Strikes among public sector workers begin

[geni]

"If you don't balance the budget, the budget won't get balanced." Thanks for that.

We don't need to cut so fast now. So what if we're still paying it off in 6 years?

The current UK debt is about £933 billion (ignoring the bank bail out and some debt hidden by accounting tricks). The current plan does not invovle paying that off in 6 years or indeed ever. It's mearly an attempt to stop that from growing.

Our pensioners will still have £7000 a year to live on, seems like a good cause to me.

That rather assumes the £ is actualy worth something by that point.

 

[geni]

It looks like you guys are right now, there's hundreds of thousands more public jobs to be made "redundant" in the next few years, yes? Better to do it this way than the way it's being done in Greece.

There is no current agreement on how many jobs with be lost. Situation is complicated by the mix of local and centeral goverment jobs being terminated.

You don't thik those guys could live anywhere they want? Didn't you guys get rid of some of your most ridiculous tax laws years ago because the "super rich" were simply moving elsewhere? What makes you think they're going to stick around just so the government can take their money?

You are aware that most of the worlds leading tax havens belong to britian?

 

[WildCat]

You are aware that most of the worlds leading tax havens belong to britian?

You are aware that it's not illegal to emigrate and take your stuff with you? You had quite the brain drain in the 1960s and 1970s until you reformed your tax laws, I see no reason that history wouldn't repeat itself if you try it again.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

by adding a pension benefit to an assumed salary

Again you choose to dishonestly misrepresent the conclusions. Why are you unwilling to address the facts?

Vastly no, after changes no.
Currently the in the civil service partnership scheme the employer matches the employees contributions £ for £ up to 3%.

Further attempts to give misleading information. Is the civil service partnership pension the only option available? Because it seems to me from here:

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/NPS_booklet_with_insert0112_tcm6-1866.pdf

that in reality you would have a choice to join partnership or to joint nuvos. And guess what? Nuvos is exactly the sort of scheme (defined benefit, extremely low contributions, index linked) that is virtually extinct in the private sector.

So you have a choice - you can pay 3% contributions and get a matching 3% from your employer, or you can pay 3.5% and get a defined benefit pension.

If you don't think that is vastly better than the private sector, you need to get into the real world.

So you have now in this thread, claimed that private sector wages were going up when public sector were not (disproved by the very figures you quoted) and given partial details of the schemes typically available to omit the most valuable type of pension scheme (and incidentally referred to one that is not even affected by the proposed changes because it is not a defined benefit scheme!). At what point will you re-examine your assumption that the public sector are not in a privileged position rather than put out misleading statements?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So what if we're still paying it off in 6 years?

This is laughable - nobody is talking about paying off public debt in the next six years. The debate is about how much MORE we are going to allow to build up over that period and pass on to future generations.

Currently it is projected to rise over the next four years by a further £450bn. The increased interest on that debt (not the total interest, just the increase from where it is now) is £23bn.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05745

 

[stokes234]

This is laughable - nobody is talking about paying off public debt in the next six years. The debate is about how much MORE we are going to allow to build up over that period and pass on to future generations.

Currently it is projected to rise over the next four years by a further £450bn. The increased interest on that debt (not the total interest, just the increase from where it is now) is £23bn.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05745

Nobody?

From the Conservative 2010 manifesto:
"We will provide an emergency budget within 50 days of taking office to set out a credible plan for eliminating the bulk of the structural current budget deficit over a Parliament."

 

[stokes234]

You don't thik those guys could live anywhere they want? Didn't you guys get rid of some of your most ridiculous tax laws years ago because the "super rich" were simply moving elsewhere? What makes you think they're going to stick around just so the government can take their money?

To be honest, let them. The problem of the majority of newly created wealth ending up in the hands of a small elite won't be addressed until the majority of countries in the world take a principled stance and demand they pay high taxes. I'm not talking 1960's levels, they were a bit off, but if the richest thousand people can make £130 billion in two years while the rest of the country is facing pay cuts, pension cuts and unemployment, something is wrong.

 

[richardm]

Nobody?

From the Conservative 2010 manifesto:
"We will provide an emergency budget within 50 days of taking office to set out a credible plan for eliminating the bulk of the structural current budget deficit over a Parliament."

I'm sure I'll be corrected rapidly if I'm wrong, but eliminating a deficit is not the same as eliminating the debt. The deficit is how much we're borrowing, and that's what they're hoping to reduce by making sure we're keeping more of the money that the country earns. The debt itself is actually expected to increase. It's kind of like reducing your expenditure so that you can keep making payments on your credit card instead of hopping to another 0% card (and incurring a 3% fee in the process). You're not actually reducing the debt itself in either case, but in the former case you're not borrowing any more money just to keep going.

Edit: The argument in this case is whether the expenditure you're reducing is actually going to cripple you, and whether it's better just to hang on a bit longer and increase your earnings instead.

 

[stokes234]

I'm sure I'll be corrected rapidly if I'm wrong, but eliminating a deficit is not the same as eliminating the debt. The deficit is how much we're borrowing, and that's what they're hoping to reduce by making sure we're keeping more of the money that the country earns. The debt itself is actually expected to increase.

Right, i'm with you now. My mistake.

 

[Lothian]

Again you choose to dishonestly misrepresent the conclusions. Why are you unwilling to address the facts?

What facts? which part of probably is a fact?

Further attempts to give misleading information. Is the civil service partnership pension the only option available? Because it seems to me from here:

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/NPS_booklet_with_insert0112_tcm6-1866.pdf

that in reality you would have a choice to join partnership or to joint nuvos. And guess what? Nuvos is exactly the sort of scheme (defined benefit, extremely low contributions, index linked) that is virtually extinct in the private sector.

So you have a choice - you can pay 3% contributions and get a matching 3% from your employer, or you can pay 3.5% and get a defined benefit pension.

If you don't think that is vastly better than the private sector, you need to get into the real world.

So you have now in this thread, claimed that private sector wages were going up when public sector were not (disproved by the very figures you quoted) and given partial details of the schemes typically available to omit the most valuable type of pension scheme (and incidentally referred to one that is not even affected by the proposed changes because it is not a defined benefit scheme!). At what point will you re-examine your assumption that the public sector are not in a privileged position rather than put out misleading statements?

I was claiming that the public sector was bearing the costs for the crisis more than the private sector. I accepted that no firm conclusions could be drawn on salaries but provided evidence that the private sector is increasing it's number of employees and the public sector is losing employees. Talking of misleading statements I note you have not withdrawn your claim that during a pay freeze the public sector is experiencing a pay growth.

You will note that I have on several occasions accepted that there are good pensions in the public sector although they are not as generous as they were. 9 years ago contributions were ramped up for all new entrants. Now there is a choice between a partnership scheme or nuvos. The later is career average scheme which is not as good as final salary but it is Ok. I understand that the number of private final salary schemes is reducing but is still 1 in 10.

I still maintain my view that traditionally over the years public sector workers have been paid less. The report you linked to looked at growth and did not provide an absolute comparison. If you can provide like for like comparisons I would be happy to review my assumptions. Until then I will maintain the view that public sector doctors, teachers, lawyers, accountants, etc have generally revived lower wages than their private counterparts.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Nobody?

From the Conservative 2010 manifesto:
"We will provide an emergency budget within 50 days of taking office to set out a credible plan for eliminating the bulk of the structural current budget deficit over a Parliament."

Deficit = the annual amount by which expenditure exceeds income.

that is not the same as:

Debt = the total amount which has been borrowed.

Look at the numbers, which are based on Conservative spending plans - debt is still going up. Nobody is talking about paying anything off over the next six years.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Talking of misleading statements I note you have not withdrawn your claim that during a pay freeze the public sector is experiencing a pay growth.

Well given that I was applying EXACTLY the same statistics that you claimed represented growth and pay increases in the private sector to show that, USING YOUR DEFINITION OF PAY GROWTH, the rate was higher in the public sector, then you are trying to blame me for how YOU defined the term.

Laughable.

You will note that I have on several occasions accepted that there are good pensions in the public sector although they are not as generous as they were. 9 years ago contributions were ramped up for all new entrants. Now there is a choice between a partnership scheme or nuvos. The later is career average scheme which is not as good as final salary but it is Ok. I understand that the number of private final salary schemes is reducing but is still 1 in 10.

Yet you chose not to mention that the defined benefit pension scheme existed as a choice at all. Which was deliberately misleading.

And that chance of a new private sector employee getting into a defined benefit scheme? Well the National Association of Pension Funds describes it as "Nil".

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/why-camerons-right-on-public-sector-pensions/7090

I still maintain my view that traditionally over the years public sector workers have been paid less. The report you linked to looked at growth and did not provide an absolute comparison. If you can provide like for like comparisons I would be happy to review my assumptions. Until then I will maintain the view that public sector doctors, teachers, lawyers, accountants, etc have generally revived lower wages than their private counterparts.

Actually it DOES provide actual comparisons, it also then adjusts them for various factors like education and qualifications. Having done that it concludes there is a small bias in wages in favour of the public sector.

And on top of that there are vastly better pensions, even after the changes.

You refer to your "view", but you appear to have your eyes closed to actually looking at the evidence. So your "view" is in fact blinkered.

 

[Lothian]

Well given that I was applying EXACTLY the same statistics that you claimed represented growth and pay increases in the private sector to show that, USING YOUR DEFINITION OF PAY GROWTH, the rate was higher in the public sector, then you are trying to blame me for how YOU defined the term.

Laughable.

and as soon as I realised that the statistics concerned average pay I withdrew that claim. You have not withdrawn yours.
Not so much laughable but disappointing.

Yet you chose not to mention that the defined benefit pension scheme existed as a choice at all. Which was deliberately misleading.

And that chance of a new private sector employee getting into a defined benefit scheme? Well the National Association of Pension Funds describes it as "Nil".

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/why-camerons-right-on-public-sector-pensions/7090

It was not misleading when I have consistently pointed out how public sector pensions are comparatively good. I simply provided balance to your claim that they are vastly better. Not all of them are.

Actually it DOES provide actual comparisons, it also then adjusts them for various factors like education and qualifications. Having done that it concludes there is a small bias in wages in favour of the public sector.

And on top of that there are vastly better pensions, even after the changes.

You refer to your "view", but you appear to have your eyes closed to actually looking at the evidence. So your "view" is in fact blinkered.

Can you point out the data showing the public sector wage bias in the report?

 

[geni]

You are aware that it's not illegal to emigrate and take your stuff with you? You had quite the brain drain in the 1960s and 1970s until you reformed your tax laws, I see no reason that history wouldn't repeat itself if you try it again.

You are under the impession that this hasn't already happened? Hedge funds are already largely moving out to Switzerland. Other groups seem to sticking to the conventional tax havens of the channel islands and the cayman islands. Those people on the thousand richest list that aren't already running their earnings through overseas tax havens are the nom doms who are using london itself as a tax haven.

 

[Delscottio]

Quality journalism from the Mail yet again....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-13-killed-falling-branch-school-closed.html

Why do people buy it??

 

[WildCat]

You are under the impession that this hasn't already happened?

So the richest 1,000 UKers cannot be taxed any more, as stokes wants to do?

 

[Lothian]

So the richest 1,000 UKers canot be taxed any more, as stokes wants to do?

They can, but it would require a law change. You will recall a couple of years ago Obama changed the US rules to tax 'foreign' profits.

 

[WildCat]

You will recall a couple of years ago Obama changed the US rules to tax 'foreign' profits.

No, he didn't. Those laws have been in place since long before Obama even thought about going into politics. And all they do is keep money in offshore acconts that could otherwise be used stimulating the economy inside the USA. This is money, after all, that was already taxed by the countries in which it was earned.

 

[Lothian]

No, he didn't. Those laws have been in place since long before Obama even thought about going into politics. And all they do is keep money in offshore acconts that could otherwise be used stimulating the economy inside the USA. This is money, after all, that was already taxed by the countries in which it was earned.

Fair enough, the rules are older. Either way a country can tax what and who it wants. The government could legislate to tax the richest 1000 or the poorest 10 in any way it chooses.

 

[WildCat]

Fair enough, the rules are older. Either way a country can tax what and who it wants. The government could legislate to tax the richest 1000 or the poorest 10 in any way it chooses.

The government could levy a tax on space aliens if they want, but it won't generate a single cent for the treasury.

Maybe the riches 1,000 could be taxed more, but if you think you can eliminate your deficit by taxing them it will not happen. They'll move to the US or some other place that doesn't tax 95% of their income.

Taxing the Richard Bransons of your country won't make your deficit go away. You could probably generate more money by auctioning off all the royal properties...