manshimajin Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Why should I accept a pay freeze, what gives you the right to talk about me having a pay freeze, The public service union negotiator said in July that in the present economic circumstance a pay freeze was not unreasonable and also that job cuts could be expected. Is it not reasonable in those circumstances to hold salaries where they are? Given reduced tax take and the apparent lack of funds (according to Ministers) where will the increases be paid from? Presumably this must be from one of the following increase taxes for us all - including you and me reduce the total number of PS jobs - which means one person's increase is another person's job cut back on the services being offered - which alos BTW means less public servants are needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 No, oldmanxfella, you don't understand: the position of the public sector is this: the private sector must take all the pain. Dead simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 It's not a reduction in wage it's just not an increase. If your wages increase at less than the rate of the cost of living then, in real terms, your salary has reduced as it is worth less than it was. In times of higher unemployment and slowing economic activity the price of labour (and it's value relative to other things which cost money) is reduced. Because the price of labour is affected by supply and demand. Same as any other business cost. On that basis a wage which stays the same has effectively potentially increased in cost relative to other business costs. If wages increase to keep up with the cost of living then the cost of living increases further and you risk an inflationary vicious circle which will ultimately need to be corrected by higher interest rates. There is also no fundamental reason why, within reason, the price of labour should be artificially linked to the cost of living. Employment uncertainty should be allowed to act as a downward pressure on wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 No, oldmanxfella, you don't understand: the position of the public sector is this: the private sector must take all the pain. Dead simple why send a message to yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 To reduce my wage would mean that I have to consider down sizing to a smaller property and I realise that some people would take pleasure from that and who knows, maybe the hint and enjoyment of a few seconds thrill of thinking 'serves her right', but what have I done wrong? I doubt that getting no pay rise this year will mean that you have to downsize. However if this is right why should the taxpayer underwrite the lifestyle of someone who has overstretched themselves? This is the whole point of the credit crunch. Low interest rates are crucifying pensioners who have saved just because a generation of greedy arseholes have mortgaged themselves up to the hilt and spent it all on crap. You have no "right" to a pay increase, and if you have overstretched yourself to the point that not getting a pay increase means you have to downsize then tough shit; many people have been more financially responsible than you and can muddle along ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 To reduce my wage would mean that I have to consider down sizing to a smaller property and I realise that some people would take pleasure from that and who knows, maybe the hint and enjoyment of a few seconds thrill of thinking 'serves her right', but what have I done wrong? I doubt that getting no pay rise this year will mean that you have to downsize. However if this is right why should the taxpayer underwrite the lifestyle of someone who has overstretched themselves? This is the whole point of the credit crunch. Low interest rates are crucifying pensioners who have saved just because a generation of greedy arseholes have mortgaged themselves up to the hilt and spent it all on crap. You have no "right" to a pay increase, and if you have overstretched yourself to the point that not getting a pay increase means you have to downsize then tough shit; many people have been more financially responsible than you and can muddle along ok. You know nothing of my life and therefore you're not qualified to inform me as to what I have to do and I have a question for you; do you smoke, drink, go out for a night on the town or do you know something of my personal circumstances? How am I greedy, please explain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm as Manx as the hills you knobber. Its funny that you resort to insults first when challenged. My posts were nothing but balanced linking to information published by IOMG and quotes from our own Treasury Minister. You seem to completely ignore the reality or your position - official surveys show that on average your overpaid and your moaning about not being overpaid more. I have accepted a pay freeze for the last 2 years to help my business and I'm happy to do that as I understand the economic reality of the situation we are in. All I am suggesting to you is that you accept the reality of things yourself. The economy has gone bad, tax take is down, there is less money in the system to cushion you in your job. Its not rocket science. Most people living in the real world accept that the gravy train is over for a few years whilst the economy contracts. I thought your postings were venomous and insulting and therefore unbalanced regardless of the copy and paste. If you'd read my posts, then you'd know that this has already been accepted by me but with conditions, it starts from the top and that top has to begin with the MHK's and they need to lead by example by freezing their monies first, otherrwise it's unfair. If they don't do this, may I point you in the direction of your MHK and you can explain to them about why ALL Civil servants aren't treated the same, (Not rocket science either) particularly as he's paying for your comfortable existence through his taxes and getting little back himself. I gather you know him personally and what contributions he pays towards the Isle of Man? But how can you go on about my 'comfortable existence?' Are you watching me? How do you know as to what my outgoings are and spectacularly if I'm in a comfortable position? I'm probably paying more tax than you anyway. But anyway, back to proper stuff instead of having a good old time chucking words about. (I don't mean it, but it's relaxed me loads) I agree that there should be a thinning out of certain positions (is it called natural wastage?) like retirement but why should you or I have to reduce our lining in our pockets, whilst there are others who are exempt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 You know nothing of my life and therefore you're not qualified to inform me as to what I have to do and I have a question for you; do you smoke, drink, go out for a night on the town or do you know something of my personal circumstances?How am I greedy, please explain You are just demonstrating the classic government worker sense of "entitlement". Boo hoo for you you've got a big mortgage. So what. Why should my tax money go towards subsidising your extravagance? If you've overstretched yourself then tough shit. Why should the taxpayer underwrite you staying in your house if you can't afford to without getting a pay increase. If I lose my job (unlikely to happen to you) I have to sell my house as i can't pay my mortgage, why should you be any different just because you work for the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 You know nothing of my life and therefore you're not qualified to inform me as to what I have to do and I have a question for you; do you smoke, drink, go out for a night on the town or do you know something of my personal circumstances?How am I greedy, please explain You are just demonstrating the classic government worker sense of "entitlement". Boo hoo for you you've got a big mortgage. So what. Why should my tax money go towards subsidising your extravagance? If you've overstretched yourself then tough shit. Why should the taxpayer underwrite you staying in your house if you can't afford to without getting a pay increase. If I lose my job (unlikely to happen to you) I have to sell my house as i can't pay my mortgage, why should you be any different just because you work for the government? Was the question too hard or do I have to make it really simple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Freeze the pay of MHKs (and halve their number). At the same time freeze public sector pay, and make them justify their existence to the people who pay the piper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm probably paying more tax than you anyway. I doubt it. I earned over six figures last year so unless your a department head or a chief executive I really doubt you've paid any more than me. For that reason I am not jealous or frustrated. Just surprised by the fact that you choose to ignore the economic reality of the situation you are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm probably paying more tax than you anyway. I doubt it. I earned over six figures last year so unless your a department head or a chief executive I really doubt you've paid any more than me. For that reason I am not jealous or frustrated. Just surprised by the fact that you choose to ignore the economic reality of the situation you are in. So you're earning more than most people, yet you're whining? You can therefore afford to miss out on a couple of years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I do think Manxy makes a good point. You are making assumptions with little or no understanding of his/her financial situation and home circumstances. If I lose my job (unlikely to happen to you) I have to sell my house as i can't pay my mortgage, why should you be any different just because you work for the government? It SHOULD be different because at least a group of workers have got a more acceptable situation in terms of job security and wage stability, whereas the private sector just get shitted on. But it is unfair on the private sector workers who are supporting this stability and thus become even harder hit by the financial crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I do think Manxy makes a good point. You are making assumptions with little or no understanding of his/her financial situation and home circumstances. If I lose my job (unlikely to happen to you) I have to sell my house as i can't pay my mortgage, why should you be any different just because you work for the government? It SHOULD be different because at least a group of workers have got a more acceptable situation in terms of job security and wage stability, whereas the private sector just get shitted on. But it is unfair on the private sector workers who are supporting this stability and thus become even harder hit by the financial crisis. Good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm probably paying more tax than you anyway. I doubt it. I earned over six figures last year so unless your a department head or a chief executive I really doubt you've paid any more than me. For that reason I am not jealous or frustrated. Just surprised by the fact that you choose to ignore the economic reality of the situation you are in. So you're earning more than most people, yet you're whining? You can therefore afford to miss out on a couple of years Can you actually read? I have not whined at all I have pointed out, using official IOMG surveys, the exact position you are in and why you are choosing to ignore the economic reality of the situation. You are the one sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'La, la, la'. I think what I have posted stands up on its merit and is not whining at all but telling you straight exactly what is going on and why a pay increase funded by the taxpayer is unreasonable in current circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.