Anyone else suspect this is purely to say 'we backed down on the national pay, now you're obliged to agree to x'. Basically they're in a better negotiating position with the unions with little more than a scare tactic that MIGHT even have positive side effects as they see it...

Hmm. So, let me get this straight then. You're saying that public sector workers (who are paid between 8-18% more than the equivalent private sector worker) don't pay tax. This means they're averaging below the taxable threshold (£10,000 pa, or thereabouts).

What the hell does that say about private sector pay? Race to the bottom, anyone?

The public sector is demonised for overpaying their workers. The private sector could be equally demonised for underpaying their workers. The chancellor may get better tax returns if he impressed on the private sector to improve pay. However, he’s a Tory.

The Problem with 1 national pay scale is that

Down south they get paid aboutthe same - I am in the Public Sector - I get slightly less (and no bonuses) than m mates BUT I get a final salery pension that is worth a lot

Up north ( when I worked in Sheffield for a Bank) I got paid LESS than the Public sector and they had a better pension

While I think everyone should have a livable wage having a national pay scale in nuts as the pay should reflect the local cost of living

So let me get this straight: the best way to attract the best public sector workers to the areas of greatest need (ie poorer areas), is to pay them less?

This sounds very much like the Govt's up to something. It will do only one thing: benefit the Govt and feck everyone else over. It sounds very much like a pay freeze without being so.

I guess the way to privatise the public sector is to take out the blocks: pay, work conditions, pensions. One by one, they'll all be eroded. The NHS will be like the railway system - stupidly expensive, poorly run, grossly inefficient and completely rubbish for the general public.

You can still attract them by paying the same as the private sector at the moment (esp if you inc pensions) they are paid a lot more then the locals in the private sector

So you are saying that private sector got the value of what their workers' contribution wrong and public sector got it right?
Pearl of wisdom worth Marx himself...

Depends on the job. I reckon if I worked wholly in the private sector, I could earn 3x as much. Certainly, there are doctors who earn far more (whole multiples) privately than on the NHS.

Of course the private sector get it wrong, what do you think we have the NMW for? Why do you think we require state intervention in the markets?

Let's set an example: Nurse job goes for £19k in the south, and £16k in the north. Whole load of newly qualified nurses - where will they apply? Increasing the discrepancies just increases the divide. It doesn't homogenise it.

I am talking top to bottom spectrum, you only about the absolutre bottom. But if that's such a great ides maybe we shouldn't stop at the min. wage. Let's set everybody's wage. Somebody should come up with table where your boss would look and set your wage accordingly, including bonuses. That way we'll all be happy and rich...

You've thoroughly misunderstood. I was originally talking about what the state and private sectors of the economy do. It really had nothing to do with the income taxes that individuals pay. And my response to your point was an attempt to show that. Obviously this is not helping much, so I will try a different tack.

If we do away with government altogether, everyone would be in the private sector. Food would be grown, minerals dug up, and so on. Raw materials would continue to flow. People who take those raw materials would use them to provide finished goods or provide services which are more valuable than the dirt that powers them. This is called adding value - it is the basic of all the wealth in the world.

But there would be a shortage of stuff the state sector provides such as policing and education and so on. That would prevent the 100% private sector economy achieving its potential. The two sectors need each other, and to work at full potential they need balance.

But don't get confused. The private sector does all of the adding of value. Without it there can be no state sector at all (unless you want to opt for communism, which performs the value add function in a 100% state economy, but is significantly less productive). The tax a teacher or librarian pays does not fund the system, the private sector does.

So my tax point was that a school teacher who costs the state £35K and pays £15K in tax might as well be paid £20K and have no tax removed from them. That's simple arithmetic and it's true. Don't read more into it than that.

Hopefully the nurse will make an economic decision

So £3K difference so say £2K after tax so £150 /m extra
If you save more than £150 /m in rent / cheaper food, beer etc by living up north then you are better off living up north so your £16K is a better salary than the £19K

It won't be the last time, either.

Yes. That is because the public sector are not running services for profit, but for the benefit of society. Because there is no need to lob dividends at share holders, or look good on the stock market, that money can go towards better pensions, pay etc.. You also have to remember that the majority of public sector workers are not as well paid as you may think, and they do the jobs that you probably don't want to.



I am glad you agree with me. Brilliant news.

I make no bones of it. I am left wing in my thinking, and right now feel that none of the main political parties are left wing enough in their views, mostly because they are all chasing a certain demographic of floating voters who decide the outcome of general election in marginal constituencies.