MrMusician18 wrote: » The salaries I quoted considered all that, as there are European salary calculators that will calculate a net salary. The numbers I quite don't include allowances. I just don't think the salary levels within the commission are justified (JCJ and Tusk lift a cool €215k/yr net) and not just at the top but at all levels. When it's the ordinary worker that funds this largesse and especially when austerity is being dictated by a commission that will never experience it, it is hard to stomach. Pointing this out is not about begrudgery either. It's about fairness and real solidarity, and in the context of EU salaries and allowances 7% is a pittance.
GM228 wrote: » I really don't see any issue with EU staff pay and the special tax arrangements, fair play to them. Anyone who thinks otherwise it could be argued is a begrudger. Yes EU staff don't pay normal incomel tax like the rest of us, but, they are subject to other national taxes such as VAT etc, they do pay a special Community Income Tax, this is a progressive tax which ranges between 8% and 45%, the average EU staff member pays between 12% and 25% tax. This is all provided for under the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities. There are also other deductions, for example they pay what is known as a Solidarity Levy of either 6% or 7% depending on grade, they pay a 10% pension levy, they pay a 1.7% health insurance levy, they pay a 0.1% accident insurance levy, they pay a 0.18% unemployment protection levy etc, but it is equally important to note that EU workers do receive other well paid bonuses, but their marginal tax rate can often rise above 50%.
prawnsambo wrote: » Your 'entry level' is not some wet behind the ears clerical officer tbf.
MrMusician18 wrote: P Flynn was right, it's a well paid job.
MrMusician18 wrote: » So their few number should make them exempt from normal taxation? Entry level for graduates into the EU civil service is AD5, and that has take home pay of €46,800 + allowances. To put that in context, you'd have to earning almost €70k in Ireland for that kind of salary. P Flynn was right, it's a well paid job.
Strazdas wrote: » The EU Commission and European Parliament has only around 40,000 employees in total - reading the Telegraph and Express, you would think the figure is ten times that number. The UK civil service by comparison has 425,000 employees.
MrMusician18 wrote: » The one size fits all (really just Germany and France) monetary policy.The Strasbourg parliament The low/no salary taxes of EU staff wages. They do have a community tax but it's nowhere near the level of taxation in the Member States. The failure in policy that lead to Dieselgate
GM228 wrote: » +1, a 2011 Eurobarometer report found 82% of UK respondents knew little or nothing about the EU, a 2015 report found UK citizens knew the least about the EU out of all the EU member states. No doubt those numbers may have risen directly due to Brexit in recent time I would say they are still a good indication of the UKs knowledge of the EU. Oh and on the point of the ECHR and the ECtHR I would guess many in the UK are of the opinion that it is just another charter and institution of the EU, little do they (probably) realise.
SeaBreezes wrote: » I would be interested in the flaws... I've heard a lot of untruths about the problem with the EU but I imagine posters such as yourselves have your homework done and I'm genuinely curious. What are these disadvantages?
The British government is planning to diverge from the EU on regulation and workers’ rights after Brexit, despite its pledge to maintain a “level playing field” in prime minister Boris Johnson’s deal, according to an official paper shared by ministers this week. The government paper drafted by Dexeu, the Brexit department, with input from Downing Street stated that the UK was open to significant divergence, even though Brussels is insisting on comparable regulatory provisions.
In a passage that could alarm Labour MPs who have backed the Brexit bill, the leaked government document also said the drafting of workers’ rights and environmental protection commitments “leaves room for interpretation”. The paper appears to contradict comments made by Mr Johnson on Wednesday when he said the UK was committed to “the highest possible standards” for workers’ rights and environmental standards.
MrMusician18 wrote: » Point out any failing or flaw of the EU and you'll be rounded on. I have highlighted the failures of European migration policy and one clown here therefore declared that I wanted to see people drown in the Mediterranean. That's what you are up against
Sam Russell wrote: » Well, yes, but the point being made is that they do not know, nor understand, what it is that this 'Europe' is that they wish to be out of - is it the EU, the ECJ, the CU, the SM, 'Brussels' and its undemocratic bureaucrats (although they have no trouble with their own 'loyal Civil Servants'), or indeed the ECHR that insist on those troublesome requirements to treat others humanely. The fact that the vast majority of voters had little understanding of how the EU actually works, and what parts of political life comes under the EU competency, goes to prove that an uniformed electorate should never be asked such a far reaching question. A 2nd referendum would address this point, at least to some degree (assuming it is not conducted illegally).
theological wrote: » From my standpoint the UK is perfectly entitled to decide to go a different way. They decided this 3 years ago and MPs are still doggedly deciding to undermine this verdict and undermine the democratic principle of losers consent.
theological wrote: » Are you seriously suggesting that there are no drawbacks to being a member of the European Union? I'd understand if you said the benefits of being a member of the European Union are better than the drawbacks but it is incorrect to argue that one can't point out any flaw in the European Union especially when member states have pooled a lot of sovereignty. (I'd argue losing control over their own affairs but I'll use the more favourable language). From my standpoint the UK is perfectly entitled to decide to go a different way. They decided this 3 years ago and MPs are still doggedly deciding to undermine this verdict and undermine the democratic principle of losers consent. This needs to be done. Either MPs need to work towards implementing the withdrawal bill or the UK needs a general election at the earliest opportunity.
Strazdas wrote: » Most people in EU states blame their own governments for the country's problems. A quite bizarre situation has developed in the UK where the population are blaming the EU for Britain's problems (even obviously idiotic ideas such as the EU is the cause of non-EU immigration).
theological wrote: » From my standpoint the UK is perfectly entitled to decide to go a different way. They decided this 3 years ago and MPs are still doggedly deciding to undermine this verdict and undermine the democratic principle of losers consent. This needs to be done. Either MPs need to work towards implementing the withdrawal bill or the UK needs a general election at the earliest opportunity.
serfboard wrote: » It's amazing how relevant Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are nowadays - it just shows that the mentality hasn't changed.
Field east wrote: » Cannot agree with you. If we are back in the previous centenary , then yes I would be in agreement when the media ie TV station owners, newsreel and radio station owners were in total control as to what was fed to the public. But now we have got loads of platforms to communicate with the public and the traditional media have no control over. By way of example - look how Trump built up his followers on Facebook and completely by passing mainstream media. The opposition had the means to counteract thes e statements but choose not to do so. Maybe it’s a cultural thing or did the uK run out of time to analyze what was being said.
prawnsambo wrote: » I was reminded about that whilst reading those posts. It was (and is) such a sharp insight into British government; both permanent and elected.
Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal. Sir Humphrey: Oh, ha ha ha. Hacker: May we share the joke, Humphrey? Sir Humphrey: Oh Minister, let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests, and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it? Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations. Sir Humphrey: Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans. Hacker: So why did the French go into it, then? Sir Humphrey: Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition. Hacker: That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans. Sir Humphrey: No, no. They went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race. Hacker: I never heard such appalling cynicism! At least the small nations didn't go into it for selfish reasons. Sir Humphrey: Oh really? Luxembourg is in it for the perks; the capital of the EEC, all that foreign money pouring in. Hacker: Very sensible central location. Sir Humphrey: With the administration in Brussels and the Parliament in Strasbourg? Minister, it's like having the House of Commons in Swindon and the Civil Service in Kettering!
