you have stated on this forum before that 95% of public servants should be sacked
Paul1405,
No I What I have repeatedly stated is that Public Servant bureaucrats should be sacked if they don't measure up. If you think that they make up 95% of the Public Service then yes, why should we pay them top salaries ? They're the ones who perpetually give wage earners a tough time. I have also said that bureaucrats should not be allowed to vote for reasons that would even be obvious to you.
Also, what would you propose for those unemployed young who prowl the streets at night & commit criminal offences ? I'd put them into a National Service scheme for twelve or more months or until they obtain employment. Would you prefer to perpetuate status quo ?
I abhor the Peter Principle, your rhetoric suggests you support it !

Indy this from YOU!

just about 95% of public servants are self-interest orientated, should they resign ? My view too is immediately !
Posted by individual, Monday, 11 February 2019 5:13:37 PM

Not you Indy? You are full of it! Am I lying, me thinks not! Are you lying, me thinks so!

You claim 95 is the magic number for everything you oppose.

should they resign ?
Paul1405,
Yes and, those who don't perform should be sacked or at least demoted just like wage earners.
Seeing how you oppose this I can't come to any other conclusion that you are a bureadroid who wants to perpetuate the Peter principle to save your own bacon !
Just to clarify, there are Public Servants who are gainfully employed & then there are the bureaudroids who are simply of no use to anyone except themselves.

Indy,

In the post I quoted, you have arbitrated a figure for the number of public servants you want out, not 50%, or 60% not even 80% Nah 95%. In this case you said they should resign for being self interested, such a crime, there's no one more self interested than you! Elsewhere you have said 95% should be sacked, as you have been saying for years on the Forum. You didn't say "bureaucrats" you added that after I pulled you up on it, you simply said public servants, that includes nurses, coppers, army personnel etc etc. How about we sack the public servants that pay your bloody aged welfare, and have done so for more than 20 years, what a waste of public money, and we pack you off to boot camp, now that's a great idea you wont be in.

Paul1405,
If you think it's ok for useless bureaucrats to be paid $150-500 Grand/year then you'd better lay out what this money is for. By your reaction you're obviously one of those bureaudroids who serve no purpose nor of any benefit to those whom you're supposed to be working for.
Most old age pensioners have served & paid Tax from their pay for over 50 years. What have you contributed & what is your legacy ? I know that my legacy & the legacy of most other pensioners is out there for all to see in the infrastructure we worked at & built. What's yours ?
Playing Solitaire & other computer games on Govt computers is of benefit to citizens of this Nation in what way ? Did you object to us paying Tax for the benefit of your parents' pension ?
And, yes I stand by my earlier claims which I thought would be somewhat exaggerated but you prove that they're not !

No Indy, I don't think any incompetent public servant should keep his or her job, but unlike you I don't believe 95% should be sacked, as you have claimed. Philip Lowe Governor of the Reserve Bank, on $1 million pa. showed himself and his board to be incompetent on interest rates, as the one paid the big buck to take responsibility, Lowe should go!