Disgusting Politics

[Bear]

Nobody pays into anything. There is no system. There is no pot. If there were, the first generation of those to receive the state pension would have been delayed until their contributions were deemed to be sufficient.

While there is no pot, people do pay into the system. To qualify, you have to pay National insurance for at least 30 years, so you have to contribute to receive your state pension.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

While there is no pot, people do pay into the system. To qualify, you have to pay National insurance for at least 30 years, so you have to contribute to receive your state pension.

That's just a technicality really. Terms and conditions. I meant no system in the sense that tax and NI receipts don't get earmarked for pensions or benefits.

 

[platypus]

I've read many justifications about why it's unfair to target pensions and pensioner benefit as a way of making savings, but none of them are good enough to make them completely exempt from scrutiny imo.

I guess one problem comes about when you're penalising responsible savers. Savers are already being punished under the current fiasco of a system, and now that people have full access to their pensions it's only going to get worse.

 

[Rofflay]

Guillotine for 2020.

Roll one out at the next Tory conference and start taking heads. IDS, Dave and Boris up first i would love to see that dirty blonde mop roll off the pavement.

 

[Freakbro]

While there is no pot, people do pay into the system. To qualify, you have to pay National insurance for at least 30 years, so you have to contribute to receive your state pension.

Well, technically you just need a 'NI credit' for the qualifying years, which you can get in various ways without paying a penny in to the system.

 

[DailyGeek]

I'm not saying they wouldn't retaliate, I'm just saying that the introduction of a human element means that you can't be certain, you can't even be close to certain. Remember that a retaliation isn't just taking out the military commanders who ordered the initial strike, it's likely going to wipe out vast numbers of civilians. Given the choice between retaliation and joining an allied nation, thus removing the responsibility, I can't say what the preferred option would be.

Hand on heart, in that situation, as the man I am now (accepted with no military training at all), I don't think I'd order the strike. Even in the circumstances you've laid out, I still don't think I'd do it. Then again in the real situation, who knows?

I'll leave it there, we've drifted massively off topic with this one.

Actually the decision technically remains with the Prime Minister, even post-mortem. They write 'Letters of Last Resort' offering commands in the event of the destruction of the UK or it's command and control structure. These are kept in a double safe in the sub-commander's quarters, only to be opened in this event and the letters are destroyed still sealed once a PM leaves office. Drafting the letter is one of the first actions a new PM has to take when taking office.

But yes, back to pensions policy

 

[Schlong&Stable]

It really depends on the circumstances, I don't think a nuclear response is guaranteed. As an example, in a situation where the CandC structure is completely decimated I believe individual sub captains have the final say on whether or not to retaliate, I'm not sure how many people would sanction the strike given that we would have already been effectively wiped out, what's the point?

No. Each submarine has a letter (of last resort) prepared by the sitting Prime Minster which tells the boats Captain how to react if they believe the UK has been destroyed or devastated. And as one of the tests is Radio 4 going offline, we ought to hope it never does.

The letters are destroyed when the PM leaves office, so no one knows exactly what was ordered. But I believe Callaghan or someone of his ilk said that he'd have commanded retaliation. I expect most PM's would.

 

[estebanrey]

Why is a thread about pensions being pointlessly derailed into a nuclear policy debate?

This is my fault and I apologise.

I was making the point that the "Tax Payers Alliance" only ever seem to care when their tax is being spent of social programmes and how you never hear from them when it comes to, let's call it, populist right-wing government spending and used Trident as one (of a few) example.

I forgot this was OCUK and that point would be completely ignored in favour of a massive discussion about one of the many examples I used to make it.....

 

[Schlong&Stable]

This is my fault and I apologise.

I was making the point that the "Tax Payers Alliance" only ever seem to care when their tax is being spent of social programmes and how you never hear from them when it comes to, let's call it, populist right-wing government spending and used Trident as one (of a few) example.

I forgot this was OCUK and that point would be completely ignored in favour of a massive discussion about one of the many examples I used to make it.....

Trident can hardly be described as populist. Populist is things like Gay Marriage, not national defence programmes.

 

[estebanrey]

Trident can hardly be described as populist. Populist is things like Gay Marriage, not national defence programmes.

Hence why I didn't just say populist but "populist right-wing". In other words amongst people who vote for "right-wing" parties like the Tories or UKIP, Trident has massive support.

But yet again my point is being ignored in favour of a discussion on nuclear weapons.

Why do the "tax payers alliance" only ever appear when it comes to debates about social spending and not for military spending or the massive amounts we give out in farm subsidies or bank bail-outs?

 

[Pudney]

Why do the "tax payers alliance" only ever appear when it comes to debates about social spending and not for military spending or the massive amounts we give out in farm subsidies or bank bail-outs?

The TPA are always moaning about the cost of everything, it's just they don't get media coverage most of the time. So don't worry, they hate any type of spend.

 

[Caged]

How can we get out of this situation where think tanks coming out with a daft idea is reported as though it's going to be policy?

What a think tank says is broadly as relevant as what a drunk old tramp in the park says.

 

[estebanrey]

The TPA are always moaning about the cost of everything, it's just they don't get media coverage most of the time. So don't worry, they hate any type of spend.

Just spent the last 10 minutes perusing their website and I have to disagree and say the taxes they want cut and the things they want reduced spending on all do come from a right-wing tangent.

For example....

So-called boot camp for young jobseekers a welcome step

Now whatever you think of that proposal, I'd dare say it's a government program that comes with an increased cost and one that is significantly higher per person that just paying them JSA.

So they don't mind spending when it comes to penalising the unemployed.

Then just take a look at their "Ongoing Campaigns" section....

Empty Property Tax...it should be abolished, people should be able to buy up property and just let it rot if they want with no financial penalty. This is a tax that affects such a small amount of people it is ridiculously they list it as one of their main objectives.

Business Rates...freeze them of course. I'll give them credit that this one does at least affect a significant number of people.

Holiday Tax...don't tax foreign holidays at all. Again, another really serious problem that needs solving now (sarcasm alert).

Reforming Welfare...bascially **** the poor, it's their fault anyway

Spending Transparency..an important issue but we already have the FOI Act which lets you gain access to government spending so a strange thing to still be an 'active' campaign. What they actually want is breakdowns so detailed they can more easily cherry pick 'scandals' like how much your local council is spending on biscuits.

End Taxpayer Funded Trade Unions....This is an odd one because they seem to be suggesting that because public sector wages come from taxes, and then the many public sector employees who join a union and pay the fee from said wages means those Unions are being "funded by the tax payer".

So unless the public sector worker gets another part-time job in the pricate sector and use that wage to pay for Union Representation at their public sector job they should do without.


..and thus their 6 main objectives. You can't tell me for a second these are general tax payer concerns and not right-wing annoyances.

 

[Pudney]

..and thus their 6 main objectives. You can't tell me for a second these are general tax payer concerns and not right-wing annoyances.

I think I was implying the TPA whine about anything that costs money. The TPA aren't about right-wing annoyances specifically, literally anything that comes out of "peoples'" pockets. It just happens right-wing annoyances includes things to reduce costs and the TPA are more likely to agree with the right than the left. But that's statistics and not intentional (imo).

 

[Rofflay]

Just spent the last 10 minutes perusing their website and I have to disagree and say the taxes they want cut and the things they want reduced spending on all do come from a right-wing tangent.

For example....

So-called boot camp for young jobseekers a welcome step

Now whatever you think of that proposal, I'd dare say it's a government program that comes with an increased cost and one that is significantly higher per person that just paying them JSA.

So they don't mind spending when it comes to penalising the unemployed.

Then just take a look at their "Ongoing Campaigns" section....

Empty Property Tax...it should be abolished, people should be able to buy up property and just let it rot if they want with no financial penalty. This is a tax that affects such a small amount of people it is ridiculously they list it as one of their main objectives.

Business Rates...freeze them of course. I'll give them credit that this one does at least affect a significant number of people.

Holiday Tax...don't tax foreign holidays at all. Again, another really serious problem that needs solving now (sarcasm alert).

Reforming Welfare...bascially **** the poor, it's their fault anyway

Spending Transparency..an important issue but we already have the FOI Act which lets you gain access to government spending so a strange thing to still be an 'active' campaign. What they actually want is breakdowns so detailed they can more easily cherry pick 'scandals' like how much your local council is spending on biscuits.

End Taxpayer Funded Trade Unions....This is an odd one because they seem to be suggesting that because public sector wages come from taxes, and then the many public sector employees who join a union and pay the fee from said wages means those Unions are being "funded by the tax payer".

So unless the public sector worker gets another part-time job in the pricate sector and use that wage to pay for Union Representation at their public sector job they should do without.


..and thus their 6 main objectives. You can't tell me for a second these are general tax payer concerns and not right-wing annoyances.

That crap is right wing for sure. Love thier general idea of get with the capitalist programme, Or be shoved into a bootcamp.

ARE YOU READY TO WORK AT POUNDLAND YOU MAGGOTS?

SIR YES SIR!

 

[Caged]

MONEY FOR ART! RIDICULOUS NOTION.

While there is sometimes a whiff of a good point buried within what the TPA spout (the vague "more efficient" government they want is a good thing in principal), they utterly refuse to believe in the idea that sometimes things require an investment to pay back in the future.

 

[estebanrey]

I think I was implying the TPA whine about anything that costs money. The TPA aren't about right-wing annoyances specifically, literally anything that comes out of "peoples'" pockets. It just happens right-wing annoyances includes things to reduce costs and the TPA are more likely to agree with the right than the left. But that's statistics and not intentional (imo).

I know what you were saying and I disagree hence that list I posted which, IMO, are all right-wing ideologies. They weren't cherry-picked but all 6 items listed in their "Active Campaigns" section.

It seems the spend itself comes second to what that spend in on.

The military costs a lot of money, yet they have 0 articles on reducing that spend. They have 0 articles related to reducing the massive subsidies farmers get or the bank bail-outs.

Conversely they have written pages and pages about how we need to reduce pensions and welfare and how taxes that only really affect the well-off should be scrapped.

So I fundamentally disagree with your assertion they are politically neutral and just hate all government spending because their campaigns are clearly skewed towards a certain political stance.

 

[estebanrey]

A charity funding vehicle set up by the right-wing TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) has refused to reveal whether donations to the controversial campaign group have been enhanced by, erm, a subsidy from the tax-paying public. As their own press officers might say: “It’s outrageous that taxpayers could be expected to stump up for this”!

The Politics and Economic Research Trust (PERT) was set up by the TPA in 2006. The charity’s latest accounts reveal 100% of 18 grants totalling £325,000 were given to the Alliance for “research”. Three weeks ago, Scrapbook emailed PERT to ask them whether they had used the government’s charity Gift Aid scheme to boost donations with a top-up funded by the Treasury. We have, to this date, had no response

So transparency should only be for government and not charities (well them anyway) it seems and they don't mind using tax payer money to boost their donations either

 

[dowie]

So transparency should only be for government and not charities (well them anyway) it seems and they don't mind using tax payer money to boost their donations either

well they're not really - charity donations are made prior to tax being deducted... gift aid just recuperates tax that shouldn't have needed to be paid by the person donating but was because they're paid PAYE

someone running a business and donating doesn't have that issue as they can donate from their gross income and then write it off AFAIK

 

[ThePirateHulk]

The party who has had the power to tax the rich and give to the poor but hasn't bothered to use it?

Wrong. As things stand, the SG can only adjust the basis rate if income tax. It can certainly NOT set taxes that target just the rich.