Telling Other People How Much You Earn

[Neil]

Hi

In Sweden all salaries are a matter of public record and anyone can see what people earn. Their society has not fallen apart because of it.

 

Employers do not want you to make it public, because then they would have to account for the very poor or high wages some people earn. ...

 

I like this. I could see it helping to address two of the ills of paid word, the race to the bottom with pay and pensions that is afflicted on the masses and the obscenely out of step earnings of the few at the top.

 

Here in the UK we seem to have a two tier system. We have a reasonable idea what employees of the state earn, a quick Google brought up pay scales for the police and for nurses, I've no doubt that pay scales for other groups of public sector workers could be found just as easily. The private sector is less easily defined, figures found are averages and/or ranges like this set for a sales rep or these for a plumber. Many years ago public sector pay was said to be less less generous than that in the private sector, but balanced by greater job security. These days that security is no longer there (and hasn't been for a good number of years) and now we're told that public sector pay is doing better than the private sector.

 

I have an idea that the lack of upfront and accessible record of what individuals or groups of individuals actually earn allows our lords and masters to manipulate public opinion setting groups against each other and deflecting the gaze from those who really do get an unfair slice of the wealth of the nation.

[Oldddudders]

Employment - especially in the Private Sector - is just like any other marketplace. When the country is in boom, then wage-rates soar as employers compete to find & retain decent staff - and the Public Sector suffers shortages as its rates no longer look attractive. When the economy is down the pan, like now, we have graduates sweeping the streets and pulling pints. Those of us who entered the Public Sector, with a guaranteed pension, in an era of full employment were very lucky.

[beeman]

My Wife used to work in the accounts Dept. of the National Coal Board. If the 'books' did mot balance each month she /others had to do overtime to find the LAST penny.

Re Swedens pay requirements, is it not time, as it is PUBLIC money that we all had the right to access how much is paid to individuals state 'wages' [benefits]. I know of at least three who have not worked for over 10 years and have a good living, supposed to have health probs but live a very active life, as good or better than those working. One, had a £300000 bungaloe.nice car. caravan and small boat until recently when I suspect a revue at his 65th caused some rethink. So his wife becomes ill and he gets carers allowance. etc. When will the 'providers', ie taxpayers, going to have to work till perhaps 68 rebel against this situation that allows state/ public employees to retire on generous index linked pensions along with the benefits brigade at their expense, many themselves having to work 10-15 years more. I appreciate this borders on the political but post as a comparison to real life wages. If it is tax out of wages/income we should be able to know how/where it is spent. Beeman.

[Neil]

.... When will the 'providers', ie taxpayers, going to have to work till perhaps 68 rebel against this situation that allows state/ public employees to retire on generous index linked pensions along with the benefits brigade at their expense, many themselves having to work 10-15 years more. ....

 

Where to start? Ok.

 

Public sector workers are taxpayers too.

 

Most will have to work to 68 (or whatever the retirement age eventually creeps up to).

 

Many/most public sector jobs are at the low paid end of the spectrum, therefore their pensions though linked to final salary aren't as generous as you would think/assume.

 

Benefits come in many shapes and sizes as do the claimants; the vast majority of claimants are honest about their claims which do not fund a life of luxury. What seems like an expensive luxury when not needed becomes an essential as soon as it is. This is what National Insurance payments are for; I hope I won't need to call on them but it's reassuring to know they're there, not just for me but my family and friends too.

[Kenton]

Public sector workers are taxpayers too.

 

But what many of them do not understand is that ALL of their pay comes from tax paid by the private sector. They then recycle some of that private sector tax back to the taxman. A rather pointless exercise IMO as it inflates their sense of contribution to the tax pool. Far better if public servants paid no tax and were paid their ex tax income. Still the same money at their disposal, still the same tax paid by the private sector, just potentially less bureaucrats managing the recycle.

 

Now if we all had more control over where that tax pool was allocated then the idea of everyone having a choice of where that tax was allocated would be fairer.

 

Of course tax cannot be that simple, it has to be complicated to confuse the majority and add to the "importance" of government.

[royaloak]

You are quite right and Andy says I can have it as well! Doh!!

Is he going to backdate it though?

[Bob Reid]

Is there a reason why some private sector workers have such a big chip on there shoulders? (clearly some consider they are the only ones providing value to this country, and and yet are curiously reluctant to reveal what they are paid, lest the Taxman might find out).

 

Anyone like to contribute to Kenton's ticket to the Cayman Islands?

[BlackRat]

Beeman, just for interest,..........

 

For 28 years i have paid 11% of my salary into my pension.

 

Since April 1st I now pay 12.25% and next year it goes up to over 13%

 

I pay £19.75 a DAY into my pension.

 

ps I also pay tax.

 

Quite a lot of tax actually. (well I think so!).

 

I also spend quite a bit of money, most of it within the private sector.

 

But what many of them do not understand is that ALL of their pay comes from tax paid by the private sector.

 

So who am I paying for with my tax then?

 

Myself, well thats ok then. I'll just give myself a pay rise!

[Pennine MC]

Neil, I think Beeman's post is a perfect example of why I responded to you as I did earlier in the thread :-)

[Kenton]

Is there a reason why some private sector workers have such a big chip on there shoulders?  (clearly some consider they are the only ones providing value to this country, and and yet are curiously reluctant to reveal what they are paid, lest the Taxman might find out). 

 

It is not that I think the public sector as a whole does not contribute - indeed far from it. I just believe that much of the public sector could be better provided through private companies - and yes that includes much of the NHS and Social Services. In fact much of the "government" could be better and more effectively managed and operated through privatised resources. Oh and as my employer is a government department I can see first hand the wastage, over-manning and jobsworth culture that add little to what the public and their government want of that department.

 

As for the tax system - if the government is stupid enough to create tax avoidance possibilities then you cannot blame people from simply obeying the law. A simpler tax system would have less loopholes to be exploited. And a simpler system would get my vote.

[Neil]

.... As for the tax system - if the government is stupid enough to create tax avoidance possibilities then you cannot blame people from simply obeying the law. ....

 

Not very honourable though is it; and they're not obeying the law they're exploiting gaps and inconsistencies in the law.

[Kenton]

So who am I paying for with my tax then?

 

Point missed completely. It is not the fact that you pay tax, that IS fact, it is just that everything you are paid is paid by the private sector taxes. You are simply denied the ability to spend all of it by having to return some of your salary to the pool.

 

It has nothing to do with the value of your job, and I would rather see you paying no tax. As I see that recirculation being a waste.

[Kenton]

Not very honourable though is it; and they're not obeying the law they're exploiting gaps and inconsistencies in the law.

 

But they ARE NOT breaking the law. They are not evading tax merely legally avoiding it. Unlike someone being paid in cash and not declaring it, or a tradesman using the van for private use declaring it as a business expense, or a waiter receiving tips and thinking he can pocket it all, or charging VAT when not registered, or any number of illegal fiddles and schemes that evade tax.

 

Honour and morality have nothing to do with it. The loophole for avoidance is entirely in the poor law writing of the government, and is completely within their ability to fix. If they didn't try to make it so complicated in the first place the loopholes would not exist.

[Guest Max Stafford]

"The loophole for avoidance is entirely in the poor law writing of the government, and is completely within their ability to fix. If they didn't try to make it so complicated in the first place the loopholes would not exist."

 

Deliberately so I suspect, seeing how those self-same lawmakers in Westminster take full advantage of the loopholes themselves.

 

Dave.

[Pennine MC]

Point missed completely. It is not the fact that you pay tax, that IS fact, it is just that everything you are paid is paid by the private sector taxes.

 

Not quite everything, surely. Some of public sector pay comes from private sector taxes, but some of it comes from the taxes it pays itself, as part of the impenetrable vortex highlighted earlier. As long as we're all paying the same basic rate, I'm not sure I can get too bent out of shape over it.

 

Not very honourable though is it; and they're not obeying the law they're exploiting gaps and inconsistencies in the law.

 

I think my perspective would be that it's the subtle difference between the letter of the law, and the spirit of it. Wherever you have rules, you will have people motivated to stretch said rules - that, unfortunately, is human nature, and forums themselves provide ample evidence of it.

[37255]

Never seen the issue with disclosing salary personally. I'm on minimum wage, which, being under 21, means 20% (give or take) less than the bloke stood next to me doing the same job. But, that's life, and I'm glad to have a job at all.

[Mod5]

So having veered off into the deep world of tax, tax avoidance and the honesty of people perhaps we can now return to the op thanks.

[AndrewC]

I've seen both ends of the scale over the years. Having worked in the oil patch with gas liquids traders, some of these guys would pull down 6 figures before lunch on a Monday in commissions. Thats for just playing a bit of Monopoly on a computer for 3 hours. On the other hand I've worked with people that put in 16-18 hour days, 7 days a week of hard manual labour who barely manage to pay the mortgate. (farmers)

[BlackRat]

I just believe that much of the public sector could be better provided through private companies -

 

G4S perhaps?

[AndrewC]

G4S perhaps?

Heading waaaay off topic, but what the hell. My son applied and its been a nightmare for him. To give you an idea. Applied in January, first interview slot wasn't until Mid April. Interesting to note that nearly half the people that showed for the interviews that day were turned away for not having all their paperwork or proof of ability to work in the UK. 3 weeks of calls (average 90 minute queue time) to find out what was going on after he was told that he had been accepted for screening. Finally his details were sent to screening in the second week of May. They only got around to calling his references last Monday (July 9) His status is now awaiting accreditation from Locog. Then its SIA training and certification plus G4S training, uniform fitting, induction, etc. Ain't gonna happen before the Olympics start, thats for sure. Well maybe if London hosts them again in 2048.

 

Not as bad as SWMBO's manager's son. He applied with G4S for Wimbledon. Accepted, accredited, Uniform, payroll number. Awaiting confirmation of first shift and hours. He's still waiting.

[Kenton]

G4S perhaps?

 

Yes an excellent example of mismanagement all round. Not being given the contract until very late in the day, with "required"* numbers constantly increasing for no apparent reason other than the government have been panicked into increasing them.

 

Thankfully we do have two public services that are accepted handlers of security. The army (all services) and the police. But the public has to realise that G4S were never on their own in this task and their tasks were always only relatively minor. You cannot take a student or person out of the dole queue and expect them to have been security escorts. Many other "normal" security folk will be working invisibly behind the scenes. Car park attendants and crowd marshals can be obtained from almost anywhere.

 

A great deal of this security behind the limelight goes on every day with the constant flow of dignatories and others visiting the country, this is just a more focused exercise, with more potentially to go wrong.

[Bob Reid]

It's a £300m - yes 300 million pound contract Kenton. It wouldn't kill you to actually admit that private services do not necessarilly equate to excellent management or provision. Two and half years and more money than could possibly be thrown at it. To me that's a national disgrace for what you describe as relatively minor tasks.

[Kenton]

It's a £300m - yes 300 million pound contract Kenton.

 

The size of the contract is irrelevant. If the timing and extent of the contract is bad they or anyone was on a loosing gambit before they started. Mis-managed I said, and I meant all round. At least two big increases in the numbers they had to find from a pool of frankly, it seems, unable, illiterate and unwilling. There are only so many ideal candidates out there, but G4S seemed to have mismanaged even that (if we are to believe the biased media and their usual reporting). But as I said, who really believes that the real security was ever in their hands is simply naive.

[96701]

G4S perhaps?

 

Smashing comment BlackRat. 'Like' just isn't enough!

[96701]

The size of the contract is irrelevant. If the timing and extent of the contract is bad they or anyone was on a loosing gambit before they started. Mis-managed I said, and I meant all round. At least two big increases in the numbers they had to find from a pool of frankly, it seems, unable, illiterate and unwilling. There are only so many ideal candidates out there, but G4S seemed to have mismanaged even that (if we are to believe the biased media and their usual reporting). But as I said, who really believes that the real security was ever in their hands is simply naive.

 

Had this been a public service debacle, such as long queues at Heathrow, would you have proffered the same excuse as late notification of requirements and acceptance of the same requirements despite not knowing whether you could deliver?