Is that because:

1. You overpay them; and
2. Are unduly polite to them as, being public sector workers, they couldn't possibly make a mistake?

More likely
3. Minty isn't you, with your "screw you" attitude to public service workers; and
4. She accepts that they are human. may make mistakes and can live with it without blowing a gasket and tarring them all with the same brush.

Thank you Chris: beautifully put.

Only needs to add that I can make mistakes too (not often, obviously

) and if they don't lose their rag me me on such occasions it all helps too.

They lost the sympathy of the public because the public was continually bombarded and a good majority brainwashed, by the media with negative stories, most of which were lies and deceit. The only mass readership newspaper that gave a sort of token support to them was the Daily Mirror. Murdoch bought the Herald, another token supporter and turned it into the Sun, which basically got Thatcher elected.

There's no doubt there was a lot in British industry that was wrong, such as restrictive practises but now we have no industry, just a huge corrupt financial services sector that has the biggest restrictive practices in history, apart from the royal family that is.

And as if by magic, [url=http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/super-soaraway-school-whopper.htmlhere's a commentary showing yet more of just those sort of lies, right today[/url.

The very, very, sad thing about this is that despite Murdoch presiding over one of the biggest scandals ever he's still considered a fit and proper person to own newspapers.

Not quite the right thread, I know. We have talked about Labour and its leader's lack of direction and conviction. I thought this cartoon from Steve Bell in The Guardian the other day was brilliant and sums things up perfectly, with apologies to the Edinburgh Zoo panda breeding attempt: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... iant-panda

Not quite the right thread, I know. We have talked about Labour and its leader's lack of direction and conviction. I thought this cartoon from Steve Bell in The Guardian the other day was brilliant and sums things up perfectly, with apologies to the Edinburgh Zoo panda breeding attempt: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... iant-panda

How naive of you. Most of these people have mitigated their tax by way of charitable relief. Whilst there has been some abuse of charitable relief it would seem in the higher profile cases the relief has probably been obtained by virtue of genuiune charitable giving. In other words, these 'greedy' people have given 90+% of their income to charity and not just 50% to the Treasury to be squandered. Osborne now seems to want to steal from the sick, disabled, poor to give it to the employees in the public sector. Now that is sick.

Not sure about sick, but certainly wrong. Public sector workers have had a three year pay freeze and are now making higher pension contributions. So unless he's doing it secretly, under the counter and on the condition that public sector workers say nothing and continue to protest about their conditions, it ain't happening.

Your obsession with the public sector continues to spoil any valid points you might have.

That is EXACTLY what this proposed measure will do. It's about taking from charities and putting a lesser sum of money in the general tax take. The vast majority of public money gets spent on salaries / employee benefits - whether teachers, soldiers, doctors, nurses, beaurocrats. Again, it shows a government without any coherent philosophy.

I am sick of them fecking nurses and soldiers. I seen em riding around in their big cars, flashing their money about. It makes me sick

You're missing the point. Most charities are aimed at helping the most disadvanted. By taking from them the government is redistributing income to income earning employees. It is another example of taking from the poor and giving to the (relatively) rich.

its not though is it. Because most government work is done to benefit 'the disadvantaged'. Its taking from one group of disadvantaged people who have been declared worthy of support by some fatcat and giving it to another group of disadvantaged people declared worth of support by the government (which has, unfortunately, been run by fatcats for pretty much my lifetime).

I find it difficult to see what better this money could be doing that paying teachers and nurses, and though i think we can rein back defence spending massively the issue there is with arms companies, not boots on the ground

God forbid that teachers doctors and soldiers should get any more pay



And just out of interest, the current Home Office annual report, for example, shows staff costs in the year 2010/11 as about 10% of the total annual budget, with the remaining 90% going on programme costs.

No - because a much larger part will be 'wasted' by going through the tax sysyem - costs of collection, inefficient allocation, larger salaries in administering the things it gets spent on, the fact that most spending goes on employees not beneficiaries, etc.

you cant treat yourself in a hospital. You are a beneficiary of Doctors and Nurses wages,

There is nothing stopping them giving money to charities all that changes is the amount they can set against tax.

When the proposal for regionalised pay is considered, I suppose that London teachers will be offered rates similar to those in the private sector, like the teachers at Eton, Harrow & Charterhouse?

Similarly, surely London nurses pay will be compared to those nurses in Princess Grace or London Bridge?

Or am I being a little naive here?

London weighting for members of the armed forces has been scrapped. You will no longer get extra money to compensate you for this cost of living, should you be posted in or around London.

Not true. If someone currently gives 100% of their income to charity (and believe it or not there are people who do) then they pay no tax. If they can only get tax relief on 25% of their income they will pay the best part of 45% tax on the remaining 75%, meaning only. ca. 55% of 75% plus 25% to give to charity.

The other daft thing is to suggest limiting loss relief. Who will ever invest in new businesses / industries?

Proof please, together with explanations (and evidence) of what such saints live off.

Capital

The capital or the interest?

If they live off the capital and give away the interest, that'll be diminishing, year on year.

But some of that money is the taxmans, they are free to do what they want after tax just like everyone else can.



We both know there are those that abide by the spirit of legislation and those that push it to the limit.

Dally - the only way to do that is by making a gift of qualifying investments (broadly, quoted shares or land and buildings) equal to the full extent of your taxable income above the personal allowance. These investments will have been presumably been bought out of income which was taxed in the first place.

Simply handing over all your income to charity does not make that income tax exempt in your hands. If you gave every penny you had in income next year to charity, you would still be liable for any tax due on that income to the extent it exceeds your personal allowance.