Chesterfield

An employer cant do anything to limit your payments. They have to make NI and PAYE payments to HMRC based on your tax code. They cant ignore your tax code or alter it to fudge the system. Both you and they, would be in line for a slapped wrist and fine. Unless of course they can just pay you by cheque, make you self employed and you do your own via self assesment each year.. Self assesment is really good fun. Ask them if you can do it . Plus once you are on it, you cant get off it. A bit like crack. You also get to make "payments on account" - which is really good fun, you get to pay 50% of last years tax "up front" for this tax year (or for the six months just gone, but earlier than you are required to pay your self assesment), so when you do the assesment at the end, you dont owe as much... Its really good fun. Go on, get on self assesment - you'll love it. Actually, dont.

The cheeky robbing bar stewards - posted back in March: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=59801 But I myself just changed the $ to £ to make it fit our country from an american post.

On the contrary, I think doctors have the least reason to strike of any public sector worker. They are downright taking the pi** in my opinion. They have adjusted over the years to working from private built surgeries, that the NHS pays "rent" on, which are actually in the doctors own private pension funds. Once the building is paid for, they build another, and so on. Doctors earnings have in some cases nearly trippled in recent times when you factor in these nice little schemes where the tax payers (and the rest of the public sector) are now shoveling millions into doctors private pensions. But they dont mention that when being quizzed by the press do they. And Ill probably spend more time, (and be listened to more) by a teacher at a parents evening than I will a GP - who will tell me to come back again if it gets any worse. For what its worth, I think teachers do a great job. I also think they are paid fairly - though they do need to understand that some reform is needed on the pension front. Not wiping it out all together, but for an ageing and growing population, the current schemes dont work. Front line staff are the easiest to kick by the government - but they will be the ones that rack up the largest proportion of the bill. They are making redundancies in the armed forces too - but for some reason its not made the front pages nearly as much as I thought it would Its making exact like for like comparisons that is the difficult bit as you say, but just using qualifications wont work either as the public sector has outsourced most of its low paid stuff (groundskeeping, cleaning etc) to private sector, skewing the figures again. No matter what we say here though, it wont change anything - we just have to make the best of the lot we have

And without banging my drum, thats comparing the qualifications of people and their earnings, not the jobs they are doing. Ask a graduate working in burger king what he earns, and what a graduate in local government earns. Totally different jobs, totally different pay. As before, a doctor could give up his job in the NHS and go dunk fries at KFC, but the Colonel isn't going to pay him £100k a year to splatter chicken with secret spices.

Public sector pay is already HIGHER than private sector, and has been for a while. Sorry pal, but this statement is fundamentally wrong. Refer to what I posted earlier - there are more skilled (ie degree level) jobs in public sector which makes the overall average higher than private, but you are not comparing like for like - if you compare like for like, taking a subset of each sector with identical education/experience/skills it is proven conclusively public sector is lower paid than private, this is fact and the main argument that the pensions debate centres around. Without wishing to drag it out. This is what the unions and publications like the Guardian would purport, but then go on to provide Zero examples of comparable jobs between the two. Is a graduate within the private sector paid more than that same graduate in the public sector. Probably yes. But thats not comparing jobs, thats comparing people. A salary is linked to a job, not the qualifications the person has that is doing the job. A doctor could give up being a doctor, but he wont be paid £100k a year for flipping burgers down the local Mc D's just because he has a PhD. RE teacher - 25K, Vicar £22k Basic administrator at local council, £16k Basic administrator in the private sector £14k You could say Senior council cheif, £100k. Senior Executive at a Bank £20M, however, the jobs are hardly comparable. The most difficult part is comparing actual jobs not the people. You cant simply say that because a person in the private sector with a degree and certain set of qualifications is paid £X, then a person with those same qualifications in the public sector should be paid the same amount. Its the job that has the pay associated to it. So unfortunately as much as the public sector want to keep banging the drum that they are not paid as well as the private sector. They are. Whats more, they say they go into the job as its what they aspire to do, and the sense of contributing to society, but as soon as the pensions are reformed, all of a sudden thats the reason they went into the job. What of those in the private sector that lost final salary pension schemes overnight - were they outside picketing knowing that they were on a job for life, or did they just get on with it and accept that change was needed. Thats the thing in the private sector - if you dont adapt to financial change, you go bust. You are unemployed and looking for another job. If the public sector doesn't adapt to change, they jump up and down, stamp their feet and ultimately somebody else picks up the tab. There is no going bust doomsday scenario. But what do I care, Im just one of those who picks up the tab and has the finger pointed at them saying "you should pay your fair share" - Ill continue doing my thing, and the public sector will continue doing theirs. Im confident of my sums and know that they add up long term. Are the public sector, pal?

This +10000

Public sector pay is already HIGHER than private sector, and has been for a while. then why am i £15k - £20k less pay a year than the counter parts from my degree course who i trained with at uni? How much per year would those friends have to invest each year in a private pension to get the same? £20/25k? There will be individual examples of people earning more for the same qualifications in the private sector, but the fact is that on the whole public sector pay is already higher than private.

Public sector pay is already HIGHER than private sector, and has been for a while.

Thats the typical union line of "we should get everyone up to the top, not bash everyone to the bottom". I could easily introduce a pension scheme in my own company to match that of teachers or doctors. I could do it on Monday.Everyone would join it (and be nuts if they didn't). I also know that after the first round of retirements, my company would be bankrupt. Its not bashing the public sector just because they have better pensions. Is bashing them because they, or at least the unions can't see that if they don't change the schemes, the whole thong will fall like a house of cards. And they hold the country to ransom to retain schemes which are mathematically impossible to sustain.

Its strange though that its just the numbers that are used to justify strike action As pay in the public sector is actually higher than in the private sector on average, then how do we equalise things? The pensions in the public sector are financially (and mathematically) impossible to sustain. So we cant "bring everyone up to the top" by increasing private pensions to match those of the public sector. Nor can we expect the public sector to swallow a drop of pensions down to the level of the private sector. So an impass arrises. Even after the reforms, the public sector pensions are still hugely atractive compared to what can be achieved in the private sector without massive contributions. If you tot up the total benefits of public sector vs private sector in terms of money earnt while working vs money available for pension after working, then they will probably come out somewhere near the same. Though for those jobs in the public sector that pay above that of those in the private sector, the public sector are much much better off. Working in general administration in local government for example would net a very similar salary if not lower working in general administration in the private sector, but the pension will put the public sector post well ahead in terms of overall attractiveness. I would agree that posts like teachers, firemen, police, nurses, doctors etc should still be attractive, but those people should not lose sight of just how vast the gap is in terms of post retiremet benefits between them and the average woring joe in the private sector. Doctors striking over their pensions is utterly ridiculous in my opinion. Their wages have soared massively in the last few years, they have had private buildings constructed, owned by their own SIPP (Self Invested Pension Plan), they then rent these buildings back to the NHS, the rent going tax free into their pension, paying off the mortgage on the building at which point it is sold, the funds going into the pension pot, and another is constructed and the cycle continues. Doctors over recent years have been amassing private pensions worth litterally hundreds of thousands all courtesy of the NHS. And then they have the cheek to strike when their golden NHS pensions are lowered a bit.

So why not work in the private sector then if its that easy to double your salary and get a much less stressful life. The extra £30k you could earn could be put into a pension each year and you would be ale to retire on the same benefit. Nobody is saying that public sector workers dont work hard, what we are saying is that many are truly misguided on how out of touch their pensions (and other perks in other public sector offices) are compared with the private sector.

So only about three times the average private sector pension and one which would take a private sector employee about £250-300,000 of contributions to match. I now see why the public sector is so angry...

Well, weve gone about as far as we can in giving people who dont work at all the ability to rip the country off. We may as well give those who just about manage to drag themselves to work the ability to rip it off as well. Equality and all that.

Given that Im paying about £0.5m in corporation tax and national insurance for employees every year, you would think I could have a decent pension off the government when I retire, but in order to get a pension on par with the average teacher, (£24,000 pension) Ive got to put in another £800k or so over my working life. To get the equivalent pension of a head teacher, I'd need to squirrel away about £1.5m over my working life. If I don't, then I can look forward to retiring two years later than a public sector worker, on a pension less than one fifth the size. So over say 40 years, I will have paid around £20m in corporation tax and NI (not accounting for inflation), and put in £20,000 per year into a pension for fourty years, to receive exactly the same retirement benefit as the average teacher that will have made about £100,000 in contributions. Leaving any earnings during the job aside, and if I weren't my own boss and were just a standard private sector employee, say an engineer or a retail middle manager or a car salesman etc, I would still need to put £800,000 into a pension fund to get the same pension as a teacher. Its this that gets the private sector folk wound up and why many have zero sympathy with public sector who strike over the pension reforms. Now Im not saying teachers dont work hard, far from it, but £800,000 over their working life harder than the equivalent private sector employee? Does a head teacher work £1.5m harder than a factory employee over their lifetime?

Indeed, one cannot survive without the other, but increasingly there seems to be a train of thought that somehow the public sector has a "right" to more than the private sector. Public sector already has higher average pay and higher average pensions. Are there any other particular rewards that they should get? Even after pension reform, the public sector workers will have pensions many times that of a private sector individual, yet will have paid in substantially less than a private sector worker would need to in order to receive the same benefit. The shortfall being met by the treasury, again. Putting further strain on employers and providing more ways for employees to drain the coffers is hardly going to improve our economic situation.

not quiet true, i work in public sector and pay taxes therefore the money i get paid 20% and then some goes back in to the economy. It is 100% true... Where did the money come from to pay you in the first place if you work in the public sector? Without any private sector business in the UK, then we would have zero money. As an example, lets say there is zero private sector business... Treasury starts with £1000 It pays 10 public sector workers £100 It gets say £30 back from each person by way of income tax Treasury now has £300. Everyone spends their £70 on a part for their zed bought from Japan (not using a private business in the UK, as there isnt any...) From the VAT, the treasury now receives £70 X 20% x 10 people = £140. So the treasury now has £440. Where is the other £560 coming from to pay next months £1000 public sector wage bill? Like it or not, every penny in the UK economy is from private business. Thats before we get into the arena of public sector pensions, where they just expect money to grow like magic. Though thats a different topic. Keep killing private sector business, and the public sector cannot survive on its own. Interestingly the private sector created more jobs recently than were lost from public sector, so the shoots of improvement are there, but decisions like this from the EU are just trampling on them.

Its the ones that already take the p*** that is the problem. This is just another way for them to take it.

No surprise. In my dealings with the public sector, they havent got the first clue. If the public sector was run like a private business without a bottemless pot of money, they would be bankrupt within a year due to morons who think thats the right attituide. The public sector, and this European court do realise that every single copper penny within the economy is generated from private business dont they...?

Knock yourself out.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18534028 Absolutely unbelieveable. Ive seen comments such as "Being ill while you are on leave is not your fault so you are still entitled to the leave. This has always been applied by most employers." Err, no it most certainly has not. Iits not the employers fault either, but they are the ones that must get their hands in their pockets to pay for it in lost work hours. At least I have a bunch of employees that I am confident in who will not take the pish, but there will be places out there that are not so lucky and will have workers taking advantage of this as of this afternoon no doubt. Brilliant, simply brilliant.

Please tell me my eyes are deceiving me. European courts have apparently ruled that workers who are ill during annual leave, are entitled to paid leave later in the year. Has anyone with half a brain thought this through? I know its blasphemy but Jesus H Christ. So, Fred decides he is having a fortnight in Egypt. Gets Pharaoh's Revenge on the second day and has the squits for two weeks, comes home and tells me as an employer he wants another two weeks because he was ill on those two. Oh right, and whos paying for Freds replacement while he has another two weeks I hadn't budgeted for? And Jane's extra two weeks, when she twiggs that Freds got extra free holiday because he was "ill" thousands of miles away from anyone from that could prove otherwise, and John's when he saw Jane and Fred taking the pish? What on earth is swimming about in the brains of these utter tossers making these rules up?? Can they come up with any more brilliant schemes to crush business in any shape or form. There is no wonder we are in the dire mess we are. What an absolute joke. I'd love to grow my own company and keep it going for years, employing many - but its idiotic things like this that make me want to shut up shop, take the money, retire to the sun and make dozens of people unemployed in the process. What exactly is the point in trying to run a business with courts making rulings like that. I truly give up.

I can... ...

As per the last two posts, if you have/gain experience in sales, then that could open doors outside the motor industry in any field you like. Service advisor gives you experience with customers and your technical knowledge means you should understand the products. If you can talk to customers well (as has been spotted by others that have suggested sales to you) and when you talk to a customer you can answer any techy questions they may have, then I would think thats a good base to be a good salesman from. If the person Im talking to doesnt know the first thing about the product Im wanting to buy, I wont buy it. If they know their product, I am likely to buy from them. That applies to cars just as much as it does anything else, possibly even more so. As above too, there is very good money to be made in sales.

Its one of the best shapes ever, a real classic. This may shove the price of the DBS's down a bit too Not keen on the front chin spoiler set up on this though and the split spoiler at the rear. Its a step on from the DBS styling, which is giving it an even more modern look on a real fantastic looking car.