perfect11s
Well-Known Member
Great idea its the perfect solution !!! if you are socilist mong ... oh well I guess it would stop the proles owning horses ...
Public sector pensions
- Thread starter Wundahorse
- Start date
Mithras
Well-Known Member
No, it wouldn't. Awful idea.
Perfect11s - I'm not really in favour of higher tax, but fairer tax. I can't see why people object so much to Inheritance Tax but are always in favour of higher Income Tax (or at least they are in Scotland). Seems illogical to me to penalise the working in favour of those getting something for nothing.
Plus, you might as well consider pension contributions a tax in all but name anyway, and if you realise that you are paying for people who will not save for their own retirement in other taxes, it ought eventually to be cheaper.
Why should the government not actually do something useful and collect and provide a good basic state pension? One not condeming people to total poverty in their old age? Since the present set up seems to be doing just that in numerous cases and also costs a lot?
fburton
Well-Known Member
Why's that? I'm genuinely interested to know why it would be so awful because it seems a pretty fair sort of tax from what I have read, and would encourage some good things like better land use in cities and put a much-needed damper on artificial property price bubbles.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200409200007
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Too controlling. Like all overly socialist policies, it takes away from people's motivation to do anything useful. It would most likely penalise individuals than big business who would simply work out ways to get round it, or be able to afford to sit on it until most fiscally expedient. And land tax has a particularly poor record in countries which have used it.
I actually believe in minimal state interference, but provision of essentials done well (I include in that provision of a livable basic state pension). Get rid of all the other unnecessary guff and we could probably afford it.
There already is a tax on land use in this country. Its called planning permission. by the time you've paid your multiple application fees (for slightly changed applications successively) and your bat, badger, environmental impact and water course surveys to LA cronies, you certainly feel heavily taxed!
paddy555
Well-Known Member
I just wonder if you had chosen to remain in the public sector and had now been in the position, with further years under your belt in the public sector, of looking forward to your much dreamt of gold plated pension if we would be having this discussion.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
My farrier bought a paddock for £40,000 out of taxed income. Why do you think would it be a good idea to tax him on it again, year after year? That's about as fair as taxing someone more every year because they invested £40,000 in a nice work of art or a 6 year old 2* eventer, isn't it?
Isn't taxing a static asset just a product envy?
martlin
Well-Known Member
I have to say, Land Tax sounds super scary idea. It's all very good talking about holdings in Mayfair etc, but what about the farmers? It's just another cost of producing food, which means that prices would have to rise... and hit the Joe Public.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Yes, my attitude would not have changed. If you knew me you would know the truth of that.
paddy555
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately life is unfair from the minute people are born due to their choice of parents. That is not necessarily due to money but do to the parent's attitude to education, discipline, work ethic, aspirations for their children etc as well.
I can see both sides on the IHT angle. My parents were typical of the generation where you worked, valued education and "pushed" your kids to achieve. They made provision for their retirement with both savings and a company pension. (private sector)
They saved considerable amounts on the basis that they would then be able to fund their care in private care homes. Their hope then was that whatever remained of their assets would be distributed between their family.
It is difficult to see why if someone has worked hard, as my dad did, to make provision for their retirement and care home fees (out of his taxed earnings) that a large percentageo of his estate should be taken in IHT.
His generation were responsible and he saw it as his responsibility to make sure that he provided sufficient capital for the care of himelf and my mother. He could just have adopted the attitude of "why bother" if the state are going to take whats left in IHT.
perfect11s
Well-Known Member
if the goverment did a better (higher) pension I doubt they would be very good value for the tax payer sadly the waste and extra admin would absorb billions, sadly gordo put the final nail in the coffin of private pensions with his tax grab , yes im all for fair tax and helping the less fortunate but the more folk are taxed to more they fiddle, avoid, or dont bother to try and earn.. it has been proved time and time again lower taxes = more collected
and a stronger economy, we need to cut waste, get people to work building bussinesses
seriously considder our abusive marriage to the EU , cut the thing that has done the thing that has dammaged ordanary folks lives, and wages more than any single thing in the last 20 or so years IE uncontroled immigration, make work pay and the dole a help up not a way of life it would go a long way to addressing the huge pay gap due to the minimum wage being "the wage" for the more manual work... I would also tax the highest paid on the basis on the lowest paid in a firm or goverment dept to make it very unatractive to have very low paid along side very highly paid so if lowest was on 10k maybe the guy on 100k could be asked to pay say 10 times the tax .... or base taxes on average wages lower and you pay less higher and you pay more...
Last edited:
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Germany seems to be doing pretty well. In terms of Northern European countries, the UK and Ireland seem to be pretty much getting left behind. I've no idea why British people are so against the EU (please don't anyone answer this with a rant but a sensible explanation would suffice!). Honestly, having lived in Germany and Holland, the standard of living over there is far, far higher than in the UK, and people seem to be generally wealthier too (without attracting any of the vitriol people who have done well for themselves do here).
So you'd punish people for doing well for themselves and pushing themselves harder in their jobs? And reward them for being unambitious or not so clever/hardworking?
And if students have to pay back tuition fees and student loans, and we talk about a graduate tax, why do benefits claimants not have to pay back their benefits? (controversial!)
Mithras
Well-Known Member
But you can ensure that the bright people are not prevented from progressing through being financially denied access to education, and it does no country any good if jobs are allocated through who your father is, rather than merit. The UK is now one of the least socially mobile countries in the developed world, so again, the present system obviously isn't working.
You would have to make free elderly nursing care part of the system. As in Scotland. What you describe is all very laudible, but remember the other side of the coin is people avoiding going into nursing homes when it may be medically best for them, in order to preserve their inheritance for their children, who may have given up work to look after them and be on benefits as a result. And then when the parents do die, are the carers going to go back into the workplace?
Wundahorse
Well-Known Member
I wonder why our Government does not explore the German model as this seems to work very efficiently,productivity is good,the standard of living high,and,much lower house prices and rentals.When my Nephew lived in Germany as part of his language degree my sister in law could not believe the difference in the cost of living compared to the UK,and still be more efficient.The UK denigrates the Germans but they are doing much better than us.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Because decisions are taken by an unelected group of bureaucrats, currently in control of Greece and Italy, having substantially removed democracy from those two countries.
Because the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for, I think, eleven years because they cannot account for where all the money has gone.
Because there is no real evidence that I can find that we are actually better off by being in it. We can still trade with Europe without it. Canada is not a US state. Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU and seem happily outside it.
Because the happy wealthy Germans you met got that way partly from selling to the Greeks and bankrupting them with a common currency that the Greek economy could not deal with.
And those happy wealthy Germans have a Bank, Commerzbank, that was bailed out by the USA last week to stop it going under. Didn't make many papers that one, I don't know why.
Slinkyunicorn
Well-Known Member
SP you beat me to it
That and the disproportionate amount of EU subsidies that go to France, Italy, Greece, Spain etc bouying up industries that would just not be financially viable anyother way. Take a look at the fishing quotas - has a decimated our fishing industry but supports the Spanish amongst others......
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Because it presumably suits the Government, spin doctors and media to lead the British population to be slightly zenophobic, believe certain spin and not to question.
I am trying to persuade my husband to go back to Germany to work. Higher salary too. House prices, including with land are so much more affordable in certain parts such as the main horsy area! But shhh, keep it quiet!
Wundahorse
Well-Known Member
Tempted to join you Mithras.As for France i gather from my In laws who used to live and work there,that the state is highly subsidised by the Government,which makes me wonder how the president can be so high and mighty when his own country is in dire straights.Productivity is not that great there,as the French are very reliant on the state,and their farmers seem to do as they please outside of the agricultural agreements,while ours have to toe the line.My Sister in law cannot understand why there is less private enterprise in France,there being abundant opportunities in the travel industry alone.They still have a home in France,so are au fait with the culture(and they speak French).If the French president is not too careful,he could face serious problems as their economy cannot support the public sector as it is.
perfect11s
Well-Known Member
The EU we paid in more than we get back , Red tape petty soul destroying directives, 3 rate unalected morons , coruption, our laws overriden, fishing industry shafted , unaudited accounts , l Love europe just hate the EU !!! I dont want to live in what is looking more like something modeled on the soviet union!!!......Oh and no wonder Germany is so sucesfull massive help with reconstution after the 2nd world war which we and the americans paid for, we had huge debts to pay back ... as for my second point my tax idea was more to have people paid more at the bottom, sorry but a hospital cleaner is as if not more important to the safe running of a hospital than one the many managers or admin staff!!! my point was hoping to address my concern about the vast differnce in salary between say a jumped up 3rd rate acountant and the person that actuly does the work !!! I certainly would never want to discorage ambition, hard work, personal responsibilty and people being rewarded for so doing...
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Oooh, just slightly patronising there
I've lived in continental Europe and I much prefer the freedom and eccentricity that we have in this country compared with the northern countries and the way we mostly stick by the rules (like queuing) compared with the southern ones. It's a nice, balanced, middle as far as I am concerned.
Last edited:
Sunshine
Well-Known Member
Ok -just my thoughts after 15 yrs in public sector and almost the same in private sector employment. And I am registered disabled, so have fought tooth and nail for each job and been penalised because people saw my disability rather than my potential and that limited the work I could do.
Back in the 1980s public sector admin type work paid less than the equivalent in private sector when perks & opportunities included. Then the pension was one of the big selling points for public sector work. Even teachers couldn't be recruited at one point because the salaries couldn't match private sector possibilities with similar qualifications, now look at the imbalance the other way, a job for £23k + final salary pension at 60 which also allows for 13 weeks a year leave and short hours week with no enforced anti-social hours.
By the mid 90s (after the early 90s slump) the balance swung towards the public sector, but at that point the Govt did nothing to address the burgeoning costs of an increasing public sector and its pension commitments, never mind consider the impact ALL ROUND on increasing life expectancy. This includes the commitment to State Pensions, including SERPS - paid to public and private sector employees alike. Instead no Government was strong enough to stand up and say that everyone had to wait longer for the state pension, or to take on the unions and upwardly revise the minimum retirement ages for several public sector schemes. When they were first set up it was an acceptable risk that people could be too unfit/not upto medical requirements to maintain an active and satisfactory role as (eg) a beat police officer at 50, when people expected to die not long after 60/65. They should have insisted at that point that the minimum ages were increased and that reallocation of duties be implemented before paying people off then re-employing.
Pensions - both state and private are overgrown insurance policies. The monies are paid in on a calculated rate that would pay the expected benefits at the future date. The problems have arisen because the risks were not accurately reassessed on a regular basis. This is a standard requirement and any fool could have forecast the difficulties when the contributions (premiums) reduced as a proportion of the payouts required. The demands on the public purse from increasing unemployed (those who have no intention of ever working because it pays less than benefits) and increased immigration and EU rules over equal benefit payments were there for all to see.
Now we ALL have to pay the price. I would guess that many of the public sector workers can see that, but feel that as the minions at the bottom of the food chain, they are the ones being forced to forego the promised (contracted) benefits, whilst the upper echelons (Directors, MPs, top civil servants or police commanders and so forth) do not have any impact at all.
Oh, and Santa Claus, you forgot to calculate that out of your £200 tax there is a proportion allocated towards your own state pension premiums. Just a shame that some on this thread seemed to be so anti-establishment that you would think they never expereienced or appreciated the work that some public sector employees (mental health or dementia nurses for example) put in, and so let it become a slanging match against all.
Back in the 1980s public sector admin type work paid less than the equivalent in private sector when perks & opportunities included. Then the pension was one of the big selling points for public sector work. Even teachers couldn't be recruited at one point because the salaries couldn't match private sector possibilities with similar qualifications, now look at the imbalance the other way, a job for £23k + final salary pension at 60 which also allows for 13 weeks a year leave and short hours week with no enforced anti-social hours.
By the mid 90s (after the early 90s slump) the balance swung towards the public sector, but at that point the Govt did nothing to address the burgeoning costs of an increasing public sector and its pension commitments, never mind consider the impact ALL ROUND on increasing life expectancy. This includes the commitment to State Pensions, including SERPS - paid to public and private sector employees alike. Instead no Government was strong enough to stand up and say that everyone had to wait longer for the state pension, or to take on the unions and upwardly revise the minimum retirement ages for several public sector schemes. When they were first set up it was an acceptable risk that people could be too unfit/not upto medical requirements to maintain an active and satisfactory role as (eg) a beat police officer at 50, when people expected to die not long after 60/65. They should have insisted at that point that the minimum ages were increased and that reallocation of duties be implemented before paying people off then re-employing.
Pensions - both state and private are overgrown insurance policies. The monies are paid in on a calculated rate that would pay the expected benefits at the future date. The problems have arisen because the risks were not accurately reassessed on a regular basis. This is a standard requirement and any fool could have forecast the difficulties when the contributions (premiums) reduced as a proportion of the payouts required. The demands on the public purse from increasing unemployed (those who have no intention of ever working because it pays less than benefits) and increased immigration and EU rules over equal benefit payments were there for all to see.
Now we ALL have to pay the price. I would guess that many of the public sector workers can see that, but feel that as the minions at the bottom of the food chain, they are the ones being forced to forego the promised (contracted) benefits, whilst the upper echelons (Directors, MPs, top civil servants or police commanders and so forth) do not have any impact at all.
Oh, and Santa Claus, you forgot to calculate that out of your £200 tax there is a proportion allocated towards your own state pension premiums. Just a shame that some on this thread seemed to be so anti-establishment that you would think they never expereienced or appreciated the work that some public sector employees (mental health or dementia nurses for example) put in, and so let it become a slanging match against all.
DragonSlayer
Well-Known Member
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
What a shame you finished an excellent post with this paragraph
I did not forget that my tax pays for my state pension. It was not part of the discussion, which was that none of a public sector employees tax pays for any of their pension.
In any case, it is not true because state pensions are unfunded, they are paid out of current taxation. It will not be true until I start receiving a state pension, when ironically, the tax I pay on my private pension will indeed finance my state one.
Have you read the thread? At no point did it become a "slanging match against all" the public sector. And it was never about whether mental health nurses do a good job, just about whether any of them should have struck to try to preserve their unaffordable pensions.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
In 1980 I left a job as Personnel Manager for a company with about 200 employees to take an AP4 admin job administering a Recreation Department. My salary rose from £3,250 no pension to £5,250 full benefits, shorter hours, more holiday and flexitime allowing me to work up another 12 days off a year.
In 1983 I left a job as a PO1 Finance and Admin Manager of a Fire Brigade because I was bored out of my wits with the lack of responsibility in the role and I took a pay cut from £10,500, to £9,000 two years later after retraining to work as an analyst/programmer. You will recall that in those days computing was a very high paying sector and my employer was also a high paying American company.
I am not suggesting that all jobs were paid higher than in the private sector, but it was by no means as black and white as you suggest, in my experience.
Last edited:
Oliver12
Well-Known Member
What a rather narrow-minded attitude. My daughters both work in the public sector and chose not to strike as they actually disagree with what they were striking for. As part of the younger generation they can actually see the bigger picture.
paddy555
Well-Known Member
why is it narrow minded? As someone who has spent their entire career in the public sector (and who never went on strike) I was asking as I felt a bias against PS workers.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Oooh, just slightly patronising there
I've lived in continental Europe and I much prefer the freedom and eccentricity that we have in this country compared with the northern countries and the way we mostly stick by the rules (like queuing) compared with the southern ones. It's a nice, balanced, middle as far as I am concerned.
I actually find the UK one of the strictest, most over-regulated countries to live in! Everything is controlled, restricted or licensed in some way, except some of the areas that need it most! People are afraid to do things due to fear of health and safety (the fire service refusing to rescue people until they are dead and calling it successful springs to mind), events are constantly cancelled for spurious reasons, the country grinds to a halt every time its snowy, windy or rainy (or even dry and sunny), I could go on!
I dare say the freedom and eccentricity you are speaking of must have been nice once, but those days are long gone. Remember too I live in Scotland, which is even more of a nanny state than the rest of the country now. Perhaps things are not quite so bad down south.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
I increasingly think it must be modelled on the Roman Empire! Which probably explains why the Brits don't like it...
No, its because the Germans work damned hard and very productively, and are good at starting up and running successful businesses, and don't have this lax attitude towards increasing the number of people on benefits. They still expect people to take responsibility for themselves, if reasonably fit and able to do so.
Just realised that so many things I own are not British. There just aren't British goods out there of the quality to buy. My car is German, my horsebox is French, most of my riding wear is German (Pikeur, Cavallo, ELT), even my horse is German! Where are the British companies producing goods I might actually want to buy? Just bought a new washing machine, its a German Miele, which everyone knows is by far the best on the market.
Sunshine
Well-Known Member
Actually Santa Claws - I wasn't referring to you personally 'having a go' at all public sector, there are others that have posted on the thread who have done so, Perfect11 as an example, who I hope, has never had cause to rely on the services of the mental health nurses I used in my example. So please do not assume that I am intending to start a dispute against you.
Yes, I know that the current taxation is taken to pay the current pensions, but that is as a result of them being unfunded due to the short-sightedness of earlier Governments. The difference being that you are paying for the pension for your parents/grandparents pension and your children, and mine, would be the ones paying for ours. Perhaps we should all expect our pensioner relatives with considerable state-funded or private/employer final pensions to pay an increased tax rate on the monthly benefits to account for the enhanced payments they were lucky enough to receive? Would that be the fairest way to redress the inequality? Either way the money taken from you in tax does not all go to directly pay the wages of public servants as you have previously asserted. That is the only reason I referred to it.
After your 3 years in public sector roles and a time retraining, we are to assume that you made your career financially very successful in the private sector. I would guess that in the IT industry since the mid 80s you have been able to secure a salary in excess of the average, especially as an A/P during the Millenium Bug era. In which case, it is purely about life choices and the luck of the draw, because nobody knows what the future holds and that is your credit. At that time many of the 'institutionalised' civil servants who would have possibly 20 years service would have baulked at the idea of leaving because of the promised terminal benefits. Since that time most of these will have also gone to on retire and reaped the benefits of the enhanced pensions and index-linking that everyone is so irritated by. And, by the market forces that have been in play since, these pensioners are most likely to have gone on to benefit from the property market, and even possibly, subsequent careers after an early retirement.
I personally do not agree with the public sector striking for the pensions, because I accept the need for them to be reviewed. What I am most disgruntled at is the fact that at the top level there is no intention to 'cut the cloth' accordingly and so can understand why many of the lower paid staff feel the need to make a point and that is the only way they feel they will be heard.
Yes, I know that the current taxation is taken to pay the current pensions, but that is as a result of them being unfunded due to the short-sightedness of earlier Governments. The difference being that you are paying for the pension for your parents/grandparents pension and your children, and mine, would be the ones paying for ours. Perhaps we should all expect our pensioner relatives with considerable state-funded or private/employer final pensions to pay an increased tax rate on the monthly benefits to account for the enhanced payments they were lucky enough to receive? Would that be the fairest way to redress the inequality? Either way the money taken from you in tax does not all go to directly pay the wages of public servants as you have previously asserted. That is the only reason I referred to it.
After your 3 years in public sector roles and a time retraining, we are to assume that you made your career financially very successful in the private sector. I would guess that in the IT industry since the mid 80s you have been able to secure a salary in excess of the average, especially as an A/P during the Millenium Bug era. In which case, it is purely about life choices and the luck of the draw, because nobody knows what the future holds and that is your credit. At that time many of the 'institutionalised' civil servants who would have possibly 20 years service would have baulked at the idea of leaving because of the promised terminal benefits. Since that time most of these will have also gone to on retire and reaped the benefits of the enhanced pensions and index-linking that everyone is so irritated by. And, by the market forces that have been in play since, these pensioners are most likely to have gone on to benefit from the property market, and even possibly, subsequent careers after an early retirement.
I personally do not agree with the public sector striking for the pensions, because I accept the need for them to be reviewed. What I am most disgruntled at is the fact that at the top level there is no intention to 'cut the cloth' accordingly and so can understand why many of the lower paid staff feel the need to make a point and that is the only way they feel they will be heard.
Sunshine
Well-Known Member
Not withstanding the work ethics of the German population the fact remains that the restitution funds post-war have had a massive impact on their economy since. Take VW - it would not have been in existence without the efforts of the British immediately after the war ended. Ford didn't want to get involved with it. The Americans also invested a lot of other trade, be that guilt-driven or for the scientific advances (rockets and 3M as examples), which helped them to pick up after the devastation. I admire and agree with the ethos of work hard and perfectionism that the Germans are known for as far as their economic production goes. But it is not as cut and dried as to state that Germany is in such a strong financial position today purely because of it's population's sheer hard work over and above other countries.
I think Greece also had something to say recently about a certain 'war loan' to Germany that has still not been repaid....
But that is worthy of another discussion.
Last edited:
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Perfectly reasonable solution. If students now have to pay for their education, I don't see why those on state funded high level pensions shouldn't pay extra tax for the privelege.
Alternatively, how about making it a rule that pension must be based on a proportion of final salary? This is how its done in many countries after all. It seems illogical for someone on a final salary of say £25,000 getting a pension equivalent to that which someone in the private sector would typically have to earn £50,000 to benefit from.
I often wonder whether the generation before ours was rather feckless. They benefitted from free education, much lower house prices, early retirement in many cases, cheaper fuel, and so on. None of which the next generation will be able to expect.
And I also have to wonder, what with the free education (and student grants!) and cheaper house prices, why so few of them have managed to save adequately for their retirement years!
Last edited: