Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact
  • Hi Guest,
    We have now moved the boards to the new server hardware.
    Search will be impaired while it re-indexes the posts.
    See the thread in the Feedback forum for updates and feedback.
    Lazy Llama

"Not enough in the pension pot" my arse

ernestolynch said:
How much do we spend on diplomats and their spoilt offspring?
Click to expand...
Eh?

But yeah there are many thousands of wasted resources. Advertising, banking, private security etc etc

One another problem is the situation of long-term eldery care.

"Healthcare costs" are only estimated to be so high because so much of the long term care is under private companies charging the pips out of social services departments.

For a start the NHS could take over and nationalise ALL care homes and hospices.

People could be treated earlier ("early intervention") aswell with a real NHS meaning health problems would not be so severe later on requiring the really expensive long operations.
 
butchersapron said:
I'd also point out that the author of the report was Adair Turner - an ex-head of the CBI. To look at this as an objective stand-alone 'economic' problem rather than part of a far broader political attack on the conditions of the w/c is utterly naive. It's not called Political Economy for nothing.
Click to expand...

True.

Turner's whole life has been given to the service of capitalists clamping down everyone else.

Why should anything he writes be objective.
 
Interesting article by P Toynbee about it:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,11268,1326090,00.html

This would be shocking plunder were it not for the one great failure in the government's policy. A third of poor pensioners don't claim pension credit, leaving a million people to live on the basic pension with little or nothing else, in a poverty that is beyond contemplating.

Why? It's hard to get a straight answer. Research has shown that the idea that they are too proud is mostly nonsense. The government has been astonishingly incompetent, since they already pay these missing claimants their pension every week. They know who they are; they know where they live, but half-hearted take-up campaigns haven't worked. If a census of every household can be done in one day, it should not be beyond the wit of the Department for Work and Pensions to knock on the door of every single one of them to help them fill out the now simple forms.

If not, the government will lose the argument for targeting. David Willetts says, with some truth as well as some disingenuousness, that abolishing means testing and increasing the universal pension would at least get all the poor pensioners a bit more, instead of leaving a third of them with nothing
Click to expand...
 
CBI is out on the attack again today-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3969825.stm

A fall in profits made by UK firms could threaten pensions, schools and jobs, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has warned.
It says the amount companies earn as a share of the UK's gross domestic product (GDP) has seen a "marked and worrying" decline since 1997.

The CBI blamed the fall on soaring oil and metals prices and extra tax and regulation, among other factors.

It called on Gordon Brown not to do anything to raise business costs.

Other causes the CBI highlighted for the fall in profits were increased pensions contributions and competition from emerging markets such as China.
Click to expand...

I think this is the new method of class warfare by the businessmen.
Shout out "There's a pension crisis!" when there's the slightest threat of progressive taxation.

What I don't get is CBI complaining about Chinese production undercutting
British production when the CBI are against protective tarriffs.
 
The UKs GDP is $1.7 trillion, or £900 Billion. So to increase pensions from theit current %5 of GDP to 11 would cost about £54 billion. Or in other words about £1000 pounds per year for every man woman and child in the country.
 
That's a great article there BA.

This is from the Guardian about a Cass Business School (no, me neither) report encouraging migration.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,11268,1340719,00.html

The most gloomy scenario - that productivity and real wages will not increase between now and 2025, and so generate more money for paying pensions - says 10 million migrants would be needed if we did not work longer, pay higher national insurance contributions and kept living longer.

The basis of the problem, it says, is that we are living longer while birth rates have fallen. In 1990, there were four workers to every one pensioner. By 2030 there are expected to be nearly two pensioners for every five workers.
Click to expand...

But surely new immigrants will also become pensioners in their own right?

===

And we're also being told off for not saving money aswell by Association of British Insurers.
I don't think they're a disintrested party either because they sell insurance + pension policies the 'non-productive superstructure' in ba's article.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,11268,1341493,00.html

I don't quite get what all the people who voted here actually mean:
The proportion of the public that believed individuals rather than the state should take charge of providing for their own retirement has increased to 42% - up from 35% last year
Click to expand...
cos surely if there's people who haven't saved at all cos they've had children + had to spend their wages or benefits- there MUST be a state pension for them.

It found wide acceptance among the public for the view that demographic changes mean people will either have to work longer (supported by 37%) or save a higher proportion of their salary (29%) than their parents to generate an acceptable standard of living in retirement.
Click to expand...

^^ This above is pretty bad tho I guess.
 
TUC unveils "Eighty Per Cent Solution’"

http://www.tuc.org.uk/pensions/tuc-10117-f0.cfm

Government’s target of getting eight in ten of the working age population into paid jobs (up from its current rate of just over one in seven - 71.8%) together with increasing prosperity can support a growing elderly population.

Some regions are already close to 80 per cent employment, with the South East, East Anglia and the South West all achieving more than 78%. But new jobs will need to be created in the least favoured regions and high unemployment areas to meet the target. This will require long term planning and stronger regional policies to create a million extra jobs by 2015, an extra two million by 2024 and an extra three million by 2042. 'This is challenging,' says the TUC report, but if we repeat the performance of the last five years this 'would see the UK comfortably on target.'
Click to expand...

Basically involves getting 80% between 16-65 into employment to increase contributions.
It's a tame "solution" because it ignores the problems that exist now amongst pensioners.

Aidar Turner is the government's "impartial" attack-dog.

http://www.money.telegraph.co.uk/mo...xfrontperson.html&menuId=244&_requestid=11669

Turner does have one message for people who are 30 years or more from retiring: "You will undoubtedly, undoubtedly have to retire later than your parents."
Click to expand...

Turner has no doubts that his report will be a "very good" comprehensive study of the UK pension system, but whether he can bask in the glory of being the system's saviour 10 years from now remains to be seen. "Will I look back and say that I helped to change pensions policy or will there just be endless debate, without consensus and difficult decisions avoided?

"Of course I worry about that. That is why we must see our task as writing a clear report. Hopefully, well-informed people will say: 'That's what we ought to do' and then get it done."
Click to expand...

Nice touch there at the end- anyone who disagrees with his report (to come out in November)- is by definition a thickie who doesn't deserve to be listened to.
 
Radical solution:

Scrap all benefits (pensions, unemployment, sickness, tax credits, housing benefit, everything else you can think of) and instead give everyone over 18, millionaire and pauper, £150 a week (under-18 qualify for £20 a week).

Reason:

Current non-workers won't be penalised for doing "stuff on the side" if they want to, encouraging higher-than-present economic activity, and an army of benefits administrators won't be needed, thus releasing them to do properly productive work.

It may not be "fair" that the millionaire and pauper receive the same £150, but the massive boost to the overall economy should benefit the whole of society, thus making a minor unfairness pale to insignificance.

I know that many people here want to tax the rich as a solution to most things, but when it's been tried it's actually resulted in lower overall revenues. I'm looking for a solution that works in the real world, and I honestly believe that this could. In other words, a lesser of all evils -- something that could work right now, not a utopia which could take half a century to achieve. Nothing wrong with going for utopia, but surely a crude but effective quick fix is a desirable step?
 
Long-term economic solution for a depressed area is to lower profit taxes to attract investment, and then tax it heavily when it reaches a certain level.
At the same time, tax the rich highly, any outward migration by the rich will be covered by the influx of new capital from abroad.
Through the higher taxation you can then afford a higher mininum wage, a decent pensions system, an environmental strategy, healthcare and education.

Anyone agree with this?
 
Why are we getting this drip, drip, drip that the UK "can't afford" pensions? The report today seems to be the latest in the campaign to soften us up to the idea that previously unpalatble measures are "inevitable".
Click to expand...

It's bullshit. People aren't saving because they know they're going to get robbed anyway. The government doesn't care and if you invest it in the stock market it's probably going to 'disappear' in some scandal.

Personally I see no problem with 'pay-as-you-go' at all. If there isn't enough 'money' according to their predictions all they have to do is grow the economy. Now the economy isn't growing because the government is deliberately destroying the economy. So they don't really want to 'fix' pensions. What they want is for us all to transfer money into stocks and all kinds of financial bubbles so we can all get screwed. Then the government declares 'austerity' and 'more free trade' and the politicians get a big reward from the bankers.
 
I know that many people here want to tax the rich as a solution to most things, but when it's been tried it's actually resulted in lower overall revenues
Click to expand...

The citizen's income you propose for all will have to come from taxing the rich i.e. taking their resources away from them.
 
IMHO said:
Radical solution:

Scrap all benefits (pensions, unemployment, sickness, tax credits, housing benefit, everything else you can think of) and instead give everyone over 18, millionaire and pauper, £150 a week (under-18 qualify for £20 a week).

Reason:

Current non-workers won't be penalised for doing "stuff on the side" if they want to, encouraging higher-than-present economic activity, and an army of benefits administrators won't be needed, thus releasing them to do properly productive work.

It may not be "fair" that the millionaire and pauper receive the same £150, but the massive boost to the overall economy should benefit the whole of society, thus making a minor unfairness pale to insignificance.

I know that many people here want to tax the rich as a solution to most things, but when it's been tried it's actually resulted in lower overall revenues. I'm looking for a solution that works in the real world, and I honestly believe that this could. In other words, a lesser of all evils -- something that could work right now, not a utopia which could take half a century to achieve. Nothing wrong with going for utopia, but surely a crude but effective quick fix is a desirable step?
Click to expand...

I've always thought that this would be a good idea. As you say, the amount of money and effort saved in unnecessary administration of the various taxes and benefits would be huge.

No need for a separate state pensions scheme, no need for benefit snoopers and all the forms and benefit claim processors, no need for housing benefit admin, no endless Daily Mail stories about "scroungers" etc etc.

Obviously the rate of tax would go up, but the effective tax rate would be lower (because of the "basic income").

Giles..
 
Every citizen gets £600 quid a month no other benefits seems like a good idea what about a disable person stuck in wheelchair needing specialist care ?
housing benefit would still be needed for some people .but seems a good idea
those who want more can work .
 
dylanredefined said:
Every citizen gets £600 quid a month no other benefits seems like a good idea what about a disable person stuck in wheelchair needing specialist care ?
housing benefit would still be needed for some people .but seems a good idea
those who want more can work .
Click to expand...

You are right, but the number of people needing other benefits compared to the present situation, would be fairly small, so a hell of a lot of admin work would be saved.

Giles..
 
Currently pensions are THE hot issue for Civil and public servants, what with the imminent threat to change the terms and conditions of various schemes, eg the Civil Service scheme, the Local Government Superannuation scheme, and the one for health service workers. Not sure whether the changes the Govt wants for public employees will affect teachers too?? :confused:

The aspect that will got even moderate, non unionised workers pissed off, let alone the more committed of us, is the 'proposal' to raise the retiring age from 60 to 65 ....

Loads to say on this. Will get back when I've had time to read the thread in detail ...
 
One of Thatcher's favourite Tory academics attacks pensions "alarmism"

Tim Congdon who argued for vouchers in schools in 2002 pamphlet "Towards a Low-Tax Welfare State"
wants pension capital to be returned into stock market:-
His solution is modelled on the Chilean system, where taxpayers have their own savings accounts - with a personal passbook - that can be invested in the markets.
Those earning up to £8,000 a year would be made to pay 8pc a year into the fund. The state would beef this up, tripling the number of units.
Costing no more than today's NIC system, it would offer £230,000 in real terms to those retiring at 67, or having worked 41 years, assuming a 4pc annual return.
Click to expand...

http://www.money.telegraph.co.uk/mo...242&sSheet=/money/2005/08/01/ixfrontcity.html

Blairite IPPR wants pension age to rise to 67
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/m...getRule=10&xml=/health/2005/07/26/npens25.xml

Government is set on
work to 70(!)=higher pension rate
See here:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9073-1716252,00.html
 
Bumped because of the story today (Monday 12th September) about Civil and Public Service Pensions, in the Financial Times

You have to subscribe I think to see the proper text** :mad: but the gist of it is, that Blair is putting his foot down and insisting (apparantly) that the long threatened change in the general public sector retirement age from 60 to 65, be pushed through. Current Government proposals, which are at the moment being 'negotiated' with the Civil Service unions, say that all new Civil/Public servants should retire at 65 if they join after 2006, and that all existing Civil/Public servants still in post in 2013, would from that year immediately be subject to havig their retirement age raised from 60 to 65.

**If anyone on Urban has access to the FT content, could they please post the story up here? Thanks

I'll be 52 in 2013 ... I've been (technically) a Civil Servant since 1988, with an expectation for the past 18 years that I'll retire at 60 .... it's us medium grade, mid career, long standing pople who are probably most angry and pissed off about having this fundamental 'reform' inflicted on us, especially when it's duplicitiously disguised as an 'anti ageism' measure, giving us the 'right' to work longer.

Anyone in the Civil/Public Service who wants to work beyond 60 or 65, is clearly mad and should be retired immediately on mental health grounds ...

So far Alan Johnson, with whom the Civil Service unions have been 'negotiating', has seemed to favour a less confrontational approach than the one that hardine 'spokespeople' for Blair are kiteflying in the FT today.

There is another round of 'negotiations' due sometime this week - hence perhaps, the absence of any immediate reaction to today's FT story on either the Prospect site, or the PCS site.

Wondering whether the hardline noises from Blair and his people might be in advance of a partial climbdown whereby only new Civil/Public servants ar made to retire at 65 from a certain point, with existing staff retaining their current (contractual!! :mad: ) right to retire at 60 ....

Or will there be big showdown with the strikes that almost happened in May, coming back into the picture.
 
Pensions -- not just of interest to old people!

You'll be swarming all over this thread when there's a strike ... :rolleyes:

Can't believe there aren't more Civil or Public servants (eg in the NHS??) around these forums, for whom all these changes should be pretty worrying.
 
Preview of Alan Johnson's TUC speech today. I don't like newspaper stories based on the word 'will', and the full text/details will be worth looking at tomorrow or later today.

But it looks to me that the Government are spoiling for a fight, and that the Unions, potentally at least, are more prepared than usual to give them one.

There's potentially far more anger than usual likely to build up around the Pensions issue, unless Johnson and Blair get a good deal more clever and conciliatory about it than they show signs so far of doing.

From today's Guardian :

Guardian said:
Forget inflation-proof money at 60, minister tells public sector

David Hencke
Wednesday September 14, 2005
The Guardian


Five million public sector workers will be warned today by the trade and industry secretary, Alan Johnson, that they cannot expect to retire at 60 on the current inflation proofed pensions.
Mr Johnson, a former union leader sympathetic to the unions, plans to use his address at the TUC conference to say the status quo is unacceptable before talks next week at the regular public sector forum between the government and unions.

His warning will come after an unprecedented meeting at the TUC last night when the general secretaries of 13 unions joined to warn the government they would not accept cuts in pensions.

The protest is almost double the size of the pre-election battle with the government which led to threats of one-day strikes and walkouts across Whitehall, from permanent secretaries to clerical officers, in protest at the abolition of the existing scheme. They were backed by local government workers who faced an immediate rise in retirement age from 60 to 65 on their funded scheme.

Tony Blair's decision to reopen negotiations and John Prescott's move to cancel the plan to force local government workers to work until they are 65 staved off a damaging dispute during the election campaign.

Now Mr Johnson will warn that negotiations have to begin in earnest on a reformed public sector pensions scheme which will mean that workers will not get the same benefits.

Ministers and TUC-affiliated unions were taken by surprise by a statement supporting the pensions campaign yesterday by the Royal College of Nursing, which does not belong to the TUC and is traditionally one of the most moderate unions.
Click to expand...

The article is somewhat inaccurate. It seems to attribute the Government's
(temporary?) climbdown during the election to the anger of local government workers, but it wasn't just them. It was Civil Servants too.
 
1 in 5 pensioners today live in poverty.

Andrew Marr (job for life and a big pension at the end of it) didn't mention expropriating the expropriators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RevolutionSound
Enough is Enough
Replies
23
Views
905
RevolutionSound
RevolutionSound
Cloo
What is the best way to combat a populist right victory in next GE?
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
3K
LDC
LDC
Humberto
Abortions in the Uk
Replies
4
Views
258
Boris Sprinkler
Boris Sprinkler
Larry O'Hara
Latest Hope Not Hate BS: Undercover Exposing The Far Right
Replies
6
Views
464
Larry O'Hara
Larry O'Hara
Voley
Think Tank: UK state pension age will soon need to rise to 71
2 3 4 5
Replies
133
Views
6K
ATOMIC SUPLEX
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Back
Top Bottom