And another one....
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:
Why shouldn't it be mentioned? Why should it be standard? It certainly represents a good deal for your precious "poor", contrary to your blinkered view.Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Anyone seen the budget?
Seems alright if you've got a few million burning holes in your back pocket.
Less good if you're poor.
Are you joking? Inflation-rate rises for benefits - and the people earning the money to pay the benefits get frozen wages? Sounds like if you're on benefits, you're doing better than workers in both the private and public sectors.
That's standard - barely should be mentioned in the budget.
It was more the stimulation that was being offered was all for investors and new start ups. Tax breaks if you invest your cash in new firms etc.
The tax credits were freezed if I remember rightly?
I'd rather see an increase in the tax-free allowance...
What is wrong with encouraging business and start-ups? That is what will bring the economony back to speed, not gifting yet more money to those who don't contribute at the expense of those who do.
Talk about macro-economic fail Rick - this is exactly what is required.
It's pretty standard to increase social welfare by inflation. It's a massive deal that public sector aren't.
There's nothing wrong with encouraging start ups. Not at all.
But it's about priorities. If stimulus is going to be used, as it rightly should be (given super low gilt yields), it should go to where it's going to count, politically and economically.
You say it's "pretty standard" as if that's a given. There is no reason why that should be the case.
Stimulating business is more likely to "count" when compared to increasing benefits (which is arguably disincentivisation anyway). I'd rather public sector wages were increased by inflation in preference to benefits.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:The private sector does not 'fund' the public sector.
Ah, the money comes from no-where then.0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:
Why shouldn't it be mentioned? Why should it be standard? It certainly represents a good deal for your precious "poor", contrary to your blinkered view.Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Anyone seen the budget?
Seems alright if you've got a few million burning holes in your back pocket.
Less good if you're poor.
Are you joking? Inflation-rate rises for benefits - and the people earning the money to pay the benefits get frozen wages? Sounds like if you're on benefits, you're doing better than workers in both the private and public sectors.
That's standard - barely should be mentioned in the budget.
It was more the stimulation that was being offered was all for investors and new start ups. Tax breaks if you invest your cash in new firms etc.
The tax credits were freezed if I remember rightly?
I'd rather see an increase in the tax-free allowance...
What is wrong with encouraging business and start-ups? That is what will bring the economony back to speed, not gifting yet more money to those who don't contribute at the expense of those who do.
Talk about macro-economic fail Rick - this is exactly what is required.
It's pretty standard to increase social welfare by inflation. It's a massive deal that public sector aren't.
There's nothing wrong with encouraging start ups. Not at all.
But it's about priorities. If stimulus is going to be used, as it rightly should be (given super low gilt yields), it should go to where it's going to count, politically and economically.
You say it's "pretty standard" as if that's a given. There is no reason why that should be the case.
Stimulating business is more likely to "count" when compared to increasing benefits (which is arguably disincentivisation anyway). I'd rather public sector wages were increased by inflation in preference to benefits.
I'm not sure you understand what 'increasing by inflation' means.
So benefits have not been increased in real terms. They have stayed the same.0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The private sector does not 'fund' the public sector.
Ah, the money comes from no-where then.
Oh c'mon.
They earn they money like everyone else.
The market puts a value on their output (their wage), just like my wage. The only difference is their employer.
Are you really not familiar with marco-economics?
I'm surprised.0 -
Why did you make that decision though? And please don't tell me it was for the pension.flimflam_machine wrote:But there is a sacrifice. Take me for example, I went through several extra years training on a modest stipend to go into a reasonably paid job (with sod all job security I would add) that, if I make it to the top through the considerable competition, would give me a ultimately a decent but unspectacular salary. Some of my contemporaries who went straight into the financial sector are, at an estimate, earning 2 to 3 times what I do. A few will be earning a great deal more and they were all earning while I was doing the extra years' training. If I had taken that path I could have taken a 50% salary cut and still have been in a better financial situation than I am now. What you are sacrificing is the opportunity of making the really big bucks.
And you are also presuming that you would be as successful as your friends against whom you are comparing yourself.0 -
W1 wrote:That's a choice your kids are free to make, isn't it? Complaining about it (when compared to someone who works in pensions) is daft. If someone wants to earn money, going into nursing isn't the way to do it. If you want to go into nursing, working in pensions probably isn't the right thing either. See how silly that sounds?
That's not the point and you know it. Everyone wants to earn money. Everyone wants to do a job that they love and that makes them feel fulfilled. Many people want to do a job that contributes to society over and above the tax that everyone pays (what a wanky argument that is from "bankers"). The problem is that those three factors don't always come together. If somebody has apparently swung towards a lower paid job that contributes to society, we should (i) not assume that that person is completely uninterested in making a decent living and (ii) recognise that their job contributes toward society and pay them accordingly.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The private sector does not 'fund' the public sector.
Ah, the money comes from no-where then.
Oh c'mon.
They earn they money like everyone else.
The market puts a value on their output (their wage), just like my wage. The only difference is their employer.
Their "employer" is, in effect, the private sector. Or do you not consider yourself to be "funded" by your employer?0 -
flimflam_machine wrote:W1 wrote:That's a choice your kids are free to make, isn't it? Complaining about it (when compared to someone who works in pensions) is daft. If someone wants to earn money, going into nursing isn't the way to do it. If you want to go into nursing, working in pensions probably isn't the right thing either. See how silly that sounds?
That's not the point and you know it. Everyone wants to earn money. Everyone wants to do a job that they love and that makes them feel fulfilled. Many people want to do a job that contributes to society over and above the tax that everyone pays (what a wanky argument that is from "bankers"). The problem is that those three factors don't always come together. If somebody has apparently swung towards a lower paid job that contributes to society, we should (i) not assume that that person is completely uninterested in making a decent living and (ii) recognise that their job contributes toward society and pay them accordingly.
Wrong. Some people couldn't give a stuff about having a fulfilling job if they earn enough money. Some people don't care at all about the money provided they have job satisfcation. Some people want a bit of both.
I also don't agree that "Many people want to do a job that contributes to society" - anything to support that view?
There is "making a decent living" and earning significant salaries and bonuses from financial markets. I don't see the point (or value) of comparing a nurse against a pensions professional.0 -
W1 wrote:Why did you make that decision though? And please don't tell me it was for the pension.
Various reasons: interest, expediancy, comfort, wanting to create something useful, decent benefits in the long term (down the list, but still there) among others. But my motivation isn't important (see my post to you above), just because cash isn't someone's primary motivator it doesn't mean that they will happily sit around while the cash that they do earn is swept out from under them, nor that it's ok to do the sweeping.And you are also presuming that you would be as successful as your friends against whom you are comparing yourself.
I am making that presumption, yes. Not massively unreasonable to compare myself against similarly educated contemporaries I think.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:
Why shouldn't it be mentioned? Why should it be standard? It certainly represents a good deal for your precious "poor", contrary to your blinkered view.Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Anyone seen the budget?
Seems alright if you've got a few million burning holes in your back pocket.
Less good if you're poor.
Are you joking? Inflation-rate rises for benefits - and the people earning the money to pay the benefits get frozen wages? Sounds like if you're on benefits, you're doing better than workers in both the private and public sectors.
That's standard - barely should be mentioned in the budget.
It was more the stimulation that was being offered was all for investors and new start ups. Tax breaks if you invest your cash in new firms etc.
The tax credits were freezed if I remember rightly?
I'd rather see an increase in the tax-free allowance...
What is wrong with encouraging business and start-ups? That is what will bring the economony back to speed, not gifting yet more money to those who don't contribute at the expense of those who do.
Talk about macro-economic fail Rick - this is exactly what is required.
It's pretty standard to increase social welfare by inflation. It's a massive deal that public sector aren't.
There's nothing wrong with encouraging start ups. Not at all.
But it's about priorities. If stimulus is going to be used, as it rightly should be (given super low gilt yields), it should go to where it's going to count, politically and economically.
You say it's "pretty standard" as if that's a given. There is no reason why that should be the case.
Stimulating business is more likely to "count" when compared to increasing benefits (which is arguably disincentivisation anyway). I'd rather public sector wages were increased by inflation in preference to benefits.
I'm not sure you understand what 'increasing by inflation' means.
So benefits have not been increased in real terms. They have stayed the same.
Which is better than what has happened to wages, which have decreased in real terms.0 -
*facepalm*W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The private sector does not 'fund' the public sector.
Ah, the money comes from no-where then.
Oh c'mon.
They earn they money like everyone else.
The market puts a value on their output (their wage), just like my wage. The only difference is their employer.
Their "employer" is, in effect, the private sector. Or do you not consider yourself to be "funded" by your employer?
Can't even begin to sort that out. It's like asking why 1+1=3.
Let's take another angle.
Familiar with GDP? Let's take a look at the components:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports),
Yeah?
Now, given that economies are not zero-sum - one person earning money doesn't mean another is losing money, the entire concept of one sector 'funding' another is totally pointless.
A proportion of national GDP is taxed, and is spent.
That's all there is to it. You could, in theory, have 98% GDP covered by gov't spending. You'd still get growth. That final 2% of private consumption, gross investment, and exports minus imports wouldn't be 'funding' the other 98% of the economy.
How else did communist Russia even function?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:How else did communist Russia even function?
Answer #1: Well if anyone knows, it's you.
Isn't it time you went back there, etc...
Answer #2: it didn't. Remember?0 -
W1 wrote:flimflam_machine wrote:...Everyone wants to earn money. Everyone wants to do a job that they love and that makes them feel fulfilled. Many people want to do a job that contributes to society over and above the tax that everyone pays (what a wanky argument that is from "bankers"). The problem is that those three factors don't always come together.
Wrong. Some people couldn't give a stuff about having a fulfilling job if they earn enough money. Some people don't care at all about the money provided they have job satisfcation. Some people want a bit of both.
Wha...??? I said that's what everyone "wants". Everyone (who is not fundamentally opposed in principle to working or to the notion of money itself) wants to bounce out of bed every morning itching to get to work so that they can do something that they love in return for a paycheque with heaps of zeros. Obviously the real world rarely presents us with such opportunites, but if you offered someone in a well paid but unfulfilling job an equally well paid and fulfilling job they would take it.I also don't agree that "Many people want to do a job that contributes to society" - anything to support that view?
Lots of public sector workers who earn less than they could elsewhere, volunteers, charities etc. etc.There is "making a decent living" and earning significant salaries and bonuses from financial markets. I don't see the point (or value) of comparing a nurse against a pensions professional.
Sorry, I thought we'd abandoned that comparison.0 -
W1 wrote:...
Which is better than what has happened to wages, which have decreased in real terms.
Really? Sounds like your firm needs to make some efficiency savings so that salaries can keep track with inflation. Maybe shed a bit of dead wood and get everyone to do a bit more unpaid overtime. Or maybe you're just in the wrong industry. I mean why are you sitting there moaning about how much better of public sector workers are? You chose that job. :twisted:1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
W1 wrote:walkingbootweather wrote:W1 wrote:walkingbootweather wrote:W1 wrote:Why didn't Jill go into pensions herself then?
Good question. Maybe she thought she might help others. What a fool eh?
If that's what she wants to do, she's not a fool - but if she wanted to earn big bucks (which I presume is why you used her as a comparator) then she went into the wrong profession.
No, you are right, looking after others is a luxury we can't afford. Looking after No 1 - that's where it's at.
I shall be sure to encourage my kids into well paid careers. My last hope is that they become super rich and can pay for my care in dotage- doesn't look as if the state will be able to help. Me and my mate W1 will be alright. The rest of you – you’re on your own. Losers.
That's a choice your kids are free to make, isn't it? Complaining about it (when compared to someone who works in pensions) is daft. If someone wants to earn money, going into nursing isn't the way to do it. If you want to go into nursing, working in pensions probably isn't the right thing either. See how silly that sounds?
You could always go into nursing and then set up your own care business, there's a lot of money in that if you do it right.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:How else did communist Russia even function?
Answer #1: Well if anyone knows, it's you.
Isn't it time you went back there, etc...
Answer #2: it didn't. Remember?
They still made stuff, and had economic output.
By W1's logic, no-one would be able to fund anything.
Communist Russia broke down economically because of incentives (or lack therof), but that's nothing to do with my argument...0 -
Why would you say that? I earn more than average, I don't want to be taxed into oblivion. I just don't hatefully resent every penny of tax I pay that goes to benefit someone other than me like you appear to. Its no wonder you value your anonymity so much.W1 wrote:
And you'd like everyone who earns more than average to be taxed to oblivion, with the money given to those who earn less, so that life is suddenly "fair"?notsoblue wrote:walkingbootweather wrote:notsoblue wrote:
What would happen if everyone went into pensions?
Why surely we'd all have great pensions. After all these are mythical wealth creators, they can magic up wealth out of thin air.
Well some people do magic wealth up out of thin air. More power to them. But what some on this thread seem to ignore is that there will always be people on low wages, and/or doing unskilled work. The entire population can't be aspirational middle class. The standard response of "If you can't afford to live the way you are now, work harder/educate yourself/etc and get a better job" just isn't applicable to millions of people in this country.
WTF?notsoblue wrote:Should we all drive the same cars, live in the same houses, do the same jobs and earn the same money? Is that what you ultimately want?
I was saying that there will always be a hierarchy, there will always be have and have nots, and people who are class mobile, and others who aren't. I just don't believe its madness to not throw those at the bottom to the wolves so that the top end can be unrestricted.0 -
rjsterry wrote:W1 wrote:...
Which is better than what has happened to wages, which have decreased in real terms.
Really? Sounds like your firm needs to make some efficiency savings so that salaries can keep track with inflation. Maybe shed a bit of dead wood and get everyone to do a bit more unpaid overtime. Or maybe you're just in the wrong industry. I mean why are you sitting there moaning about how much better of public sector workers are? You chose that job. :twisted:
I wasn't necessarily speaking for myself. It is true that wages, overall, have decreased in real terms.0 -
You have a very different idea of "throwing to the wolves" than I do.notsoblue wrote:
Why would you say that? I earn more than average, I don't want to be taxed into oblivion. I just don't hatefully resent every penny of tax I pay that goes to benefit someone other than me like you appear to. Its no wonder you value your anonymity so much.W1 wrote:
And you'd like everyone who earns more than average to be taxed to oblivion, with the money given to those who earn less, so that life is suddenly "fair"?notsoblue wrote:walkingbootweather wrote:notsoblue wrote:
What would happen if everyone went into pensions?
Why surely we'd all have great pensions. After all these are mythical wealth creators, they can magic up wealth out of thin air.
Well some people do magic wealth up out of thin air. More power to them. But what some on this thread seem to ignore is that there will always be people on low wages, and/or doing unskilled work. The entire population can't be aspirational middle class. The standard response of "If you can't afford to live the way you are now, work harder/educate yourself/etc and get a better job" just isn't applicable to millions of people in this country.
WTF?notsoblue wrote:Should we all drive the same cars, live in the same houses, do the same jobs and earn the same money? Is that what you ultimately want?
I was saying that there will always be a hierarchy, there will always be have and have nots, and people who are class mobile, and others who aren't. I just don't believe its madness to not throw those at the bottom to the wolves so that the top end can be unrestricted.
And it's not hateful resentment of paying tax for the benefit of others - it's the waste, abuse and apologetic stance taken by hypocritical liberals that I particularly dislike.0 -
W1 wrote:it's the waste, abuse and apologetic stance taken by hypocritical liberals that I particularly dislike.
Yeah, like that Nick Clegg. He's one hypocritical liberal dude.
Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
So there were non-cash benefits to your job, right? And there is a non-monetary "value" to that. Your private sector colleagues may not have the same "benefits" - or if they did, why didn't you simply join them and make the bucks if that what you're complaining about now?flimflam_machine wrote:W1 wrote:Why did you make that decision though? And please don't tell me it was for the pension.
Various reasons: interest, expediancy, comfort, wanting to create something useful, decent benefits in the long term (down the list, but still there) among others. But my motivation isn't important (see my post to you above), just because cash isn't someone's primary motivator it doesn't mean that they will happily sit around while the cash that they do earn is swept out from under them, nor that it's ok to do the sweeping.
Nothing is being "swept out from under" the public sector, particularly not when compared to the private sector. Being asked to make a more significant contribution to a pension for a longer-living retirement is not unreasonable.0 -
W1 wrote:
You have a very different idea of "throwing to the wolves" than I do.notsoblue wrote:
Why would you say that? I earn more than average, I don't want to be taxed into oblivion. I just don't hatefully resent every penny of tax I pay that goes to benefit someone other than me like you appear to. Its no wonder you value your anonymity so much.W1 wrote:
And you'd like everyone who earns more than average to be taxed to oblivion, with the money given to those who earn less, so that life is suddenly "fair"?notsoblue wrote:walkingbootweather wrote:notsoblue wrote:
What would happen if everyone went into pensions?
Why surely we'd all have great pensions. After all these are mythical wealth creators, they can magic up wealth out of thin air.
Well some people do magic wealth up out of thin air. More power to them. But what some on this thread seem to ignore is that there will always be people on low wages, and/or doing unskilled work. The entire population can't be aspirational middle class. The standard response of "If you can't afford to live the way you are now, work harder/educate yourself/etc and get a better job" just isn't applicable to millions of people in this country.
WTF?notsoblue wrote:Should we all drive the same cars, live in the same houses, do the same jobs and earn the same money? Is that what you ultimately want?
I was saying that there will always be a hierarchy, there will always be have and have nots, and people who are class mobile, and others who aren't. I just don't believe its madness to not throw those at the bottom to the wolves so that the top end can be unrestricted.
And it's not hateful resentment of paying tax for the benefit of others - it's the waste, abuse and apologetic stance taken by hypocritical liberals that I particularly dislike.
By far the biggest wastes have occurred where the government has subcontracted big chunks of public services/provision out to the private sector. The overspend on the Typhoon fighter alone (around £4 billion) is roughly double the estimated total welfare fraud cost. It's debatable whether it is the government's fault for not contracting these things out properly, or the private sector's fault for milking the contracts for all they are worth, but if you want to get upset about government waste (and we all should), welfare benefits are way down the list. What's hypocritical about that?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
W1 wrote:So there were non-cash benefits to your job, right? And there is a non-monetary "value" to that. Your private sector colleagues may not have the same "benefits" - or if they did, why didn't you simply join them and make the bucks if that what you're complaining about now?
Yes, there were non-cash benefits. I made the decision on a number of factors and I'm happy with the balance of job satisfaction and remuneration that my career provides. I am not complaining about the money that I make now. The complaint is about the questionably-justified, long-term cuts to that package that are unexpectedly being brought in mid-career, despite the tacit understanding of solid if unspectacular pay and pension.
The response, "If you wanted to make big money you should have gone into the private sector" is at best irrelevant, since many public sector workers don't want to make big money, they just want to make a reasonable living with a decent pension for a job that is valuable to society. Non-cash benefits are lovely, but we all need to pay the bills. At worst it totally fails to recognise the value to society that the PubS has and the remuneration that should therefore be directed to it.Nothing is being "swept out from under" the public sector, particularly not when compared to the private sector.
But it's not the private sector. Because it's a longer term investment, it needs to be treated differently.Being asked to make a more significant contribution to a pension for a longer-living retirement is not unreasonable.
Maybe, I'm not opposed to a recalculation on principle, but the scale, handling, justification and timing of the cuts are also causing disgruntlement.0 -
Which benefits do you support?W1 wrote:And it's not hateful resentment of paying tax for the benefit of others - it's the waste, abuse and apologetic stance taken by hypocritical liberals that I particularly dislike.0 -
flimflam_machine wrote:Maybe, I'm not opposed to a recalculation on principle, but the scale, handling, justification and timing of the cuts are also causing disgruntlement.
I've read the rest of your post which I take on board.
You will view my responses as being completely anti-public sector - whereas in fact I'm not (whether you believe that or not is another matter). However the fact remains that the private sector is being doubly shafted by not only seeing their own living standards and pensions reduced, but whilst also being expected to pay for very generous public sector pensions. Unsurprisingly that causes resentment, particularly when (in response) the public sector is happily prepared to disrupt many normal people in an attempt to bully the country into continuing to accept what is likely to be completely unaffordable retirements for one sector of society, paid for by the other.
Scale? - Even with the reforms, it is highly likely that there will remain a significant black-hole in the bill for public sector pensions
Handling? - That goes both ways - attempting to extort unrealistic demands from the country is not, in my view, a good way of handling a "negotiation". It is blackmail.
Justification? - people are living longer. Unless members of the public sector will voluntarily do themselves in earlier (in return for keeping pensions and constributions the same) then the justification is pretty simple. Living longer costs more, and those who are living longer need to pay more in to get more out.
Timing? - as I said earlier, it would be impossible to make these changes during a "boom" time. At least during a period of economic negativity there is more reasonable justification for attending to a serious issue that has been swept under the carpet for years.
As to why people join the public sector, as I said, I am sure some of them do so because they want to make a difference. However plenty do so because they want a cushy life with clock-watched hours, no personal risk or responsibility, a good salary (better than the private sector perhaps?) and almost no accountability. Get rid of those sorts of people, and there is more in the pot to properly reward the decent, hard-working people, some of whom do jobs very few of us would like to do. Will that happen? Of course not.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Which benefits do you support?W1 wrote:And it's not hateful resentment of paying tax for the benefit of others - it's the waste, abuse and apologetic stance taken by hypocritical liberals that I particularly dislike.
The ones that act as a safety net for those who have no other option.0 -
Example?W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Which benefits do you support?W1 wrote:And it's not hateful resentment of paying tax for the benefit of others - it's the waste, abuse and apologetic stance taken by hypocritical liberals that I particularly dislike.
The ones that act as a safety net for those who have no other option.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Example?W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Which benefits do you support?W1 wrote:And it's not hateful resentment of paying tax for the benefit of others - it's the waste, abuse and apologetic stance taken by hypocritical liberals that I particularly dislike.
The ones that act as a safety net for those who have no other option.
Any one that meets the above.
What benefits don't you support (if any)?0 -
Surely that depends more on the circumstances of the particular claimant than the particular type of benefit. What about the winter fuel allowance?W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Which benefits do you support?W1 wrote:And it's not hateful resentment of paying tax for the benefit of others - it's the waste, abuse and apologetic stance taken by hypocritical liberals that I particularly dislike.
The ones that act as a safety net for those who have no other option.
Poor pensioners don't really have any other choice, but there is huge amount of wastage in the winter fuel allowance - Peter Stringfellow had to fight to not get it paid to him - and the £2.7 bn would be much better spent insulating people's homes so that their fuel bills aren't so high in the first place. It's only been around for a few years, but it's now seen as almost sacred and it would be a brave chancellor that scrapped it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
W1 - have you thought of emigrating? There are lots of countries where they don't have such a burdensome welfare state. You would be a able to keep a much greater portion of your hard-earned cash and pay just for the services you want. I'd come to your leaving party and would make sure you didn't get dragged into any rounds in case you bought someone a drink and they didn't get you one back.Nobody told me we had a communication problem0
