UK - Election 2015

[Information Analyst]

In this context, the triple-lock on pensions look unjustifiable in any context other than an electoral bribe.

Eventually, of course, the demographic shift will stablise, as it's highly unlikely that living to 100 in tenety, fifty, or more years time will be any more prevalent than it is now. What's happened generally is that more people are living into their eighties and nineties, rather than the previous norm of sixties and seventies, if they were lucky. Clearly this isn't going to go on indefinitely.

 

[The Don]

In this context, the triple-lock on pensions look unjustifiable in any context other than an electoral bribe.

Eventually, of course, the demographic shift will stablise, as it's highly unlikely that living to 100 in twnety, fifty, or more years time will be any more prevalent than it is now. What's happened generally is that more people are living into their eighties and nineties, rather than the previous norm of sixties and seventies, if they were lucky. Clearly this isn't going to go on indefinitely.

We have to hope that the demographic shift will stabilise. The worst scenario would be a case where life expectancy continues to grow thanks to medical advances but due to lifestyle choices and the limitations of the human body, healthy life expectancy won't be increasing. so by necessity we will be retired for longer absorbing money for medical treatments so that it'll even worse for workers.

Even if the stabilisation does occur, it'll come too late for generation X like me and we will have paid for our parents' long and comfortable retirements.

As far as pensions go, there's been a triple whammy. Not only are people being retired for longer (back in the day you could be sure that a fair number would keel over in a couple of years, now they're positively thriving for 20-30 years) but investment returns are low. Not only does this mean that pension pots are relatively smaller (at 10% return £1 invested at 21 would be worth £64 at age 63, at 5% return it'd be worth £8 ) but that the annuity they buy is lower so......

A person with a 10% return who also gets a 10% annuity gets a £6.40 pension annually.

A person with a 5% return who also gets a 5% annuity gets a £0.40 pension annually.

It's that stark unfortunately. Mrs Don and I hope to have between £1.5m and £2m put aside for our retirement in about 15-20 years time (we're nearly 50 now) which should ensure a comfortablish retirment. It's a shocking amount of money to have to find . Despite putting £20-£40k aside for years, it's going to be touch and go because investment returns have been pretty modest.

 

[Information Analyst]

We have to hope that the demographic shift will stabilise. The worst scenario would be a case where life expectancy continues to grow thanks to medical advances but due to lifestyle choices and the limitations of the human body, healthy life expectancy won't be increasing. so by necessity we will be retired for longer absorbing money for medical treatments so that it'll even worse for workers.

I would guess that one shift we might see is people living a bit longer up to a limit, and so being a greater draw on pensions, but not being so decrepit in the process, and thus not needing as many healthcare resources. Not wanting to sound callous, but in a certain repects we're the victim of our own success in healthcare terms. We've increased life expectancy by ten years in the last 45, but a lot of that is because we can keep people alive longer with conditions that would have killed them off a lot younger previously, but that can be quite costly, either as a long-term expense, or a bit draw at resources towards the end.

I personally don't have much aversion to raising the retirement age, because it's fairly obvious now that a lot of people or past 60/65 now are in a lot better shape than their parents were twenty or thrity years previously - at 73 my mother certainly is compared to her own mother was at the same age, and she only gave up full time work a few years ago.

Otheriwse, we're into Logan's Run territory....

 

[3point14]

I would guess that one shift we might see is people living a bit longer up to a limit, and so being a greater draw on pensions, but not being so decrepit in the process, and thus not needing as many healthcare resources. Not wanting to sound callous, but in a certain repects we're the victim of our own success in healthcare terms. We've increased life expectancy by ten years in the last 45, but a lot of that is because we can keep people alive longer with conditions that would have killed them off a lot younger previously, but that can be quite costly, either as a long-term expense, or a bit draw at resources towards the end.

I personally don't have much aversion to raising the retirement age, because it's fairly obvious now that a lot of people or past 60/65 now are in a lot better shape than their parents were twenty or thrity years previously - at 73 my mother certainly is compared to her own mother was at the same age, and she only gave up full time work a few years ago.

Otheriwse, we're into Logan's Run territory....

The thing is, isn't there just less to do? With more and more things becoming automated, 3D printing will surely take the last of the artisan professions, increasingly we're all pushing paper. Given that we don't kill ourselves with our relentless pursuit of energy and that we don't thin out the population with some enormous war, what is everyone actually going to do till they're 70?

 

[Darat]

If your objection really just boils down to this, then we could much object to pretty much all long-term planned government expenditure.

including the financing of past wars, some from over a hundred years ago!

 

[MikeG]

......3D printing will surely take the last of the artisan professions.........

The day that 3D printing can work green oak, beat lead, lay a York stone patio, do leaded lights (windows) and on and on and on............is the day I'll eat your hat.

 

[ceptimus]

Money's not so tight when it comes to MP's pay - they've just accepted another 10% increase.

 

[GlennB]

The day that 3D printing can work green oak, beat lead, lay a York stone patio, do leaded lights (windows) and on and on and on............is the day I'll eat your hat.

Bingo.

So much carp is talked about the inevitability of tech advancements. It's almost as if sceptics sometimes abandon scepticism in favour of Star Wars-esque pie-in-the-sky.

Meanwhile I'd be interested in seeing a 3D printer printing a functioning 3D printer that could print a clone of itself. 3D print the microchip(s) at the heart of the printer? I suspect not.

 

[3point14]

The day that 3D printing can work green oak, beat lead, lay a York stone patio, do leaded lights (windows) and on and on and on............is the day I'll eat your hat.

Okay so that's what, two percent of the population spoken for. what's everyone else going to do?

 

[Craig B]

... I think that to adopt the position you do is inexcusable and ethically destitute. I think you would agree that it was if the dimension of win-lose was one's skin colour or one's gender or one's sexual preference. But strangely one's age cohort of birth matters not a bit.

I'm reminded of a notice at the door of pubs in Glasgow. If you're lucky enough to look under 25 you will be asked to produce proof of age, that you're 18 or over.

Now imagine if a whites-only pub in S Africa under apartheid had this notice:

If you're unlucky enough to have a dark complexion or a suntan, you will be asked for proof of racial classification as White.

The difference "matters not a whit", Eh?

 

[The Don]

Money's not so tight when it comes to MP's pay - they've just accepted another 10% increase.

An extra £7k for 600-odd people is politically "interesting" but in the context of the U.K. budget financially irrelevant. At £67k an MP's salary is nothing to sneeze at but for the hours they have to work, the hassle they have to put up with and the intrusion into their private lives they have to endure, it's hardly excessive IMO.

There are talking heads out there that insist that MPs only receive the national average wage or that they shouldn't earn more than £x (where £x sounds a lot to the average working person). Whilst I accept that this kind of rhetoric is enticing, if we want high quality MPs from all walks of life then the rewards have to match the demands. If MP salaries are low then it becomes a vocation for MPs who can afford it, who have lucrative employment elsewhere or who are funded by interest groups (political, industry or unions).

It is rumoured that our local MP came to politics because he wasn't as smart as his brother who runs the family haulage business. He (the MP) is apparently jealous of the brother who earns far, far more for a lot less grief. Personally, if he's so much smarter, I'd rather have the brother as the MP but I guess it's financially not an option

 

[Francesca R]

If the arrnagements ran at an effective surplus for years, as what point did it become a deficit, or - more pertinently - a deficit not offset by previous years surpluses?

Whittering on about deficits and surpluses shows that you understand none of this yet. I recommend you desist trying to argue over it.

 

[Francesca R]

But that's the most important point. It's suited successive governments not to ringfence NI and public sector pension contributions for precisely that reason.

Except that public pensions are ringfenced.

There is not much in this discussion that you are correct about.

 

[Francesca R]

including the financing of past wars, some from over a hundred years ago!

Do you think fighting those past wars had no positive value to future generations?

 

[Francesca R]

I would guess that one shift we might see is people living a bit longer up to a limit, and so being a greater draw on pensions, but not being so decrepit in the process, and thus not needing as many healthcare resources.

Increased life expectancy is correlated with higher health care costs per person, not lower.

I personally don't have much aversion to raising the retirement age

This is the wrong way round. There should be (moral) aversion to not raising retirement age

 

[3point14]

An extra £7k for 600-odd people is politically "interesting" but in the context of the U.K. budget financially irrelevant. At £67k an MP's salary is nothing to sneeze at but for the hours they have to work, the hassle they have to put up with and the intrusion into their private lives they have to endure, it's hardly excessive IMO.

It does rather give the lie to 'We're all in this together' though

There are talking heads out there that insist that MPs only receive the national average wage or that they shouldn't earn more than £x (where £x sounds a lot to the average working person). Whilst I accept that this kind of rhetoric is enticing, if we want high quality MPs from all walks of life then the rewards have to match the demands. If MP salaries are low then it becomes a vocation for MPs who can afford it, who have lucrative employment elsewhere or who are funded by interest groups (political, industry or unions).

I'd be a lot happier with this if there was any evidence of quality MP's anywhere.

Do we apply the same thing to nurses, teachers and social workers or are we happy with second rate services?

It is rumoured that our local MP came to politics because he wasn't as smart as his brother who runs the family haulage business. He (the MP) is apparently jealous of the brother who earns far, far more for a lot less grief. Personally, if he's so much smarter, I'd rather have the brother as the MP but I guess it's financially not an option

That's just what I want, MP's who are in it only for the money.

 

[Craig B]

Whittering on about deficits and surpluses shows that you understand none of this yet. I recommend you desist trying to argue over it.

I recommend, on the contrary, that you try to address the points being whittered on about.

 

[ceptimus]

I wouldn't mind MP's pay being increased significantly; but only if:

• No other remuneration whatsoever allowed - no expenses, second houses, or pensions - they would have to pay for all that out of their salary, like a regular person.
• No other sources of income allowed while they're an MP - being an MP should be a full time job.
• If they retire as an MP or lose their seat at an election, then any subsequent executive position they take would be investigated by an ethics commission to ensure that they were not being rewarded for favours granted while they were a serving MP. Any hint of corruption would result in all the ex-MP's assets being taken in taxes.

 

[Darat]

MPs pensions are paid like many other employers, every "executive" I know can and do claim expenses for travel, for overnight accommodation, food and so on. In the past it could be claimed that the MP expense system had gotten out of control and abused however with all the changes that have happened (and rightly so) their expenses are in line with most executives.

I think being an MP should be a fulltime job but I've never had enough detailed information as to if it really is, and considering how many senior executive roles (which I have a lot of personal and detailed information about) are not really fulltime roles perhaps being an MP is equivalent of that type of role.

I know of no senior executive that doesn't make use of their connections, I. E. networking. I really can't see how an MP could be forced to not use their connections once they leave the house. There are already stringent (compared to any other profession) rules that ex-MPs and ex ministers have to follow when seeking future employment. My opinion by the way is that those rules are probably not enforceable given the employment rights UK citizens have.

 

[Francesca R]

No other remuneration whatsoever allowed - no expenses, second houses, or pensions - they would have to pay for all that out of their salary, like a regular person.

It is perfectly legitimate that MPs should claim expenses including lodging, and it is the case for regular people. Regular people do not have all their pension contributions come out of salary either (in the sense that if they wished, they could reset pension contribution to zero and maximise take-home pay).

No other sources of income allowed while they're an MP - being an MP should be a full time job.

Countless regular people have more than one income source as well.