Tough decisions must be made.

[Non-Believer]

1 minute ago, thommo2010 said:

I don't know how many people use the 20% discount but you could argue getting people doing exercise in the long term will save money for the NHS. 

I don't disagree but they can pay the going rate as everybody else for doing it if it's contributing to a £300k loss in a year. If times are going to be hard for everybody then these perks can go for the chop. 

[Passing Time]

4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The trouble with ruthless bastards is that all they are interested in is looking after themselves.  We already have quite a lot of people like that.  All you're demanding is people who will loot the place even more efficiently.

Not at all, all I would like is to have mhk's who know how to question everything and not just accept what is put in front of them. Followed by having the balls to do something about the mess they have landed the island in

[thommo2010]

30 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I don't disagree but they can pay the going rate as everybody else for doing it if it's contributing to a £300k loss in a year. If times are going to be hard for everybody then these perks can go for the chop. 

But businesses also get corporate rates at gyms. In my gym I pay 22 quid a month rather than the 40 quid a month rate because someone went to them and agreed a corporate deal. It happens everywhere

[Gladys]

18 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

But businesses also get corporate rates at gyms. In my gym I pay 22 quid a month rather than the 40 quid a month rate because someone went to them and agreed a corporate deal. It happens everywhere

But businesses aren't being supported by the taxpayer. 

[Spyk3r]

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But businesses aren't being supported by the taxpayer. 

I agree - what happens in private business is up to the shareholders of the business - and believe me, the businesses do what they want them to do.

The Govt employees should not receive any benefits outside of a competitive salary as they are civil servants - They should ensure the services are good enough that everyone can use them in, and be proud of them.

They shouldn't have private medical - as they should be making sure Manx Care/DHSC/ NHS is up to scratch and be using it.

They shouldn't get private pensions - they should be making sure the contributions are not being squandered on vanity projects. (watch the pennies, and the pounds look after themselves)

The list could go on and on, but I think I'm preaching to the choir on this one...

Edited January 10 by Spyk3r

[woolley]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But businesses aren't being supported by the taxpayer. 

Exactly. The taxpayer is paying to employ these legions of government staff - far too many of them, has also paid to build the NSC and operate it, is subsidising a 20% discount for said legions to use the facility, but if the taxpayer uses it he/she pays full rate. Brilliant!

[woolley]

1 hour ago, thommo2010 said:

I don't know how many people use the 20% discount but you could argue getting people doing exercise in the long term will save money for the NHS. 

I'm always sceptical about the idea of people staying healthy saving money for the government or NHS. If you drop dead from a heart attack age 50 through poor diet, poor lifestyle and sloth, that costs nothing other than a 999 call out, perhaps, and the loss of tax after you're dead. Additionally, you might have paid out heavily in tobacco and alcohol taxes to get yourself into this sorry state.

If you live until past 90, on the other hand, that's going to be over 20 years in receipt of pension, maybe additional benefits, and expensive treatment over a long decline into senility in many cases. If you've no assets, the state will pick up all these costs and care at the end.

I appreciate not every case is the same, but I question the established wisdom about the purely financial case for public health that is often blithely cited.

[finlo]

1 hour ago, thommo2010 said:

But businesses also get corporate rates at gyms. In my gym I pay 22 quid a month rather than the 40 quid a month rate because someone went to them and agreed a corporate deal. It happens everywhere

Since when did the police become a corporate business?

[Wake Up Call]

Where appropriate, examine every government role that is taken by a government pension receiver under whatever terms. Simply terminate the position and work without it. The numbers have to be reduced, the CS must work harder.

[thommo2010]

2 hours ago, finlo said:

Since when did the police become a corporate business?

I don't know are they?

[The Voice of Reason]

6 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

 

On another thread, an annual loss of £300k is announced for the NSC. Yet further contributors suggest that Govt employees enjoy a 20% discount in using the place, no doubt contributing to that loss. Get it stopped and start paying your way like the rest of us.

But this 20 % discount could be considered as  a commercial proposition. And a tactic to increase membership, thus increase membership fees and income. 
Without this discount would sufficient numbers of government employees pay the “full” amount to generate an income equal to that the NSC would get without the discount.

So rather than “ no doubt” contributing to that loss, the discount plan may operate to reduce that loss.

Yes you can shout “unfair” but has already been pointed out in this thread, it’s not uncommon for gyms etc to offer reduced membership prices to corporate entities or for other enterprises to offer discounts to employees of private companies  of a sufficient size. They don’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts but to try and increase revenue. A worthy aim for the Government, I would suggest.
 

[finlo]

18 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

But this 20 % discount could be considered as  a commercial proposition. And a tactic to increase membership, thus increase membership fees and income. 
Without this discount would sufficient numbers of government employees pay the “full” amount to generate an income equal to that the NSC would get without the discount.

So rather than “ no doubt” contributing to that loss, the discount plan may operate to reduce that loss.

Yes you can shout “unfair” but has already been pointed out in this thread, it’s not uncommon for gyms etc to offer reduced membership prices to corporate entities or for other enterprises to offer discounts to employees of private companies  of a sufficient size. They don’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts but to try and increase revenue. A worthy aim for the Government, I would suggest.
 

Would it not increase their footfall if such discounts were applied to all then not just the favoured few (or many)?

[Derek Flint]

7 hours ago, mayhem said:

We need the next lot of MHK's to come in on the basis they are one term only so can make difficult / unpopular decisions without having an eye on the next elections etc.

 
Honesty / Integrity and Transparity (key to explaining why things have to be painful to both the public and the civil service) coupled with a proven commercial background of organisational change would certainly get my vote.  Perhaps have them all stand on some sort of Charter for Change that they sign collectively.  I would vote for people like this in a heart beat.

Something needs to give, the path the Island is on has me mostly terrified for the future for my family and as a business owner.  Pretty scenery, nice walks are all very well and good, infrastructure, Gov bloat, inability to run capital projects (how any organisation keeps making such dire decisions really does need to be someone’s doctoral thesis), maintain basic services (note not actually improve but maintain), health, social care, recruitment and retention, transportation issues etc all require urgent attention.

I would gladly shoulder more of the burden tax wise if I thought money would be well spent.  

I've long said the only thing you can measure a candidate on at present is their integrity. Manifestos are meaningless. That's why a while ago I suggested someone develops a sensible one and finds another 23 like minded candidates to stand across the sheadings. That way the public would for once know what they were collectively voting for.

If they didn't vote in at least a majority, then the public only have themselves to blame.

[The Voice of Reason]

9 minutes ago, finlo said:

Would it not increase their footfall if such discounts were applied to all then not just the favoured few (or many)?

Well then if such discounts were applied to all, then they wouldn’t be discounts. The discounted price would become the “ normal” price.

Anyway lots of places, retail or otherwise offer discounts to their employees on products or services they offer.

I don’t know, I’m guessing but I imagine if you work for Boots you get some sort of staff discount on say, toiletries.

[finlo]

Just now, The Voice of Reason said:

Well then if such discounts were applied to all, then they wouldn’t be discounts. The discounted price would become the “ normal” price.

Anyway lots of places, retail or otherwise offer discounts to their employees on products or services they offer.

I don’t know, I’m guessing but I imagine if you work for Boots you get some sort of staff discount on say, toiletries.

Hardly comparable to coppers getting cheap swimming lessons etc!