Discussion:
BBC: Salaries in British public sector exceed $180 BILLION per year
Add Reply
RichA
2017-09-12 23:53:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
That is extrapolated by the 1% pay increase resulting in an additional $1.8 billion in cost increases for the year. This doesn't pensions which probably exceed $200 billion/year. Admittedly, you have to pay most of them, buy why are so many bureaucrats and the like needed?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41241295

The Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons that an extra 1% pay for the entire public sector would cost about £1.8bn a year, although it would get some of that back in income tax and National Insurance.
W/Q
2017-09-13 00:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
That is extrapolated by the 1% pay increase resulting in an additional $1.8 billion in cost increases for the year. This doesn't pensions which probably exceed $200 billion/year. Admittedly, you have to pay most of them, buy why are so many bureaucrats and the like needed?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41241295
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons that an extra 1% pay for the entire public sector would cost about £1.8bn a year, although it would get some of that back in income tax and National Insurance.
Which is a bargain compared to US government employees, of which there are 22 million in total (federal, state and local) earning an average $60,000 per year for a haul of $1.3 trillion per year. Too bad you weren't smart enough to be one of them to end up living on a healthy pension plan; instead you chose to be a taxpaying stiff pumping your money into their plan for them to live off while you get nothing.
RichA
2017-09-13 00:32:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W/Q
Post by RichA
That is extrapolated by the 1% pay increase resulting in an additional $1.8 billion in cost increases for the year. This doesn't pensions which probably exceed $200 billion/year. Admittedly, you have to pay most of them, buy why are so many bureaucrats and the like needed?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41241295
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons that an extra 1% pay for the entire public sector would cost about £1.8bn a year, although it would get some of that back in income tax and National Insurance.
Which is a bargain compared to US government employees, of which there are 22 million in total (federal, state and local) earning an average $60,000 per year for a haul of $1.3 trillion per year. Too bad you weren't smart enough to be one of them to end up living on a healthy pension plan; instead you chose to be a taxpaying stiff pumping your money into their plan for them to live off while you get nothing.
I don't disagree with that part, but the U.S. does have 5x the population of Britain so it's about equal. Again, if Trump were really dedicated to improving the U.S., he'd have systematically eliminated 1/2 the fed and state workforce.
W/Q
2017-09-14 01:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by W/Q
Post by RichA
That is extrapolated by the 1% pay increase resulting in an additional $1.8 billion in cost increases for the year. This doesn't pensions which probably exceed $200 billion/year. Admittedly, you have to pay most of them, buy why are so many bureaucrats and the like needed?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41241295
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons that an extra 1% pay for the entire public sector would cost about £1.8bn a year, although it would get some of that back in income tax and National Insurance.
Which is a bargain compared to US government employees, of which there are 22 million in total (federal, state and local) earning an average $60,000 per year for a haul of $1.3 trillion per year. Too bad you weren't smart enough to be one of them to end up living on a healthy pension plan; instead you chose to be a taxpaying stiff pumping your money into their plan for them to live off while you get nothing.
I don't disagree with that part, but the U.S. does have 5x the population of Britain so it's about equal.
So there's nothing special or unique about Britain's case.
Post by RichA
Again, if Trump were really dedicated to improving the U.S., he'd have systematically eliminated 1/2 the fed and state workforce.
No can do. The federal work force is already understaffed when weighted against what it was in the 60s. In 1968 it was 6.6 million workers, today it's about 4 million. When you factor in the total population it was 1 federal worker for every 30 people in 1968, today it's 1 for every 81 people.
Loading...