Did you read the rest of the sentence?
30/11 Strikes.
- Thread starter wordy
- Start date
Did you read the rest of the sentence?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Excellent idea - we should increase every public sector pension to the same of the MP's.
Then we should have a mass drive to get those in the private sector to reach parity with thier CEO's.
where is this pot, and how is it ring fenced then ? I am still of the thought that it is more of a financial liability underwritten by the government. If there was a pot there wouldn't be this massive argument now as the money would already be there.
Now if the pot has been spent by consecutive governments thats a different story.
Greece is a bad bad example considering most of the population retired at 50 having paid little to no tax, so poor comparison.
Affordability is subjective. If the government as I previously stated has the stomach to tax us to the hilt then everything is affordable.
Even as a private sector worker I am still not buying this non sustainable / affordable arguments, if its a pot the cash is there and even if its not then its a liability underwritten by the government. Either way the cash is there.
I might not like this or the idea of everyone getting taxed to pay off public sector pensions, but that's where we are at.
Government and unions need to come to a workable solution, with both sides having to compromise. The unions will run out of favour with the public at large if they continue this course of action
Taxation relies on willingness to pay (rather than avoid legally) and taxation not providing a restrictive/dampening economic effect which reduces total tax take.
Total tax take in the UK has never gone much above 40% of GDP for any sustained period regardless of where the taxation falls in the economy, hence that is about the limit of public spending.
This is the reality of economics.
technically It is if the government has large brass balls and likes taxing the public to the hilt. Imagine if we were all taxed at 80 % we wouldn't be having this argument about pensions / pots / health service.
Do you read. It's guaranteed and then spent.
But it doesn't cover anywhere near what these pensions will cost. So they need to come into line. Something that private sector has and continues to do. They have massively reduce their liabilities by ~50%.
How is it a poor comparisons. Countries can't just spend what ever they want. It's not just about pension. It's about total country spend, of which public pensions is one small area.
The government just can't tax to the hilt, there are natural limits in place. What do you think would happen to the economist if they taxed to the hilt and what do you think would happen to total tax income if such a thing happened.
What makes you think this would actually increase total tax take as opposed to reducing demand/production and increasing avoidance?
Total tax take wasn't any higher percentage wise when corporation and income taxes were sky high in the 70s...
Unless of course you're planning on running a closed economy by destroying all personal and corporate freedoms, which is the usual approach of the left...
Your teachers and the other school staff are greedy and don't care about you, your education or the general public who they want to force to pay them excessive renumeration.
What's so difficult about explaining that?
Be realistic Dolph, avoidance is not something the average worker can engage in due to PAYE and taxation at source. The only people effectively able to avoid paying large tax bills are largely self employed and or fairly wealthy aristocratic types who file for non domicile status while still being involved in government politics !
I am certainly not of the left end of the spectrum, but I can still see there is a lot of dishonesty in this issue from both government and unions alike. Its a classic case where each party chooses to read only the parts that serve their interests the most
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I did, but it is wrong to call it a pension pot.
We would, because you're assuming that the tax man would be able to tax the economy at 80% (which it wouldn't) and you would find that the actual tax take would be less than it is now.
Why?
It's a pot of money guaranteed at a certain rate, which the government then in eatser/spends. That isn't the real issue. The issue is that guaranteed money doesn't cover the future liabilities of said pensions.
Also I still haven't seen any of the NHS people show that it's still within budget in the future forecasts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,565
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Not sure if you are being facetious or not.
You don't think that MPs should lead the way and set the same pension terms for themselves as the rest of the public sector?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Was it? I just told my son the Government weren't giving his teacher what they promised her when she started work.
He said he was glad she was standing up to the "bullies" in that case
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Maybe a little on the first sentance, not at all on the second.
It's about time the private sector started their own fight back. Trouble is the private sector is generally full of wimps without the balls to do anything about it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Ok, I see what you're saying. There isn't a 'pot of money' anywhere to cover the pensions, that's why I think it is wrong to say there is one.
You could argue you're technically right that there is a pension 'pot' year on year, but most of us talk about 'pension pots' that are saved into (like a savings pot), and 'directly funded pensions' which is essentially the opposite, and that's how the government funds pensions.
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Tell me, why exactly are you a member of the RMT? It sounds like you don't agree with any of the principles.
Or are you using them incase you get caught downloading porn at work?
the problem is in the attitude.
No they don't need to fight back, private sector still hasn't covered all their pensions liabilities, although they have drastically cut them.
Where do you think this money is going to come from?
People need to readjust their expectations and lose the silly attitudes and go on what the figures say.
No I don't agree with most of their bs. Does that mean I shouldnt have my say? And if more people thought like I did, they wouldn't be so crazy. Unions are a bunch of old friends who have worked their way up from bully tactics and contacts. They aren't good for the workforce, in fact they cause a lot of the issues, by keeping people in jobs by giving out illegal advice.
I wasn't aware I had to agree with themon everything or most things to join.
Also get benefits like free legal advice. But they were pretty rubbish on investigations anyway.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Ooh, I don't know - maybe the same place shareholder dividends, golden goodbyes, CEO remuneration and Directors pensions come from?
John Lewis seem to have found the solution - a private business that provides a final salary scheme for it's employees.