Tag: Fire Service

Austerity / capitalism causation of trickle-down economics introduced by world leaders over three decades ago and still being enforced today.

Austerity / capitalism causation of trickle-down economics introduced by world leaders over three decades ago and still being enforced today.

Today in 2017, the UK and the USA have similar economy, which splits the population by favoring the high net-worth individuals. While it deprives everyone else not lucky enough to sit in the high net-worth part of the population and makes them poorer.

The economy scale has tipped in the favor of austerity and capitalism.

pulse

Unfortunately, in the UK this system that lead to the austerity and divide between the population is due to the Members of Parliament continually supporting the system that benefits the high net-worth part of the population and deprives the rest.

This system was introduced in the 1980’s by the relevant leaders, Margaret Thatcher (UK) & Ronald Regan (USA), the system was known as the “Trickle-down Economics System”.

The main foundation of the system was to Trickle-down, which can be (very loosely) characterised as the idea that reducing the tax burden on the high net-worth and wealthy individuals, in the end, is good for everyone.

They felt that the wealthy person’s taxes being reduced will increase their disposable income. This will then enable the wealthy person to spend the extra income on a new mansion, or luxury goods, or lavish holidays. Which in-turn will benefit the estate agent, the luxury manufacturer, tourist resorts and service providers profits increase, this increasing their disposable income and continue the trickle down processes. The profits will also enable the people to invest the profits, expanding their capacity, creating new jobs in the process. That additional investment boosts income and employment. This then will grow the economy, bringing in more tax revenues (more, indeed, than were forgone through the initial tax cut). The size of the state is reduced, the freedom of the population grows and general prosperity is enlarged.

images

Although this system / model sounds good, it is fact that it does not work and the only individuals who benefit is the wealthy. As they make the profit and continue to purchase expanding their wealth, the wealthy individuals are owners of the product ranges, estate agents and brands etc. that they initially make their purchases. So the money they spend just keeps going around in circles increasing the wealth dived.

Two well-known former government purse holders from the US & UK have commented on the system and agreed that is failed the majority of the country’s population.  Larry Summers (US Treasury Secretary) and Ed Balls (UK Shadow Chancellor) have stated openly and in reports

“That tax cuts for the rich do not inexorably result in more economic activity, but create a growing income gap between those at the top and those at the bottom. The rich tend to save more of their disposable income and growth slows down.”

An academic and popular economic writer from Cambridge University – Ha-Joon Chang,  states “The trickle-down argument crucially depends on the assumption that, when given a bigger slice of national output, the rich will use it to increase investments”, he has written. He describes this as “an assumption that has not been borne out by reality”, and goes on: “Once you realise that trickle-down economics does not work, you will see the excessive tax cuts for the rich as what they are: a simple upward redistribution of income, rather than a way to make all of us richer.”

TD

Individuals who have worked in high-level positions within the government or who have become experts on the subject. Believe that higher wages for ordinary workers, higher rates of tax on the super-rich and corporations, as well as a co-ordinate international closure of tax loopholes, with the money used to finance more public infrastructure investment.

This trickle down system was introduced over three decades ago, it was not subscribed to by the population and no open discussion or review of the system has been undertaken to establish the areas of failings. Main reason for this is the individuals who introduced the system (Members of Parliament) are actually benefiting from the system, they do not want change as it will affect their wealth.

There is no record of any serious free-market thinker ever outlining that cutting tax rates on high earners is good because it encourages the rich to spend,” argues Ryan Bourne of the Institute of Economic Affairs think tank. “Free-marketers don’t believe in low taxes because of their effect on spending. They believe in low taxes because they provide a strong incentive to earn more income in the first place.”

Philip-Hammond-Lloyds-banking-group-government-sells-stake-less-than-5-per-cent-808851

Only in the last week Philip Hammond (UK MP & Chancellor of Exchequer) spoke out in cabinet meeting that he felt that Public workers are overpaid. This just strengthens the notion that the only system that is of any interest is the one that protects and enhances his wealth. When considering he and a majority of the MP’s representing the UK Population benefits greatly from the “Trickle-down System”. Philip Hammond, who has an estimated wealth of £8.2 million in 2014. He has previously been caught-out for avoiding tax’s http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/millionaire-tory-philip-hammonds-200-3231876 .

In early 2017, Philip Hammond was challenged by an opposition leader to publicly publish his tax return, but he refused. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-publishes-tax-return-chancellor-philip-hammond_uk_58bc41b7e4b0b998941837c6

He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show he has “no intention” of making public his documents since “my tax affairs are all perfectly regular and up to date”. This just shows that the person to set the UK Budget and control the purse, cannot be open and transparent with his earnings or income. Which are most probably ten to twenty times more than any public worker and only shows his real intentions to enhance his wealth and support the minority of the population. MP’s serve the UK Population and should be accountable to the people, then why are they not showing their annual earnings by issuing the tax return publicly.

Income inequality has reached excessive levels and is now effecting the majority of the UK Population and growth in the public services and economy. Rather than stimulating spending by the wealthy it is doing the opposite, which in-turn is forcing much of the population to enhance their levels of debit.

Remember, majority of the Members of Parliament, who represent the UK People are receiving financial rewards of more than £100k year with salaries and expenses etc. Probably a majority have been fortunate to have generated a wealth through their careers in the government sector and do not feel the effects of austerity or capitalism.

Legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion is costing the UK billions a year and effecting the public services and population. Estimated cost in 2014 estimated at

Screen-Shot-2014-09-22-at-07.59.57 (1)

UK PARLIAMENT VOTED TO CONTINUE WITH ONE PERCENT (1%) CAP ON PUBLIC SERVICES RATHER THAN SCRAP IT OUTRIGHT, BUT THEY CONTINUE TO LINE THEIR POCKETS

UK PARLIAMENT VOTED TO CONTINUE WITH ONE PERCENT (1%) CAP ON PUBLIC SERVICES RATHER THAN SCRAP IT OUTRIGHT, BUT THEY CONTINUE TO LINE THEIR POCKETS

UK PRIME MINISTER makes a deal with DUP to secure her position by offering an increase of £1 billion increase in spending for Northern Ireland for the next two years.

imagesI7HBRZHRHowever, she is reluctant to support our public service workers by lifting the pay cap of one percent that was introduced by Mr. George Osbourne in 2012 for a period of four years, this was extended in the Chancellor Budget until 2019.

On Wednesday evening 29th June 2017, there was a vote called in the House of Commons to bring an end to the cuts to the emergency services and an end the cap of one percent (1%) on pay by make amendments to the Queen Speech. The Members of Parliament (MP’s) showed their true colours and feelings during this vote towards the people that continue to protect and save lives of the people of the United Kingdom. As they voted to continue to keep the cap of one percent, in favour of cap was voted by 323, while against was 309, the government had a majority of 14 votes.

Meanwhile Downing Street signals, The limit on public sector salary rises could be reviewed, after attempts to scrap the 1% cap was defeated in the Parliament vote.

Do NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH!!!!!!!!

untitled

Living standards for many of the public sector workers in the UK have suffered for years with the low or no pay increments. While inflation has continued to raise and is at two point nine percent (2.9%), as of 29th June 2017.

What is saddening part here is that a majority of the public services wages at least one or two times less than the basic wage of a Member of Parliament, which is £74,000 a year. This basic wage for MP’s is just the scratch of the surface as they and entitled to other expenses, see below.

organize-and-take-the-big-bag

So, who is the most valued MP’s or Public Sector Personnel / Services. It is absurd that the FAT CATS that sit and argue like school children, rather than professional peers in the House of Commons They were elected to represent the people of the UK, but a majority seem to have no interest in what the people concerns and more interested in implementing further austerity measures that they continue to undertake and the lining of their own pockets, while the working class become poorer.

Unfortunately, class dived in the UK is extremely evident and there is only two classes of citizens, wealthy and working class, which are poor. Over the last month the Members of Government have shown through their lack of action, which they have continued to date, by not pro-actively supporting the working class (poor class) during the horrific incidents.

MP’s basic wages have increased by approximately 117% since 1996 and continues to raise further in the future. Although the previous UK Prime Minister David Cameron, on 24 May 2015 announced that he intended to freeze ministerial pay for the next five years. However, this was implemented as nine days later on the 2 June 2015 ministerial pay was to increase at the same time as MP’s basic pay was increased. Their basic wage can increase dramatically with the other expenses and perks that they are entitled to claim, see below.

Many MPs (ministers, the Speaker, senior opposition leaders, opposition chief whip, etc.) receive a supplementary salary for their specific responsibilities. As of 1 April 2015 these additional entitlements range from £15,025 for Select Committee Chairs, £74,990 for the Prime Minister.

  • Prime Minister’s total salary would therefore increase from £142,500 to £149,440.
  • Cabinet Ministers would increase from £134,565 to £141,505.
  • Total salary for ministers would increase from £89,740 to £96,375.
  • Total salary for parliamentary under-secretaries would increase from £89,435 to £96,375.

Unfortunately the full details of current ministerial pay at all levels have yet to be published on either the UK Parliament website or that of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Here is a list of other expenses that Member of Parliament are entitled to0:

Office expenses

  • Office running costs
  • Staffing costs
  • Travel: staff
  • Centrally purchased stationery
  • Postage costs
  • Central IT costs
  • Communications Allowance

Expense outside IPSA

MPs are entitled to claim £9,000 a year for postage and stationery (financial year 2015-16). This amount is in addition to any stationery and postage costs which Members may have reimbursed under the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s expenses Scheme.

Housing, second home, and travel

MPs receive allowances towards having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.

Cost of staying away from main home

  • Travel: car
  • Travel: rail
  • Travel: bike
  • Travel: European

Pension arrangements

Ps will normally receive a pension of either 1/40th or 1/50th of their final pensionable salary for each year of pensionable service depending on the contribution rate they will have chosen. Members who made contributions of 13.75% of their salary gain an accrual rate of 1/40th. State contributions for MPs are more than four times higher than the average paid out by companies for final-salary schemes, but they are not significantly more generous than most public-sector pensions.

If an MP stands down during the course of a Parliament for ill health reasons, an ill health retirement grant is payable, calculated in the same way as the Resettlement Grant (as well as an immediate pension based on the service the MP would have accrued if he or she had continued to serve until age 65)

Resettlement Grant and Winding-up Allowance

On leaving the House of Commons, an MP will be entitled to what is essentially severance pay.

Resettlement Grant

The Resettlement Grant is the name given to the MPs’ severance pay package. It may be claimed to help former MPs with the costs of adjusting to life outside parliament. It is payable to any Member who ceases to be an MP at a General Election. The amount is based on age and length of service, and varies between 50% and 100% of the annual salary payable to a Member of Parliament at the time of the Dissolution.

In the UK the first £30,000 of severance pay is tax free. As stated above, the amount retiring MPs, or those who lose their seats receive, depends on how old they are and how long they have served in the House. For example, an MP who stays in office for one term (say 5 years) and then leaves office will currently receive tax-free severance pay of 50% of his current salary, or £32,383 at current rates – equivalent to an annual salary increment of over £12,000 at current tax rates and pay scales.

For the 2010–15 Parliament, only MPs defeated in their attempt to be re-elected will get one month’s salary for each year served, up to a maximum of six months or over £33,000. From the start of the 2015 Parliament, it will be replaced by a “Loss of Office Payment”, at double the statutory redundancy payment. “For the ‘average’ MP, who leaves office with 11 years’ service, this may lead to a payment of around £14,850.

Winding-up Allowance

There is also up to £42,000 on offer to pay for winding up staff contracts and office rent. An allowance of up to one third of the annual Office Costs Allowance was paid for the reimbursement of the cost of any work on Parliamentary business undertaken on behalf of a deceased, defeated or retiring Member after the date of cessation of Membership. On 5 July 2001 the House agreed to change the allowance to one third of the sum of the staffing provision and Incidental Expenses Allowance in force at the time of cessation of Membership.

Summer Recess

Parliament takes a break of around 45 days for the summer. This is not only for holiday, but so that MPs can spend more time away from Parliament in their constituencies to do work there.

An MP’s term of office can be minimum of five years unless they become ill or do something dramatic that would affect their term. This position is a cash cow and they could earn £500,000 + in a term those take a place in the House of Commons. What becomes evident is that majority of the people who take up the position of Member of Parliament, actually join with the good intentions and have a desire to bring change and work on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom.

However, this soon changes as in every high-wage position, as a majority seem to change after a short period of time, once they realise that they cannot bring change to an institute that is focused on enhancing the wealth of their peers. This causes the new elected MP to become more interested in defending their position and protecting their enhancement of new wealth through their salary increment. Austerity effects the working class people of the UK and these continued measures of keeping budget cuts and caps on pay is in the interest of the UK Government Members of Parliament. Any increase in the taxes of corporations or high-net worth individuals will affect the Members of Parliament. This is why the current government is reluctant to raise taxes of corporates and high net-worth individuals

List of person voted to keep the pay cap, no surprises

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/public-sector-pay-cap-all-mps-vote-against-list-austerity-freeze-labour-jeremy-corbyn-conservatives-a7813706.html