On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 10:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
But for an organisation supposedly campaigning for value for taxpayers
to choose to campaign around salaries that don't come out of taxes is
even more hypocritical.

Not really. Despite the high fares the tube is still heavily subsidised
and that comes out of taxes. More pay for the drivers = higher fares or
more subsidy.

B2003

On 3 July, 18:50, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 10:41:28 -0700 (PDT)

MIG wrote:
But for an organisation supposedly campaigning for value for taxpayers
to choose to campaign around salaries that don't come out of taxes is
even more hypocritical.

Not really. Despite the high fares the tube is still heavily subsidised
and that comes out of taxes. More pay for the drivers = higher fares or
more subsidy.

B2003

I don't think most drivers are in the RMT but, leaving that aside,
your logic seems to be

1) Union suscriptions have to be raised to pay the General Secretary's
salary.

2) LU salaries are automatically raised so that staff can pay their
union subscriptions.

3) Subsidies are automatically increased to cover staff salaries.

4) Taxes are automatically raised to cover subsidies to LU.

5) Therefore, an increase in Bob Crow's salary inevitably results in
raised taxes.

Interesting if that's how it works.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
Not really. Despite the high fares the tube is still heavily subsidised
and that comes out of taxes. More pay for the drivers = higher fares or
more subsidy.

B2003

I don't think most drivers are in the RMT but, leaving that aside,
your logic seems to be

1) Union suscriptions have to be raised to pay the General Secretary's
salary.

2) LU salaries are automatically raised so that staff can pay their
union subscriptions.

3) Subsidies are automatically increased to cover staff salaries.

4) Taxes are automatically raised to cover subsidies to LU.

5) Therefore, an increase in Bob Crow's salary inevitably results in
raised taxes.

Interesting if that's how it works.

No. I'm saying Bob Crow is a hypocrite to come out with all the class war
rhetoric when its plainly obvious he's minted and would make little difference
to him how many of his members lost their jobs due to lack of funds. Also it
seems to me that the only thing Bob Crow cares about is Bob Crow and he rattles
his sabre simply for the sake of looking like he's doing something to justify
his fat pay packet rather than because its the best approach to take.

B2003

On 5 July, 09:41, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:31:28 -0700 (PDT)





MIG wrote:
Not really. Despite the high fares the tube is still heavily subsidised
and that comes out of taxes. More pay for the drivers = higher fares or
more subsidy.

B2003

I don't think most drivers are in the RMT but, leaving that aside,
your logic seems to be

1) Union suscriptions have to be raised to pay the General Secretary's
salary.

2) LU salaries are automatically raised so that staff can pay their
union subscriptions.

3) Subsidies are automatically increased to cover staff salaries.

4) Taxes are automatically raised to cover subsidies to LU.

5) Therefore, an increase in Bob Crow's salary inevitably results in
raised taxes.

Interesting if that's how it works.

No. I'm saying Bob Crow is a hypocrite to come out with all the class war
rhetoric when its plainly obvious he's minted and would make little difference
to him how many of his members lost their jobs due to lack of funds. Also it
seems to me that the only thing Bob Crow cares about is Bob Crow and he rattles
his sabre simply for the sake of looking like he's doing something to justify
his fat pay packet rather than because its the best approach to take.

B2003

Your position on that is clear, but it doesn't clarify any
justification for the "taxpayer" angle.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 03:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
Your position on that is clear, but it doesn't clarify any
justification for the "taxpayer" angle.

I don't know the exact reason the taxpayers alliance stuck their oar in but
it is a fact that tube subsidy comes from tax revenues.

B2003