Re: It's a Double dip : Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:22 pm  

Dally: if your partner is applying for ESA, she may be entitled for 365 days only, then your income will be taken into account for future benefits or she may be reassessed as fit for work before then.
Of course she may get a part-time job but this will not attract WTC as 24 hours a week is "full-time" and you need that to get WTC.
Wait for the benefit cap explosion in a week

[John_D]

Re: It's a Double dip : Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:23 pm  

Today's figures show that a massive contraction in the construction industry lies at the heart of the overall figure. This is predominantly down to government cuts, such as scrapping the schools building programme. This is Osborne's recession.

Today's figures show that a massive contraction in the construction industry lies at the heart of the overall figure. This is predominantly down to government cuts, such as scrapping the schools building programme. This is Osborne's recession.

Re: It's a Double dip : Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:32 pm  

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

Dally: if your partner is applying for ESA, she may be entitled for 365 days only, then your income will be taken into account for future benefits or she may be reassessed as fit for work before then.
Of course she may get a part-time job but this will not attract WTC as 24 hours a week is "full-time" and you need that to get WTC.
Wait for the benefit cap explosion in a week

Sad, sad day for ESA claimants on Monday. For those in the WRAG on Contributory ESA who's household income is above £7,500 who have been on it for one year or more will no longer qualify for the benefit as from Monday. That means on Sunday you are just as ill and disabled as you ever were but on Monday you will be thrown on the sick and disabled scrapheap or the ConDems will have performed a medical miracle on you however you want to look at it.

I can see some pretty serious headlines in the papers in the next few weeks to do with ESA claimants

Re: It's a Double dip : Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:35 pm  

Dally wrote:

3. If a public sector manager gets a pension of say £50,000 pa that would be equivalent to saving a capital sum of ca. £1,000,000 (or £25,000 pa for 40 years - how many people can do that in the rest of the economy)?

A more pertinent question would be: just how many people, working in the public sector, do you think have amassed a pension of £50k per year?

Dally wrote:

4. Just like you, I have no idea whether outsourcing has been cost-effective or not. If it has not been then there has been mismanagement. It probably has been because even if it cost 10% more to collect the bins than the Council doing it through its employees the back offf savings in payroll, personnel management, training, pensions, holidays, etc would be saved.

But the savings in back-office functions then have to be balanced by the cost of supporting those made unemployed by outsourcing, or do you think those people simply disappear along with their jobs?

Re: It's a Double dip : Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:45 pm  

Outsourcing?

There are reasons that services are being brought back in house in various places – even in Tory councils.

Re: It's a Double dip : Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:48 pm  

Dally wrote:

3. If a public sector manager gets a pension of say £50,000 pa that would be equivalent to saving a capital sum of ca. £1,000,000 (or £25,000 pa for 40 years - how many people can do that in the rest of the economy)?

.

And this is why you should never believe what you read. My father in law was a Senior Officer at Hull City Council. He'd laugh at you if you thought his pension was £50,000 and ask you where on earth you got that ridiculously high figure from.

Re: It's a Double dip : Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:37 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

:lol:

And this is why you should never believe what you read. My father in law was a Senior Officer at Hull City Council. He'd laugh at you if you thought his pension was £50,000 and ask you where on earth you got that ridiculously high figure from.

Typically pensions generate 2/3rds final salary for long serving people in the private sector and at least that in the public. there are alot of public sector staff earning £75,000 plus. Several thousand earn £100,000+

Re: It's a Double dip : Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:39 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

:lol:

And this is why you should never believe what you read.

Or what Dally says

My father in law was a Senior Officer at Hull City Council. He'd laugh at you if you thought his pension was £50,000 and ask you where on earth you got that ridiculously high figure from.

Without disclosing too much (mainly because I can't remember it exactly), my pension at 60 (due to my terms and conditions when I was employed and left) will be a lump sum of around £15000 and then just under £5000 a year. That's from just under 14 years in the public service. The longer it stays the higher it will eventually be (I hope) but I won't be getting the Bentley just yet.

I would love to meet the £50000 a year public sector pensioner, to punch him on the nose.

Oh and Dally seems to be missing the point that that pension money will be spent on goods and services from which VAT etc will be paid. What goes around....

Re: It's a Double dip : Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:40 pm  

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

Dally: if your partner is applying for ESA, she may be entitled for 365 days only, then your income will be taken into account for future benefits or she may be reassessed as fit for work before then.
Of course she may get a part-time job but this will not attract WTC as 24 hours a week is "full-time" and you need that to get WTC.
Wait for the benefit cap explosion in a week

My wife (not partner please) is applying on behalf of my daughter. Not sure if my income counts towards my daughter? In any event its just a case of applying so one arm of the public services can get the money from another. In other words, waste and beaurocracy to see whose budget it comes out of.

Re: It's a Double dip : Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:43 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

But the savings in back-office functions then have to be balanced by the cost of supporting those made unemployed by outsourcing, or do you think those people simply disappear along with their jobs?

Costs are transferred to the private operators back-office. They need to employ people to cover the extra work.