Anyone here on strike tomorrow?

Status
Not open for further replies.
EOS_JD said:
I was just about to reply when I thought that!

Most will be working more hours.

I suppose it's difficult to generalise though. Not everyone does the same whether in private or public sectors
Click to expand...

Exactly, there are plenty of jobs out there will people have no choice but to go above and beyond both in the public and private sectors. Everyone's under pressure to do their jobs.
 
joescrivens said:
was the question, "how would I solve it?"

ok, well I don't have the solution, otherwise i'd be paid £250,000 a year to implement it!!:D

but I think there are other ways of filling the hole. So for the sake of the argument if it's simplified like this:

The issue: There's a gap in what the country has and what it needs to pay out, so they need a solution to fill the gap.

their proposal: cut the public sectors salary and use that money to fill a gap. (i realise that's simplifying it, but essentially that's the proposal)

So, one of the reasons the pension fund is in jeopardy is due to dwindling stock markets. So it stands to reason that careful plans need to occur worldwide to bring public spending back to a good level and get the world out of the rescission it's in. Steer the country out of recession and as stocks increase the pension fund will start to recover. I think thats where the work should be focussed.

That's long term of course but some short term fixes; personally I think child benefit should be re-examined. Everyone gets child benefit, no matter what they earn. Personally our family earns a wage that is high enough that we could survive without it. I'm sure there is a large percentage of the country that could also live without it. So I would cap it at a certain household income of say £50,000.

I bet if all the families in this country earning over £50,000 stopped getting child benefit there would be a fir amount of money back in the pot.

In fact i'd look into lot of the benefit this country provides, I don't have a lot of sympathy for families that get benefit when they are capable of earning a living so I'd be keen to employ a better system of assessors to decide whether someone needs it or not.

I'd bring back more trade to the UK for products we currently ship in, I'd give tax benefits for large companies who agreed to keep business in this country, much like the tax cuts the film crew filming up in glasgow received compared to philly. More incentives to keep business here.

Just some of my thoughts. though!
Click to expand...

You may be suprised at this, but I agree with much of this. Not the child benefit though as that is too hard to manage. How do u know who earns 50k. I say either keep it as it is or scrap it all, maybe then tweak tax credits. I don't think it costs that much compared to other spending though so I would keep as is. Especially as they have reduced how much you can claim in childcare vouchers.

We should certainly stop polish plumbers claiming for kids in Poland though and certainly cap benefits. Maybe increase unemployment benefit but limit the time you can claim. Certainly a year max. Too many families are living on benefits for years.

But, there also needs to be cuts in public sector spending too.
 
ding76uk said:
No, not bull, your sister will be at the top of the pay scale. She is not average. The AVERAGE teacher is on around 30K.
Click to expand...

Jeepers! What I could do with 30k a year...

I'm not sure anyone noticed earlier so ill say it again. As a family of three we can afford £30 a week shopping. That's not for food, that's everything. We could just about manage to put the heating on for 1/2 an hour a day until yesterday when BG put our monthly payment up by a third (even though we're in credit).
My other half cannot get a job. She's highly experienced in her field but there are no jobs. When she has managed to get an interview she can't go as we can't afford childcare. She doesn't get a single penny from the government.
As per my comment earlier, as some of the tax I pay goes towards your pensions forgive me for not giving a tinkers cuss for your 'plight'.
 
Ste Manns said:
Jeepers! What I could do with 30k a year...

I'm not sure anyone noticed earlier so ill say it again. As a family of three we can afford £30 a week shopping. That's not for food, that's everything. We could just about manage to put the heating on for 1/2 an hour a day until yesterday when BG put our monthly payment up by a third (even though we're in credit).
My other half cannot get a job. She's highly experienced in her field but there are no jobs. When she has managed to get an interview she can't go as we can't afford childcare. She doesn't get a single penny from the government.
As per my comment earlier, as some of the tax I pay goes towards your pensions forgive me for not giving a tinkers cuss for your 'plight'.
Click to expand...

Hats off to you, i know i would struggle to shop for 2 on £30 let alone 3:)
 
Ste Manns said:
She doesn't get a single penny from the government.
Click to expand...

Why is that? There are benefits available for those not working - and all our tax goes towards that too.
 
cambsno said:
You may be suprised at this, but I agree with much of this. Not the child benefit though as that is too hard to manage. How do u know who earns 50k. I say either keep it as it is or scrap it all, maybe then tweak tax credits. I don't think it costs that much compared to other spending though so I would keep as is. Especially as they have reduced how much you can claim in childcare vouchers.

We should certainly stop polish plumbers claiming for kids in Poland though and certainly cap benefits. Maybe increase unemployment benefit but limit the time you can claim. Certainly a year max. Too many families are living on benefits for years.

But, there also needs to be cuts in public sector spending too.
Click to expand...

It's easy the way they're going to do it - higher rate tax payers won't get it
 
We have tried to claim twice, we are told we cannot have anything. We do get child benefit of course and we get a bit of tax credit which goes up and down all the flippin time for gawds knows what reason and to be honest its not much at all.
I'm not complaining about that though and I don't want any sympathy. I have a plan, we sold my car and I got some gear. Slowly we plan to set up and earn our way into a better life (hopefully).
All I'm saying is, compared to a huge proportion of people, all this strike action is quite pathetic. At least for the ones who are paid well (I must make the distinction, I know there are public sector workers who earn a pittance and I feel for them)
 
barneyrubble said:
It's easy the way they're going to do it - higher rate tax payers won't get it
Click to expand...

It's not. It's the most unfair way possible. Higher rate taxpayer is £35k plus which is far too low to be taxed at 40% IMO. So, couple a both work and earn 32k pa each. Household income of 64k and they get benefit. Couple b has one wage earner on 37k pa. household income of 37k and no benefit. Explain to me how that is fair?
 
Reread my post - I said its the easy way not the fair way.

You said it was too hard to manage I said it was easy the way they're going to do it..... Where did I say it was fair?
 
Your calcs are way out - 7450 allowance plus 35000 at 20% so you start paying upper rate at 42450
 
barneyrubble said:
Reread my post - I said its the easy way not the fair way.

You said it was too hard to manage I said it was easy the way they're going to do it..... Where did I say it was fair?
Click to expand...

Easier to scrap it then and increase the amount u can claim in child care vouchers then.
 
fabs said:
And this is different to a lot of private sector jobs how? Oh yeah, I get only 5 weeks holiday (part of which I will work) as opposed to 12 where you worked pretty much a half day and still have 6 weeks clear holiday.
Click to expand...

Please direct me to where I said this was different to a lot of private sector jobs.

Eos_jd posted the hours a teacher did and I corrected him.
 
Splog said:
How old were you at the time Joe? and I bet you had no experience? You would not have been forced into doing extra hours but you chose to? Everyone has to start a job somewhere and even today that salary would be pretty much what a lot of private sector jobs would pay at start. You also don't say when this was?

Any starter being paid a few pounds over minimum wage would or should be grateful :)
Click to expand...

That was my first teaching job, I was 22. 4 years later and my wage increased but I still worked the same hours.

I didn't choose to work those extra hours. I had to deliver content and mark books. If I didn't do those hours then I would have no content to deliver and no books marked.

Since working in the private sector, my wage and my work hours have both increased massively, as has the ease of my job. You'll never know how hard teaching is until you do it.
 
joescrivens said:
Please direct me to where I said this was different to a lot of private sector jobs.

Eos_jd posted the hours a teacher did and I corrected him.
Click to expand...

My point was that you keep going on about how long the hours are for a teacher as if no-one else has to work those hours.

Incidentally, I answered all that in my first post of this thread but you seemed to have ignored that.
 
Byker28i said:
Joe - you haven't got kids have you, else you'd know what the cut off figure, per household, is for child tax credits...

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/p...-tables/work-and-child/work-pay-childcare.htm

or

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/payments-entitlement/entitlement/question-how-much.htm#3
Click to expand...

I do have 2 kids and yes I know it's coming but it's not per household it's by the earner, see cambsno above. I would work it by the household not the highest earner.

Also child tax credits and child benefit are two different things, your link is for tax credits not child benefit
 
joescrivens said:
I do have 2 kids and yes I know it's coming but it's not per household it's by the earner, see cambsno above. I would work it by the household not the highest earner.

Also child tax credits and child benefit are two different things, your link is for tax credits not child benefit
Click to expand...

two different things - child tax credits and child benefits.

We were discussing child benefit.
 
I don't think it's possible to do it for households with out a great deal of expense.
 
fabs said:
My point was that you keep going on about how long the hours are for a teacher as if no-one else has to work those hours.

Incidentally, I answered all that in my first post of this thread but you seemed to have ignored that.
Click to expand...

When else other than that one post correcting eos_jd have I mentioned the teaching hours?

I've been talking about how hard the job is. The fact is you made a mistake in your post by wrongly assuming that post i made was something it wasnt. Like I said, eos made a comment about what a teachers hours were and I replied with what my experience was. That's all.
 
joescrivens said:
That was my first teaching job, I was 22. 4 years later and my wage increased but I still worked the same hours.

I didn't choose to work those extra hours. I had to deliver content and mark books. If I didn't do those hours then I would have no content to deliver and no books marked.

Since working in the private sector, my wage and my work hours have both increased massively, as has the ease of my job. You'll never know how hard teaching is until you do it.
Click to expand...

Joe I'm really not knocking teachers :) It's certainly a job I wouldn't do for double the money they earn. Please can you tell me why you had to work those hours as I really don't accept it as the norm for teaching?

I know two teachers one of which is in a fairly senior position and they work a few hours extra a week but certainly nothing like sixty?
 
joescrivens said:
When else other than that one post correcting eos_jd have I mentioned the teaching hours?

I've been talking about how hard the job is. The fact is you made a mistake in your post by wrongly assuming that post i made was something it wasnt. Like I said, eos made a comment about what a teachers hours were and I replied with what my experience was. That's all.
Click to expand...

I was talking about this:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4216133&postcount=88

I didn't make a mistake in my post but I really can't be bothered to argue with you over it.
 
Splog said:
Joe I'm really not knocking teachers :) It's certainly a job I wouldn't do for double the money they earn. Please can you tell me why you had to work those hours as I really don't accept it as the norm for teaching?

I know two teachers one of which is in a fairly senior position and they work a few hours extra a week but certainly nothing like sixty?
Click to expand...

Yes, the longer you teach, the less hours you have to put in, that's true.

At the start of your career you have so much more work than at the end. The more experience you have the more you can walk into a lesson unprepared and deliver good lessons, but the first 5 years at least you have to put in all that work to get the job done well. A lot of what you teach you have to relearn actually, at least in secondary you do. I had to spend that amount of time learning the curriculum, making sure I know over and above in exceptional details and prepare lesson plans to deliver that content with worksheets and presentations.

If you stay a classroom teacher only and teach the same subjects year after year your work hours decrease exponentially. In my opinion teaching is one of those jobs that gets easier the longer you do it.
 
Ste Manns said:
forgive me for not giving a tinkers cuss for your 'plight'.
Click to expand...

With that attitude, forgive me for the same for yours, is that what you want me to say?

I feel for you, I see it with families I teach, I see families on these "astronomical handouts" from the government who can't afford to feed their kids properly.

Those on the front line are the ones who have to deal with the cuts and terrible management, as with the private sector, there are amazing bosses and there are terrible ones.

Look what has broken today, yet we say the NHS can suffer more cuts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/01/patients-nhs-cuts-management-surgeon
 
joescrivens said:
was the question, "how would I solve it?"

ok, well I don't have the solution, otherwise i'd be paid £250,000 a year to implement it!!:D

but I think there are other ways of filling the hole. So for the sake of the argument if it's simplified like this:

The issue: There's a gap in what the country has and what it needs to pay out, so they need a solution to fill the gap.

their proposal: cut the public sectors salary and use that money to fill a gap. (i realise that's simplifying it, but essentially that's the proposal)

So, one of the reasons the pension fund is in jeopardy is due to dwindling stock markets. So it stands to reason that careful plans need to occur worldwide to bring public spending back to a good level and get the world out of the rescission it's in. Steer the country out of recession and as stocks increase the pension fund will start to recover. I think thats where the work should be focussed.

That's long term of course but some short term fixes; personally I think child benefit should be re-examined. Everyone gets child benefit, no matter what they earn. Personally our family earns a wage that is high enough that we could survive without it. I'm sure there is a large percentage of the country that could also live without it. So I would cap it at a certain household income of say £50,000.

I bet if all the families in this country earning over £50,000 stopped getting child benefit there would be a fir amount of money back in the pot.

In fact i'd look into lot of the benefit this country provides, I don't have a lot of sympathy for families that get benefit when they are capable of earning a living so I'd be keen to employ a better system of assessors to decide whether someone needs it or not.

I'd bring back more trade to the UK for products we currently ship in, I'd give tax benefits for large companies who agreed to keep business in this country, much like the tax cuts the film crew filming up in glasgow received compared to philly. More incentives to keep business here.

Just some of my thoughts. though!
Click to expand...

Just because people earn a living doesn't mean they shouldn't receive benefits.

Yes, benefits should/could be better managed in respect to suiting the overall income of a family but just because someone has a job doesn't mean they should be penalised. Me and the missus earn £50,000 between us but the little bit of benefits we receive helps us out with our child throughout the month, especially now her working hours have changed so we now have to pay in excess of £600 extra a year for child care. She hasn't had a pay rise and as well as no pay rise for four years, I've had a pay freeze until 2013 so that £80 or whatever it is that we receive does have a place. I don't know if you have kids Joe, but working families shouldn't be an easy target for spending reforms.

You're probably right; if families earning upwards of £50,000 declined their benefits then there would be more money floating around, but why should they suffer? And what would you put the cap at instead? £20,000 total family income? £30,000?...

Aside from immigration issues that relate to benefits, disability (among other things) is one of the hot-potatoes of the benefits system that needs to be addressed.
 
Last edited:
Joe - how long ago were you teaching? What year were you earning £18,000?
 
specialman said:
Just because people earn a living doesn't mean they shouldn't receive benefits.

Yes, benefits should/could be better managed in respect to suiting the overall income of a family but just because someone has a job doesn't mean they should be penalised. Me and the missus earn £50,000 between us but the little bit of benefits we receive helps us out with our child throughout the month, especially now her working hours have changed so we now have to pay in excess of £600 extra a year for child care. She hasn't had a pay rise and as well as no pay rise for four years, I've had a pay freeze until 2013 so that £80 or whatever it is that we receive does have a place. I don't know if you have kids Joe, but working families shouldn't be an easy target for spending reforms.

Aside from immigration issues that relate to benefits, disability (among other things) is one of the hot-potatoes of the benefits system that needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...
I do have 2 kids and the £600 is surely per month you mean right? Not per year?

My child are costs are a grand a month :eek:
 
joescrivens said:
Yes, the longer you teach, the less hours you have to put in, that's true.

At the start of your career you have so much more work than at the end. The more experience you have the more you can walk into a lesson unprepared and deliver good lessons, but the first 5 years at least you have to put in all that work to get the job done well. A lot of what you teach you have to relearn actually, at least in secondary you do. I had to spend that amount of time learning the curriculum, making sure I know over and above in exceptional details and prepare lesson plans to deliver that content with worksheets and presentations.

If you stay a classroom teacher only and teach the same subjects year after year your work hours decrease exponentially. In my opinion teaching is one of those jobs that gets easier the longer you do it.
Click to expand...


Thank you. That certainly makes sense :thumbs: They still get too many holidays though ;)
 
Splog said:
I stand corrected :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Unless you earn over £100,000 in which case your tax free allowance comes down £1 for every £2 you earn, until you reach £115,00 at which point you have no tax free allowance, in which case your calcs are right :lol:
 
joescrivens said:
I do have 2 kids and the £600 is surely per month you mean right? Not per year?

My child are costs are a grand a month :eek:
Click to expand...

The change to her hours have meant that over the year, we pay about £600 extra, such is the craziness of holding childcare places when the child isn't being looked after.

We pay about £450 per month (it fluctuates), but that's for two working weeks of care and two working weeks holding that place. My missus works 5 days on, 5 days off so with weekends thrown in (when one of us would have him anyway) it's all shifted around wierdly. It used to be 7 on/7 off shifts, which was much easier.

If we had him in childcare every day of a four-week month (20 days) then it would be around the £600 mark. Thankfully, we have a good minder who we trust and who gives exclusive care to my boy (she has a boy the same age).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top