankrupting the country.

Again, let's not lump all the private sector into one entity. We're not all in banking and construction. If you want us to debate the public sector properly, rather than merely broadly, show the private sector the same respect and recognise its multiple components.

The contribution of public sector workers in 2007 was well over half of that of the whole of the business community in this country??? And the public sector are a burden??

Yes sure they contributed 4.7bn but cost 20bn. That's why we're debating the issue - there's a gap there. How much can we narrow it? Hopefully we'll get to see.

Naz_st

Fergus08 wrote: »

...
So, 400,000 public sector workers contributed in 2007 at least 4.08 billion in incomes taxes. While the whole of business every corporation tax payer in the country, including some of the most profitable business in the world, contributed the princely sum of 7.3 billion. The contribution of public sector workers in 2007 was well over half of that of the whole of the business community in this country??? And the public sector are a burden??

The "income tax" paid by the public service is nominal only, it simply means that they cost less. For example, the government doesn't pay a particular public servant 100k then take 30k back from them in tax, they effectively just pay them 70k. So a "tax increase" on a public servant means the government now has an outlay for that worker of less than 70k.

I.e. (and simplistically)
an income tax increase in the public sector reduces the bill.
an income tax increase in the private sector brings in more money to pay the bill.

Think about it for a moment: Under your rationale, we should just make everybody work in the public sector and we'd have loads more tax revenue and the country would be fine!

To answer the OP:
I'm certainly sick of the ridiculous generalisations being made that cloud the issue ("ALL public servants are wasters", "ALL private sector workers were raking it in", "ALL self-employed people dodge tax", etc). They're all wrong and everyone knows it.

And I'm sick of it being phrased as a "public vs private" argument. Both sectors work in the same country and ultimately want the same things. It's our country that is being ruined by bad government and bad policy decisions. It's our country too that is stumbling towards the cliff-edge of bankruptcy by having to borrow billions of Euro at great expense from international money markets.

However, the argument about "Government Spending" will go on because I do think that there are real issues with the efficiency, structure and cost of certain sections of the public sector, and we have yet to see substantial moves by the government to tackle the issues raised over the longer term. Up until now, we haven't had to face up to this reality because we were raking in the tax revenues from house sales and full employment. But those days are gone.

It boils down to this (an analogy a lot of people may be acutely and unfortunately aware):
A two income household with each person bringing in 40k, has annual bills of 60k. One of them loses their job, with little hope of getting re-employed in the medium term. Now they have bills of 60k and an income of 40k. Unfortunately, they didn't save any money when they had extra income, in fact they already owe the bank 50k. Now they may be able to bring in an extra 5k by doing some work on the side (raise taxes) and they may be able to borrow some money from family and friends in the short term (international money markets), but ultimately if they don't reduce their bills, they're screwed.

Fergus08

They're all fair points Ixoy, that you raise. What I'm trying to raise, in turn, is that whole public vs. private question is an extremely complex one.

The "sack half of them, slash the pay of all of them" brigade, who are well represented here, and who enjoy unchallenged dominance in the print and broadcast media, just haven't thought through the consequences of their prescriptions. And the disaster a huge assault on public expenditure and pay would have on the private sector at this time. Some of this aforementioned brigade, it should be said, show evidence that can't think anything substantive through.

You raise the issue of the gap between the 4.08 billion public servant tax contribution and the 20 billion public sector pay bill. If you take into account all the VAT, PRSI and stamp duty paid by public servants, then that gap reduces considerably. So, let's say for the sake of argument all the foregoing plus the tax take comes to 11 billion. Thats a 9 billion euro gap. Let's get this point straight then: for 9 billion euro about 6% (being generous) of GDP and about 9% (being very generous!!) of GNP we get a reasonably healthy, highly educated workforce, a reasonably efficient, but non-corrupt public administration and legal system (that is hard corruption, not the accepted, in public and private sectors Irish "soft" corruption), a very stable political system and society. We get all of this for 9 billion??!!?? All of these are the work of public servants. Explain to me again how the public sector is burden???

And, to put it another way, business gets all of this for a mere 7 billion euro in corporation tax and the same again (being extremely generous) in PRSI contributions, capital gains tax etc all of this for 14 billion euros, in 2007. And, they got to keep 49 billion in profit in 2007 alone - 23% of GDP?? Enough to pay the public sector pay bill for two and half years. And the representatives of the same business group give out about the cost of the public sector which, nett, is 20% of their profit in one year???? I'm obviously not getting this deep mysteries here.....

The state should and will borrow to get us over the hump. Public servants have taken the hit for the economy with the pension levy and voluntary redundancies. And, as Peter McLoone made clear at the IMPACT conference, changes to work practices are inevitable to produce efficiencies. Most thinking public servants are willing to do their bit and realise the challenge ahead. Unfortunately, any good will among public servants is fast evaporating as the onslaught continues.

The public sector bashers have a perverse grasp of motivational psychology if they think they can get compromise from public servants by lying and demonising them.

It's also worth remembering that the "private sector" is not a monolith with everyone in it sharing the same interests. The vast majority of private sectors workers don't begrudge the public sector anything. Indeed they rely on to make life bearable. It's just the IBEC, ISME groupies and the mickey-mouse 'entrepreneurs' and their lazy media supporters who, when facing the gravest economic crisis in the state's history, just cannot, absolutely cannot see beyond their hatred and bile. Sad, very sad.

Fergus08

Naz - that analogy about the two income household is very well put.

Now let me add a complicating factor. One of the partners is a public servant and the other works in the private sector. The latter is the one who loses his/her job. But what the public sector bashers here want is for the other partner to lose his/her job too!! Or at the very least to have his/her pay slashed to, a commonly used figure here, 25,000 or sacked altogether. So, to adapt your example: we start of with incomings of 80K, outgoings of 60k, after the job loss we have incomings of 40k and outgoings of 60k. But the public-sector bashers want the incomings reduced to 25k. Making a bad situation much worse. Do they reduce their bills to starvation level?? Are friends and extra work income going to bridge that wide a gap??

Your example reflects reality and so does mine. They both raise troubling questions and troubling answers.

gnxx

Fergus08 wrote: »

That leaves 1.8 million workers who paid the remainder of 13.6 billion. Close to 400 thousand of these are public sector workers, who, as the public sector bashers complain constantly, are paid above the odds. So, for the sake of fairness we'll say that this group contributed another third of the 13.6 billion tax take, after taking into account the self-assessed. That's 4.08 billion.

Are you sure of your math here ?

1.8 million workers with about 400,000 in the public sector ( this is about 20% of the 1.8 million ) contributing 33% of the overall tax revenue.

gerry28

The "income tax" paid by the public service is nominal only, it simply means that they cost less. For example, the government doesn't pay a particular public servant 100k then take 30k back from them in tax, they effectively just pay them 70k. So a "tax increase" on a public servant means the government now has an outlay for that worker of less than 70k.

I don't know what your point is with this? Every country has its public sector and private sector, they have different rolls. The private sector generally generates income for the country and the public sector provide services. Are you saying we somehow should be grateful to you for generating tax to pay our wages?

Fergus08

Not 100%, no. It's a back of the envelope caculation. I admit that.

The precise figures may well be wrong give or take a billion or two. That is PS workers may be shown to contribute 20% more or 20% less than I've allocate to them. But they back up my contention that the public sector pay bill, as I argue in a subsequent post, is value for money. And that in 2007 it was just a little over 10% of GDP and allow deductions from PS works back to the state the nett impact on GDP reduces to I think around 6%.

For what we get for that 6% it's a minor miracle. Nett public sector pay is probably around 9 billion - I'll allow it could be more. Given that the total to bail out the banks and to fund NAMA will be in the region of, this is guesstimate territory, 114 billion (IMF and media reports) - with probably very little returning to the exchequer after all the legal wrangling has finished. That's 12 years nett public sector pay with none of the economic activity that public sector pay helps sustain in retail, catering, tourism, goods and services etc, etc,. That's also not taking into account the cost of state borrowing to fund the bailouts etc.

That's the context in which critiques of the public sector pay bill have to be set. Sort out and justify that mess first, then come back and critique the public sector.

The public sector and its workers are far, far, far from perfect. But they are the perfect scapegoat for a private sector, or rather a small section of it, that has seriously overreached itself and brought the economy and society that sustains it, to the brink of disaster.

oldyouth

I think the main reason there is conflict between the 2 sectors is that the Public sector employees seem to think that all Private sector people have being dabbling in shares and property developing and the Private sector think that all Public sector employees are like heads of depts scratching their (w)holes all day.

The truth is that the vast majority in each do a hard days work for an average days pay and it is our leaders that have caused the upset with stupidity and lack of understanding. As always, just my opinion

gnxx

Fergus08 wrote: »

The contribution of public sector workers in 2007 was well over half of that of the whole of the business community in this country??? And the public sector are a burden??

Sorry. I'm really confused with this.

Are you suggesting that more than 50% of tax take was from the public sector?

Alcatel

gnxx wrote: »

Sorry. I'm really confused with this.

Are you suggesting that more than 50% of tax take was from the public sector?

Yes. Yes, they actually sit there knitting all day and we sell the produce at great profit abroad.

BennyLava

As the OP said, there should be no divisions between the average Public and Private sector workers

we are all getting screwed by the Government and their friends in the social partnership the banks, the builders and the unions

Ask yourself who negotiated benchmarking on behalf of the public sector, the unions, and where do most of them work, (upper management of the public sector) and who befits most from bench marking?

not your average nurse or garda. all of the above have taken us for a ride, and lined their own pockets in the process

ordinary people bought into the dream that they were fed and are now suffering for it, and those who created this mess are still running the country.

what does that old speech say
"workers of the world unite ..."

ardmacha

Ireland's future competitiveness is determined by all non-traded sectors, whether publicly or privately owned. The high prices for groceries in shops for goods that attract zero vat are not only or mainly down to the public sector. All sorts of services are highly priced and large organisations like UPC, Eircom, Vodafone etc charge high prices by international standards and are not noticeably efficient to deal with. The people who work in these places are not berated on Boards.

Alcatel

BennyLava wrote: »

As the OP said, there should be no divisions between the average Public and Private sector workers

we are all getting screwed by the Government and their friends in the social partnership the banks, the builders and the unions

Ask yourself who negotiated benchmarking on behalf of the public sector, the unions, and where do most of them work, (upper management of the public sector) and who befits most from bench marking?

not your average nurse or garda. all of the above have taken us for a ride, and lined their own pockets in the process

ordinary people bought into the dream that they were fed and are now suffering for it, and those who created this mess are still running the country.

what does that old speech say
"workers of the world unite ..."

And do what? If you try and touch public sector pay the public sector will bring the country to a halt. So we can't solve that bit of our 20bn black hole of finance.

I think that the best solution, at this point, is to line the whole lot up - bankers, political and union leaders, senior civil servants - and shoot them. Maybe do it Battle Royale style and sell the rights overseas to make up RTE's shortfall in funding, so we can get those good lookin country lasses back on the telly.

Then we start from scratch with pay deals and social welfare and our public sector (mis)management. Wipe the slate clean, instead of trying to move the deck chairs around on the Titanic to make it look better.

meditraitor

Alcatel wrote: »

And do what? If you try and touch public sector pay the public sector will bring the country to a halt. So we can't solve that bit of our 20bn black hole of finance.
.

This is one of the reasons behind the current wave of anti CS/PS sentiment.

The CS/PS unions would have no qualms about advising their member to strike!

One word for them
Benchmarking

Give me a reason why there should not be a new benchmarking initiative?

Fergus08

gnxx. No I'm stating that the tax contribution of public sector workers - based on a rough estimate which might be a little less or a little more - was 4.08 billion in 2007. The total tax take from corporation tax in 2007 was roughly 7 billion. Public sector workers, less than one in seven of the workforce in 2007, paid the equivalent of 50% of the tax paid by ALL businesses in this country including Dell, Pfizer, Intel, Microsoft, Coca-Cola etc etc. This is 2007, we're talking about, when things were going well. In 2009 public sector workers are likely to pay MORE tax as their incomes are steady, while business pays less as profitability declines. Also, of course, taxes on income have increased but NOT on profits.

Business made profits of at least 49 billion in that same year, if you take 7 billion as 12.5% of their profitability in that year and extrapolate from that. And that's if you include no tax allowances whatsoever to business. I'm not a tax expert but I reckon there are significant allowances to business which means that the profit made in 2007 could well be higher than 49 billion.

The nett cost to the exchequer of public sector pay in 2007 was likely to be around 9 billion, after you take into account tax, PRSI, VAT, Stamp duties etc paid by public sector workers. And a significant portion of the fabled 6% of income tax payers who contribute 40% of the tax take are likely to be public sector workers, given that you only a gross salary of a little over 60k to enter that exalted category

That is, public sector pay was 20% of private sector profitability in 2007. If corporation tax was raised to the level at which a low paid private sector worker inside the tax net pays it (i.e. 20%) that's another 4.2 billion (on my calculations) into the exchequer.

I know the argument that we need low corporate tax rates as an incentive to investment. But we also need a sense of perspective on the relative contributions of workers (in private and public sectors) and business to the exchequer vs. the benefits business derives from public expenditure.

I'm throwing in the towel now on this one, as I've spent long enough at it.

Nermal

Fergus08 wrote: »

gnxx. No I'm stating that the tax contribution of public sector workers - based on a rough estimate which might be a little less or a little more - was 4.08 billion in 2007. The total tax take from corporation tax in 2007 was roughly 7 billion. Public sector workers, less than one in seven of the workforce in 2007, paid the equivalent of 50% of the tax paid by ALL businesses in this country including Dell, Pfizer, Intel, Microsoft, Coca-Cola etc etc.

PS workers don't make a tax contribution, their entire income is paid by taxes on other sectors of the economy. Their 'contribution' is an accounting fiction.

Cuddlesworth

Fergus08 wrote: »

gnxx. No I'm stating that the tax contribution of public sector workers - based on a rough estimate which might be a little less or a little more - was 4.08 billion in 2007. The total tax take from corporation tax in 2007 was roughly 7 billion. Public sector workers, less than one in seven of the workforce in 2007, paid the equivalent of 50% of the tax paid by ALL businesses in this country including Dell, Pfizer, Intel, Microsoft, Coca-Cola etc etc. This is 2007, we're talking about, when things were going well. In 2009 public sector workers are likely to pay MORE tax as their incomes are steady, while business pays less as profitability declines. Also, of course, taxes on income have increased but NOT on profits.

Business made profits of at least 49 billion in that same year, if you take 7 billion as 12.5% of their profitability in that year and extrapolate from that. And that's if you include no tax allowances whatsoever to business. I'm not a tax expert but I reckon there are significant allowances to business which means that the profit made in 2007 could well be higher than 49 billion.

The nett cost to the exchequer of public sector pay in 2007 was likely to be around 9 billion, after you take into account tax, PRSI, VAT, Stamp duties etc paid by public sector workers. And a significant portion of the fabled 6% of income tax payers who contribute 40% of the tax take are likely to be public sector workers, given that you only a gross salary of a little over 60k to enter that exalted category

That is, public sector pay was 20% of private sector profitability in 2007. If corporation tax was raised to the level at which a low paid private sector worker inside the tax net pays it (i.e. 20%) that's another 4.2 billion (on my calculations) into the exchequer.

I know the argument that we need low corporate tax rates as an incentive to investment. But we also need a sense of perspective on the relative contributions of workers (in private and public sectors) and business to the exchequer vs. the benefits business derives from public expenditure.

I'm throwing in the towel now on this one, as I've spent long enough at it.

Why is the money paid out to employees of private firms left out of this argument?

Fergus08

OK, last comment. Nermal: that's dumb. The only word for it. I've shown that the public sector pay bill costs about 9 billion a year nett. That's all that the traded sector has to stump up. A mere 6 or 7% of GDP. For that they still got in 2007 49 billion, probably more, in profit.

And those other sectors of the economy couldn't function without the public sector. But there's no use making that patently obvious argument to some people - they'll never, never see the value and worth of the public sector. One that's out of all proportion to its cost.

Oh, **** it! There's no use! Definitely leaving this one!

Naz_st

gerry28 wrote: »

I don't know what your point is with this? Every country has its public sector and private sector, they have different rolls. The private sector generally generates income for the country and the public sector provide services. Are you saying we somehow should be grateful to you for generating tax to pay our wages?

No, I was responding to Fergus08, when he said:

Fergus08 wrote: »

So, 400,000 public sector workers contributed in 2007 at least 4.08 billion in incomes taxes. While the whole of business every corporation tax payer in the country, including some of the most profitable business in the world, contributed the princely sum of 7.3 billion. The contribution of public sector workers in 2007 was well over half of that of the whole of the business community in this country??? And the public sector are a burden??

To effectively point out what another poster has subsequently put more succinctly:

Nermal wrote: »

PS workers don't make a tax contribution, their entire income is paid by taxes on other sectors of the economy. Their 'contribution' is an accounting fiction.

oscarBravo

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Been there, done that, circle the wagons, close the thread.