Green failures 'may hit taxpayer'
Now, there's a thing.
I am always intrigued, in matters fiscal, who constitutes the benefactor and beneficiary when it comes to 'government' largesse vs. taxpayer funding/penalty.
Nothing like a target to obscure real, tangible, and probably actually worthy aims.
Anticipate a flurry of half-baked box-ticking initiatives to extricate bonus-addicts from holes soon.
Addendum - Asian giants put the West’s targets for solar energy in the shade - 'East is East and West is West, stick it where the sun don't shine, 'cos we have the best'. Next... NZ challenges Saudi on Hydro, Chicago challenges my back yard on wind. I think this is how international 'negotiations' go, right. I feel a bit sorry for Lapland if they are in the 'West' (it's a biggish expanse), at least for half the year.
Showing posts with label BONUS CULTURE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BONUS CULTURE. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Thursday, December 11, 2008
From those wonderful people who brought you...
Wrap defends bonuses for senior staff
Just wondering.
If public money is used for massive comms budgets that inevitably lead to increased public 'responses' (if this can be included in the term 'delivered the vast majority of its objectives' - is there a definition of what these were anywhere?) that in turn generate bonuses from the public purse for those who approved the expenditures in the first place, is there not a slight conflict of interest at work?
At the very least, the system would seem to 'encourage' anything the drives a bonus than what might actually serve our kids' futures on this planet a tad better.
Mind you, I simply can't comprehend any system that includes the concepts of 'bonuses' for public servants.
As it is seldom possible to 'make' anything, if it's based on financial performance the main way to effect 'savings' would seem to be through cuts, which is really not that tricky to do. And can prove less than satisfying to those public being 'served', as evidenced as here.
Just wondering.
If public money is used for massive comms budgets that inevitably lead to increased public 'responses' (if this can be included in the term 'delivered the vast majority of its objectives' - is there a definition of what these were anywhere?) that in turn generate bonuses from the public purse for those who approved the expenditures in the first place, is there not a slight conflict of interest at work?
At the very least, the system would seem to 'encourage' anything the drives a bonus than what might actually serve our kids' futures on this planet a tad better.
Mind you, I simply can't comprehend any system that includes the concepts of 'bonuses' for public servants.
As it is seldom possible to 'make' anything, if it's based on financial performance the main way to effect 'savings' would seem to be through cuts, which is really not that tricky to do. And can prove less than satisfying to those public being 'served', as evidenced as here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)