Two-lane Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 35 minutes ago, CrazyDave said: and how many here would actually want that responsibility? Responsibility is irrelevant without consequences. Still, 234 people in gov. earning over £100,00 per year. 540 earning over £75,00 per year. That's a lot of responsibility there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 One interesting thing about that table - copied below to make it clearer: is the enormous jump for three of the top four earners between 21-22 and 22-23. I wondered at first if this was related to payouts connected with the post-Ranson purge in May 2022, but the notes say: The above figures include gross pay amounts as remuneration (including compensation payments made in connection with their employment) but exclude employers’ contributions (for example, employers’ pension contributions), settlement payments, compromise agreements etc. which would exclude most of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 minutes ago, Two-lane said: Responsibility is irrelevant without consequences. Still, 234 people in gov. earning over £100,00 per year. 540 earning over £75,00 per year. That's a lot of responsibility there. But we all know that none of them actually have any responsibility for anything that goes wrong. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Just now, The Phantom said: But we all know that none of them actually have any responsibility for anything that goes wrong. The head of the FSA, head of fire service, air traffic controllers, surgeons? You think none of them would face consequences if there was a major issue during their tenure? Dont be silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 (edited) 14 minutes ago, CrazyDave said: The head of the FSA, head of fire service, air traffic controllers, surgeons? You think none of them would face consequences if there was a major issue during their tenure? Dont be silly. I'll raise you: The head of the airport? The person in charge of the prom? The person responsible for the Liverpool Ferry Terminal? Head of Manx Care? Head of the MEA when they got the loan? Recent evidence would suggest that if you're in charge, you have a carte blanche. At worst they'll be asked nicely to hand in their notice and will get a pay-off if they don't fight it. Edited February 29 by The Phantom 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 25 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: On 2/28/2024 at 4:09 PM, TheTeapot said: The cost of the government is just crazy, they've got to get a grip of it, but they never will. You'd have to be brave. Management salaries are too high, if I were in charge I'd do this: No pay rises for 3 years for anyone earning £60000+. A 5% rise is at least £3000. When it is time to put a payrise in look at the overall inflation during that period, and give them half. For each of the three years give them £1000 in actual cash, fresh £20s, tax free, instead of the payrise. This would save a lot of money, look like you are taking very seriously the excesses of the gov, and if they don't like they can leave and you try not to replace them, and if they whinge about how unfair it is they'll get no sympathy because THEY JUST GOT GIVEN A THOUSAND POUNDS IN ACTUAL CASH. I was only messing really but looking at that table... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forestboy Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 55 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: The increases in numbers in the two paybands above my red squiggle take some swallowing too. Especially when Alf says numbers are not increasing. Totally obscene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Incidentally if anyone is wondering as to the difference between Group and Central Government: The Group Accounts include transactions and balances in respect of the two non-revenue funded Statutory Boards (Manx Utilities Authority [MUA] and Isle of Man Post Office [IOMPO]), and the Government-owned companies (Radio Manx Limited, Laxey Glen Mills Limited, Manx Development Corporation Limited, Isle of Man Film Limited, Isle of Man Film (DOI) Limited, Isle of Man Limited, Isle of Man National Transport Limited, Isle of Man Steam Packet Group Limited, Isle of Man Meat Company Ltd, Treaco Limited, Cinemanx Limited and Nimbus Medical Holdings Limited). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Is there a single government employee who is worth a salary over £150k? At least in the UK they would recoup quite a lot of these salaries in taxation. So who is on £500k+, unbelievable in such a small jurisdiction, these lunatics are in a dreamworld but I can't imagine anyone we have who could be worth that kind of salary? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyk3r Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 13 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: I was only messing really but looking at that table... I decided to draw up a table which is slightly different... So I have taken the lower banding total, the counts for relevant rows and put them into a table that gives us details of what the total cost is per banding. It also shows us where there have been changes year on year. For the percentage columns the cost and count will be the same as we dont have a specific number difference, only a calculated one which is based on the lower banding and the count of staff. If I have made any errors in numbers - apologies! This was done fairly rapidly. Feel free to let me know and I will adjust. The reading is quite concerning... 33.7% increase in staff between 50 and 75k from an already high salary base of £62,150,000... 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 31 minutes ago, Spyk3r said: I decided to draw up a table which is slightly different... So I have taken the lower banding total, the counts for relevant rows and put them into a table that gives us details of what the total cost is per banding. It also shows us where there have been changes year on year. For the percentage columns the cost and count will be the same as we dont have a specific number difference, only a calculated one which is based on the lower banding and the count of staff. If I have made any errors in numbers - apologies! This was done fairly rapidly. Feel free to let me know and I will adjust. The reading is quite concerning... 33.7% increase in staff between 50 and 75k from an already high salary base of £62,150,000... Think you've made a couple of mistakes as noone on 400k+ in 21/22 on original table Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Phantom said: I'll raise you: The head of the airport? The person in charge of the prom? The person responsible for the Liverpool Ferry Terminal? Head of Manx Care? Head of the MEA when they got the loan? Recent evidence would suggest that if you're in charge, you have a carte blanche. At worst they'll be asked nicely to hand in their notice and will get a pay-off if they don't fight it. I'll raise you this; we're still waiting for the names responsible in Liverpool Terminal, Alex.... Edited February 29 by Non-Believer Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 13 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: I'll raise you this; we're still waiting for the names responsible in Liverpool Terminal, Alex.... So whats the odds it'll be out before midnight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 26 minutes ago, Max Power said: Is there a single government employee who is worth a salary over £150k? At least in the UK they would recoup quite a lot of these salaries in taxation. So who is on £500k+, unbelievable in such a small jurisdiction, these lunatics are in a dreamworld but I can't imagine anyone we have who could be worth that kind of salary? I would think the top earners will be medical consultants who have done a substantial amount of extra clinics over normal work loads, plus FSA head on c£325k 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissoltt Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, Spyk3r said: I decided to draw up a table which is slightly different... So I have taken the lower banding total, the counts for relevant rows and put them into a table that gives us details of what the total cost is per banding. It also shows us where there have been changes year on year. For the percentage columns the cost and count will be the same as we dont have a specific number difference, only a calculated one which is based on the lower banding and the count of staff. If I have made any errors in numbers - apologies! This was done fairly rapidly. Feel free to let me know and I will adjust. The reading is quite concerning... 33.7% increase in staff between 50 and 75k from an already high salary base of £62,150,000... Lovely work. So in the top bracket they have added nearly 30 million to the wage bill in a year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.