blonde poker forum

This could end up as a horror show of a thread, but I can take it no more!

I should start by saying I have worked in the private sector (property and construction) all my life. I am also going to throw it out there that my political leaning is very much to the left, but far from extreme, I guess I am a child of new labour. I absolutely support capitalism but have a social conscience.

So, I have followed this closely, feel well read and versed on the subject. Today I have heard nothing but shear drivel from any striker, and especially those who are considered voices of their people.

I am yet to hear a SINGLE argument which has convinced me that this is a worthwhile and justified action.

As someone who has been to hell and back as a result of this recession, I have zero sympathy for those who "expect" in life. We all have a simple choice, at ALL times in our life, if you dont like what you are doing, then do something else instead.

I didnt hear a single word in 2008 when the private sector was being "cut back", I know of professionals who have never returned to professions that they worked in for 20 years (a choice of course).

We all have choices in life. If you dont like your T&C's in the public sector employment, then leave it. There are millions out there who will fill your shoes at the moment.

People are talking of 3-5% (effective) paycuts. Many in the private sector suffered 20% ACTUAL pay cuts 3 years ago and havent had rises since. Many realise that in these times, having a job is preferable to not

Please wake up and small the coffee folks. The good times are a long way behind us, and probably even further from returning. I am of course not saying that there is opportunity to do well, there is always that, but ffs, stop whinging. If you choose to work in the public sector, then get on and do your Job!

Meh, they can all strike IMO. They do a very worthwhile job and are massively underpaid compared to people in the private sector.
Civil servants and those in the public sector contribute more to the economy than they take out and that has to be recognised.
The pensions they have are a must if the govt wants to keep recruiting the best of the best into shitty jobs like teaching, nursing...








Ah f*ck, I can't keep that nonsense up.

+1

Why should they bear the brunt, when, yunno, Lord Ashcroft is like, yunno, rich. Like. Yunno. Greedy bankers. Rich people. Tax them more. Yunno. Bullingdon club. Yunno.


 ;frustrated;

i had to turn off the radio for a while today when some (alleged) educated person, in repost to a comment said "well, Camerons a millionaire"

oh, ok, well stone him then!

What the fk has his privaleged life got to do with anything!

My company hasn't given any pay rises for 3 years now. We have also made several redundant in that time and gone through many other cost slashing exercises.

Although our work force are part of a union who set pay rates all of our staff agreed to pay freezes for the good of the company and to ensure that the company could continue to exist.

I have absolute zero sympathy for anyone who strikes in order to demand more money at the moment. If our guys went on strike I'd just wrap the firm up. Why? Because in 6 months there'd be no firm anyway.

If the country was thriving and they were having effective pay cuts then fair enough but the reality is that pretty much every business including the Government is skint and has to make cut backs.

I think that whatever this strike has cost the economy should be deducted from their pensions.
 ;shame;

F**k me even google has pickets today

I don't think you all understand, it's theft and the government should go to jail. Apparently.

It baffles me that it all goes ahead in the first place...only 30% of those who could vote bothered to vote, and not everyone of those 30% voted to strike.

How can the unions say the have the backing of the public, when, overall they don't even have the full backing of thier own membership!

My local school is shut due to teachers walking out, and over the past fortnight, I've seem more union reps in school then during the past 4 years telling teachers they should be members to "proctect themselves" .....nothing to do with boost strike numbers then no?

Life ain't fair, never has been, never will be.  We are living longer, so have the ability to work longer so we need to contribute more to cover this.  Could the Govenernment do more...of course they could...but when they do if they do...we'd continue to ask the same questions...could they do more...of course they could....round n round n round.

On the plus side the roads were very clear this morning and it was very easy to find a parking space at Notts Uni.

The Tories are in power even though they only got 36% of the vote in turnout of only 65%.

True, I wondered why the roads had fewer bad drivers on them this morning and then the wonderful Moira Stewart reminded my why this was. Can't wait for the drive home..should only take 45 minutes tonight..YAY!

Tories are sharing power with the Lib Dems.









rotflmfao

public sector worker hate, not seen that before. Move on.

Disagree

<3 these threads
Much better than your recent fold related thread Guy

Down with the Unions!

Such a simple solution




Wonder how long it will be before Rod comes along as he smells Maggie from miles away

You would.

For disclosure, in case anyone thinks that this may colour my views, I :

[ ] currently live in the UK
[ ] am currently employed
[X] mother is a nurse and father has his own business providing services exclusively to the public sector.

I am also:

[ ] supporting the strikes
[X] well read on the topic
[X] convinced that the strikes are a horrible idea because
[ ] they will work and
[X] they will turn public opinion against the strikers even if you
[X] agree that they are right to be disgruntled, which I
[ ] do

yeah, can't be arsed to keep that up...

basically, they don't make any coherent sociopolitical or economic sense. It's like they are just burning all that economic output at a time britain really needs it.

[X] Live in UK
[ ] Currently employed
[X] Used to work in Civil Service
[X] Have two Civil Service pension pots which cannot be transferred to a private pension (not that I would want to)
[X] Support strikers. Mainly bacause if the changes go through my "frozen" Pensions will get f**ked by changes from RPI to CPI uprating.
[X] Strikers are acting in their self interests, but doesn't every side of this row?
[X] know how to do check boxes :) oops lol

[X] You sure do :)

Was reading that para getting more and more tilted till the punchline obv :-)

No pay rise at our company for 3 years, pensions turned into money purchase schemes years ago, expectations remain high, people achieve more for less etc etc

Seriously, these public sector people really don't have a clue. No expectation, ridic metrics, no penalty for being an underachiever, ridic pensions & benefits already and still want to bleat. The old shibboleth of them being poorly paid versus private sector is laughable. Go tell the average worker in a service industry that he/she is well paid versus the public sector.

I'd quite cheerfully fire them all and let them re-apply at 20% worse conditions - how many would ? Er... 100% ish

God damn public sector workers, god damn private sector workers, god damn immigrants, god damn jobless, god damn homeless, god damn obese people, god damn old people, god damn people who believe in god, god damn politicians. = Great Britain

Think everyone should go on strike apart from the jobless obv, they should have to work for a day.


[ X ] Pay my taxes [ X ] Needed to go to hospital today [  ] could get seen [ x ] worked in the public sector [  ] have ever striked [ x ] like using boxes to make pointless points

Most of the people out on strike aren't on a picket line - they're just enjoying the day off, which isn't surprising when they didn't vote for the strike.

I don't think it would be right to specify a specific turnout for a strike vote to be valid - but I do think it'd be fairer and easier if they introduced the rule that the unions were only allowed to pull out on strike the members who actually voted for it.

A banker, a school teacher, a Tory mp and a member of the general public are all sat in a room with a table and a plate with ten biscuits on it....... The greedy banker eats 9 of the biscuits and the Tory mp turns to the member of the public and says "becareful of the school teacher, I reckon she is trying to nick your biscuit" ;)

I should use preview more lol

I fail to see how the people who are striking will gain even the slightest bit of sympathy from the common man. Everyone is going through a hard time, that's life.

Suppose the Union fat cats need to justify their 100k+ salaries somehow.

Gordon Brown takes out a credit card and maxes it out whilst being "prudent", during one of the best growth periods in the UK's history. The banks fuck up and Gordon decides to bail them out with yet more borrowed money. He then hands the card to the next lot, who decide that it should get paid back or we're all fucked. The teachers blame the bankers.

Lol. Mines a joke. I'm one Thatchers children if being honest. ;)

Its mostly academic anyway - the UK will be broke and unable to pay the pensions as now presumed.

The closest they will be able to get is to inflate away the promises, and abolish free health care for all.

[  ] optimist

But that will only fck over me and everyone with a private pension and savings, public pensions are inflation linked (and still Red Simon moans)

You must have chosen a pretty bad private pension if youve no inflation linking in it :)

Not wanting to get too involved but


the Public sector still hugely underestimates the value of Defined Benefit pensions, linked to Final salary

All of the Private sector swiitched to Defined contribution pensions over the last 20 years. Far less lucrative for most and risky, dependent on retirement date and conditions at that time

As for these strikes, as I understand it the alternative to the current government policy is "cut but cut slower"

It's all semantics really, the country is in for a really rough time and the Public sector employees can strike all they like, but they need to get used to it....

Whoever is in power, the UK can't afford the impact of the baby boom generation retiring over the next 15 years

Deserves more love.

can you explain this? understand you can link an annuity when it's time to choose one, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying?

Quote from the Health Secretary today


Essentially we are all fucked to a monumental degree. Right now public service workers are shielded somewhat from the shitstorm by the pensions they'll get that the private sector workers of the future will pay for. If you are a private sector worker under 40 your state pension will be zero.

These strikes are about them not realising this.

Of course if you are in the rich 1% it's all a handy divide and conquer diversion...

I'm probably confusing things/side tracking....but, if I had a private pension and change employers its relatively straightforward to transfer my pension pot to new employer or continue paying in myself if the employer m,akes no contribution. When I reach retirement I can purchase an inflation linked Annuity?

However, once I leave the PCSPS (Civil Service Scheme) I can no longer contribute, no IFA with any sense would recommend transferring its nominal value to a Private Pension, and the only gaurantee (sp?) I was given when I left was the years I had paid into it would produce a Pension which would increase by RPI or 1.5% whichever was the greater until I reached pension age.

Now after I have left they (PCSPS) are reducing to uprating by CPI etc which everyone agrees is a lower figure.

Thats why I moan :)

Though I can see some of the points you guys make, I cannot be shocked Public Sector workers want to maintain their Pension provision and will go on strike to emphasise this opposition!

You can choose to link your private pension contributions to inflation also. But like the public sector those who originally had their increase linked to RPI are now linked to the lower CPI...........................and most don't even know it.

Some Life Offices are still giving illustrations quoting RPI when in fact they are using CPI and quoting NAE (National Average Earnings) when in fact they are using AWE (Average weekly earnings).

Also anyone currently taking pension benefits under income drawdown has been well shat on over the last couple of years with worse to come.

I receive a public sector pension and also retain Final Salary with my current employers.

FWIW I also believe these strikes are pointless purely based on the fact that they are futile. Private pensions have probably suffered far greater than the public sector ones during all this.

Geo

All private defined benefits schemes have only discretionary increases above 2.5%, if inflation goes through the roof the schemes simply won't be able to afford innflation sized increases.  In a similar high inflation environment the difference between cpi/rpi would be negligible.

Which also baffles me!

But one of  the very points to being part of the union is to have an voice and for them to make sure your voice is heard.  They take your membership fee, but then ignore your voice...so it is essential I think that the numbers do matter to see if a strike is valid. Why have a membership that you will ignore if you don't like what they say in the first place?

If you really want your voice to be heard you can vote no - my thinking is that the people who don't vote get ignored completely. They don't count towards getting a majority - but they also can't go out on strike if one is called.

There is a deeper underlying issue concerning the pressure that people in some industries get put under to join a union which contributes to the disparity between how many members a union has and how many of it's members actually do anything - but I don't really see an easy way to fix that.

i'm surprised there is no sympathy whatsoever for people who earn small salaries, do shit jobs that you wouldn't do and receive relatively poor pensions who are being told to take an effective 5% pay cut, pay another 5% more into their pensions, work for longer and receive less than they were promised.

it would appear you all lap up the tory spin on everything. The median national health service pension is £4000 pa.

bring on the flaming......

In what sense small salaries?
In what sense shit jobs?
In what sense poor pensions?

must be nice to have a £4k pension imo

Some of them obviously do have small salaries in shit jobs with poor pensions - but it's really not indicative of the overall picture

Such as?

They can of course choose to do any job they like

They choose to be teachers for example, they dont have to be. If you dont like it, do something else you choose to do. Then realise just how well paid you are as a teacher, and how good your T&C's are

I really cant even begin to comprehend where the "we deserve x" mentality comes from. You would be laughed out of a private sector job

(i dont know if you are a teacher - interchange it with anything relevant - i tried to stay away from the 13 weeks holiday cheap shot)

my wife runs a team of 8 in the NHS, who organise help and respond to mostly OAP and mental helth patients in crisis. They deal with truly awful stuff on a daily basis. She earns 25k and will be due a 5k pa pension.

i work with people who earn double that and dont deserve half what she earns. She does it because she believes in the good of it. She could go private anytime and earn 2 or 3x that straight away.

25k is a hell of a lot more than the vast majority of people are on. You realise that?

"i work with people who earn double that and dont deserve half what she earns" is simply your opinion and means nothing. If it was really the case that they weren't worth the money they were being paid, they wouldn't be.

All credit to your missus for doing the job she is, but she's chosen to, she hasn't been forced to do it.

So that's a sample size of 1 with an obvious personal bias - not that convincing is it?

It's also not a shit job, shit pension or shit salary

A better example would be the part time cleaners or dustmen and road sweepers - they're not particularly nice jobs; but a small sample at the bottom of the scale still wouldn't represent the whole picture

Ace2M

I genuinely mean what I am about to say and I really hope it doesn't cause offence

Caring people (such as your wife), get something out of being caring, its part of who they are. I find it amazing as I know it is something i could never do.

HOWEVER, they have to accept that it is a benefit in kind of the job. Just like I couldn't do it - therefore I wouldn't want the job, I imagine that your wife wouldn't want to work on a building site (just like the completion of a new build is a pleasure of my job).

So I'm sorry - i dont buy the "i have to wipe shit" or "i have to teach rotten kids" arguments. Every job has its downsides (i have to crawl in horrible dark dank basement through spiders webs, something I truly despise), but I accept it as the down side to my job.

Only when I talk about my job, I dont speak of these things, and never sell the negative to get sympathy (or a better pension etc). I'm sorry to say its a boring old tune that people on our side of the fence cant stand - because all jobs have downsides. My wife has just had to make 12 people redundant, its horrible, but as a manager she accepts it.

There are plenty of people in the private sector doing shit jobs for shit money with no pension.

if you want to do shit in education and aspire to nothing and not work hard thats their business. They desrve fuck all and i'm still happy that i pay shed loads of tax and  it provides for them in their old age.

people forget the fantastic concept of society we have in this country.

So the one's in the private sector are all lazy and stupid - but the same one's in the public sector are part of the downtrodden masses?

absolute worldy.

I agree with you there Guy. If her job is awful and she could get 2-3 times the salary elsewhere then why doesn't she do that?

not what i said.

I work in the private sector and work my bollocks off, i see people in the so called lesser jobs who aren't dumb but they are are happy to coast. I want to go snowboarding twice a year and be able to buy the stuff i want etc, i work hard for it.

I also see people come into to those lesser jobs who aren't particularly amazing at anything but they work their nuts off and get somewhere.

Because not everyone is driven to earn money purely for the sake of it.

They will drive out all the good staff who have the option to earn more and cost themselves more in the long run due to having to promote people less able to those postions.

My impression was that AndrewT was talking about people doing the same job in the private sector compared to in the public sector

In the public sector they have a shit job, shit wage and poor pension
in the private sector they have a shit job, worse wage and no pension

The private sector was either never as good as the public sector - or it's been downgraded during the recession to already make it worse; the cuts aren't good - but they're only the public sector catching up with what everybody else has already had to suffer. That's why there's little sympathy.

And this is the esscence of my point!

They dont thou do they! You think these individuals dont know they have choices? There are plenty lifers in all of these places, because they know it isnt that bad

and if they arent in it for the money then their pension change of a few % wont bother them

Spot on.

I work at a company in which there has been a 3 year pay freeze and due to the fantastic concept of 'pay normalization' they will be unlikely to receive a pay rise for a few more years. These guys work their bollocks off for crap pay and ultimately very little reward at the end of it.

People in the public sector need to switch their brains into gear and realise we are ALL suffering.

i certainly didn't like the tone of the postings on this thread, it sounded childish, some one took some of my sweets away, i'm happy they're taking yours now.

Anyway, you're going to wheel out the same old tired right wing bollocks and i'm going to wheel out the same old left wing bollocks. we'll take it all as read from here because i can't be arsed.

Unfortunately, your post shows up the silly mentaility of PS workers.

THE WHOLE WORLD IS SUFFERING, WE CANT AFFORD TO KEEP DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING, THEREFORE THERE HAS TO BE CHANGES, we have had our changes, (and they are still coming thick and fast), the public sector are just taking theirs (very badly)

It seems rather odd that the left wing view is the people who have lost something should ensure the people who haven't don't.

Yeah right, there's a mass exodus pending, just lol

Ha ha, i love snipey little posts based on absolutely nothing.

Put in simple terms: -

The country (largely due to Gordon Brown) has maxed out its credit card and cannot afford to pay for the current public sector let alone the future pension benefits.
The average person now lives for 19 years in retirement as opposed to 9 years in the 60s, hence in simple terms public sector pensions have doubled.
Due to the collapse in tax revenues our national debt is approaching £1 trillion, which amazingly will have to be repaid at some point.
Public sector workers do not understand any of the above and think that simply taxing the rich will solve everything.

P.S. Offer me a final salary pension for a gross contribution of 9.6% (6.4% existing + 3.2% increase) and I would snap your hand off!

I spent 7 weeks in hospital earlier this year and continue to benefit from a lot of ongoing care.

Gonna qualify some of my antipathy towards the public sector

I couldn't have more respect & admiration for the nurses, doctors, paramedics, porters, cleaners, care workers, volunteers and so on in the hospitals. Both for the level of care they provide and their extreme professionalism.

 I think Fireman and our Armed Forces are pretty special too.

If these people get the reward of a decent pension having genuinely 'served' society I'd have to be pleased.. even if we can't quite afford the levels they might have once aspired to. They are saving lives, or putting their lives on the line and this warrants a bit of special treatment. Coincidentally ? these people are also a section of the public sector that doesn't really strike.

It's the large swathe of clerical people who don't feel they should share the pain that get my dander up, and that's a terrifying sight

they are by law not allowed to strike.

TBF, you started the groundless piffle suggesting 'they will drive out all the good staff' - incred nonsense that was.

Excellent and I kinda knew this, but I like to think they wouldn't anyway

your opinion is based on?

Mine is based on those i know, of approx 25 people i know who work in the health service - its  about 30% who have left in the last 3 years purely for the fact that thay can earn more and have better pensions by doing so. They are mostly people who have studied for 3 to 7 years, have acheived and are top quality staff in whatever they would have chosen to do.

Gordon Brown made terrible decisions during the boom and george osbourne is making equally awful decisions now. I fear the next 10 years far more than i did the last 4.

Ace2m, what should the chancellor be doing different? Your answer cannot include reference to increasing the deficit/spending as that is not an option

The sector will suffer from the same degree of inertia that most sectors suffer from at times like this with people mostly staying put and a few (I accept) more talented people proving to be more mobile. I also see ultra talented doctors for example, coming from all over the world to work here so it's not a one way street.

I guess I just don't think it's as dramatic as you put it in terms of the numbers that might leave or the impact it would have. When people move on, however important or talented they seem, it is much like taking a hand out of a bucket of water. A few ripples and then......

I can't see a link from these thoughts to it costing more in the long run.

Anyway, nice talking to you and kudos to your better half

Sadly it seems that ppl simply can't understand this.  The model of most state/public sector pensions is that retirees are funded by workers.  This model must adjust.  The private sector has adjusted by failing final salary schemes and plumetting annuity rates.

I actually do agree that the contribution rise is excessive, a change to the retirement age to mirror the state pension age and a move to average salary benefits should be ok.  I think you've missed that lower paid workers aren't actually getting a contribution increase.

me versus blonde apparently...  

I'll be honest, my time studying economics is a good few years in the past but to my view they are disobeying basic rules, forcing down gdp against a still rising or static deficit, which is what the ratings bodies measure you against, we go to far and we bring around a far bigger crisis , eurozone stylee.

i accept the need for deficit reduction but do it in a better climate as Gordon should have done before.

i am not a pie in the sky 'tax the rich' lefty btw, although i do think they should be taxed more!

Some in the private sector have been loving the stike - seems they all went Xmas shopping.

sadly, that is true

One thing i have never understood about strikes - how much pay to they lose?

1/220 or 1/365 of their annual base salary?

So you're saying that they need to make these desicions but do it ten years from now when the economy might be better?

I am a "tax the rich" lefty FWIW, massively in favour of it TBH but something has to be done now.

To say that the desicion needs to be delayed until we have the same climate as the last guy, who massively F'ed up, has is something political parties have a nasty history of doing.
This is not a desicion that can be delayed. Retirement age has to go up. The public worker pension system is massively flawed and can't be sustained so has to change.

This is not just about deficit reduction, this is about making a change that is absolutely necessary.

The money they save from pensions will be used to pay off the country's debts not stay in the pension pot? Also more people wont bother taking a pension in the public sector workforce and just get more off the state when they retire.

How can the current plan possibly work? Destroying tax revenues and not cutting the deficit.
Tell me one thing that has been done so far that has had a positive impact on our situation? Everything gets worse qtr after qtr and you lot lap it up without question, think for yourselves.

Ahh yes, we're all sheep for not saying that something different should be done without a better plan...

I think there are a few things wrong there:
1) It won't pay off the debt, no one has any clue how we'll do that
2) There isn't really a pension pot
3) Bit of a gamble to assume the state will give them anything when they retire.

You wont get any benefits if you retire without a priv pension?

How does this pension plan destroy tax revenues?

I do like to think for myself, which is why I have been saying for YEARS that Brown was a complete idiot and short-termist when every "expert" paraded in the media agreed that he was "the best chancellor ever had" and that "he oversaw the largest period of economic growth in the history of Brittain and was doing a grand job".
The pension plan has to go through, not because of the current economic situation but because of the one that is waiting for us 15-20 years from now.

Anyone who doesn't think the pension system needs a massive overhaul has completely lost the plot IMO.

What the?

It's an old joke Bopkin...don't you understand? It's all the banker's fault that the pension pot has been in trouble for years.

The plan is to have a flat rate £140 per week state pension and do away with benefits.  So if public sector ppl leave their scheme, they will just downgrade themselves from having a comfortable retirement to sitting at home waiting to die.  

Please expand on why you think this.

Its on a par with some of your jokes on the joke thread.

Maybe he means they should lower the taxes for the rich as that makes them pay more?

I wonder how many people who think the 'rich' should be taxed more - know how much they're being taxed at the moment?

I strongly suspect that their view is pretty much - however much they're paying now, they should be paying more.

so there is a multi zillion pound fund set up to pay public sector pensions? what's it invested in?

i thought they get a promise from the govt to pay them when they retire in return for getting less wages today. pretty much same as the state pension no?

I asked the question coz i didnt know..:)

Yeah just kind of makes me sick to hear that someone thinks that in return for creating 70 jobs I should be taxed even more than I am now.

But even the people carrying out the plan admit they don't know what they outcome will be!



Because i believe in a socialist state, (the western understanding of that term).

Why don't you post some opinions that can be dissected instead of throwing in the odd pointless post that makes you look like a twat.

Easy on the name-calling there, comrade - let's keep it civil.

Harsh mate, very harsh

Why don't you do that?

No one is saying we like the plan it's just that we don't have a better one...

I also think tax policy should be based on maximising revenues and things like the 50% tax rate, which raises no revenue, should be scrapped.

how do you propose maiximising revenues while forcing down growth and gdp?

I am happy to extend on my opinions, and happy for them to be disected I wont even call anyone a twat.

I own part of a company with 2 other people.

The company creates 70 jobs, and through these and the corporation tax and VAT bills we chuck a cheeky mirrion into the government pot.

They then ask me after all of that for an obscene chunk of anything I try to take myself.

I like to think that creating all that tax is a little help to them, to the point that maybe we should be let off a little bit of our own tax, but you seem to think I should be taxed even more which I find a little unfair and that's what I was interested in.

Tax me much more and I will have to go and live somewhere else!

Do you have a better plan then?

Shall we do this in rap form?

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Noone thinks that you should be taxed more because you create 70 extra jobs...we just think you should be taxed more because we like to shaft you and cus we're jealous as you live the drrrrrrrrrrrrreaaaaaaaaaam :)


Seriously though, I do agree that those better off need to pay a bit more.

MrsB and myself are fairly comfortable, I wouldn't have an issue paying 1% more in tax TBH. It wouldn't make a difference to the way we spend our money (I might buy a doughnut less when we go to NY in May but noone will go bust).
Those better off than MrsB and myself (and there are a few obv as we're very middleclass) should be taxed more than we are. Nothing massive, I don't think you should have to give up one of your 5 holidays a year (;)) but if you are paying loads of tax you probably have a pretty poor financial advisor (or you've taken a decision to not exploit every angle the govt offers you).

It's about a fair system for all; I think you should be rewarded for doing well, so you should have 5 holidays a year and go out to dinner 4 times a week. Happy days, I hope to be able to do the same one of these days and it is obv stimulating the economy. I think that's massively important.

BUT; Taxing you an extra 2% might help the govt sell taxing me an extra 1% and, let's be honest, the 1% people like myself would be paying more is the stuff that would make a difference.
Your 2% doesn't make much difference as the "well off" or "rich" (What a terrible phrase BTW) nr much fewer than the middle classes but you have to sell a tax increase to the middle classes to get the money in you actually need.


edit; Just read that back...Not having a pop at you or the life you have ATM Bopkin, hope it doesn't come across as such.

wow, are you really rich :).....and even boldie is middleclass :(
and as you did not like the banker joke, judge this one
great news for all my poker insomniac friends......only 4 more sleeps till christmas

Not sure you're right there boldie (about the middle's 1% being more than the top's 2%), apparently the top 1% of earners pay 25% of income tax:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/8321369/Top-1-of-workers-pay-quarter-of-all-income-tax.html

How much of the total income do they earn though? Otherwise the stat is meaningless

Lol at Hopkin being rich.

Do you not realise how much he spends following Boldie's tips?

I wish there was somebody else on Ace2m's side here because then it would seem like more of a debate than a gang rape.

Unfortunately as nobody agrees with him he's going to have to continue to bend over and take one for the public sector team.

No offence at all Bold one. Least thinly veiled brag thread ever obv! (I get a fair bit of tax advice ;) )

It gets my back up and I obvioulsy want to respond to statements like Ace2M's but I am more than happy to take any replies and posts from people I know in the faith they are just for debating. Anyone else's I will take in the general jestaments that is the internetz.

My question would be where do you draw the line then? You could tax me an extra 5% or maybe they were going to make it 48% previously but then they have already added an extra 2%

Would someone earning £250 a week really notice £2.50 less a week?

Yeah you're right, sorry. Shows you how long it's been since I studied anything to do with economics.

 This is where that figure comes from;


http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf


That also states;

Although less than 14% of income taxpayers face higher rates of income
tax, that group pays a very large share of the total amount of income tax
that is paid. Table 15 shows that the top 10% of income taxpayers now pay
over half of all the income tax paid, and the top 1% (most of whom face the
additional 50% marginal tax rate) pay 28% of all that is paid. These shares
have risen substantially since 1978–79, despite reductions in the higher
rates.


Screw that then, if people in my bracket already contribute to 50% + of the income tax intake that's enough.

It does show though that only the rich can be taxed more to effectively get more money in.
For the rest it's easier to just cut spending.

I think most views on   this are pretty entrenched, so "debate" has just become "I'm right" "no, I'm right" rather than a debate?

lol. i have an idea how much he spends on alcohol ;)
to most people earning £250 a week that £2.50 makes a massive difference because it means that they go over their overdraft facility by £2.49 sometime mid week and get a letter informing them of the £35 charge for doing so

I half agree so I will reiterate 1 point from the OP (fair play to ace2m btw)

"I am yet to hear a SINGLE argument which has convinced me that this is a worthwhile and justified action."

The shrewd among us just lay those tips and coin it :)

We can't tax the crap out of you obviously. You are in the position to just naff off to another country and take your business with you. But a tiny squeeze here and there, as long as it doesn't affect your business (and this is the main thing..less Tax for business more for individuals means you can pay yourself more moneeeeeeeeeeeeeys), will have a decent impact and will allow the govt to squeeze spending harder.

TBH, the main problem I have with tax increases is that they are ussually hailed as temporary...and they never reverse them which is massively dissapointing.

lolz, harsh but fair.

That was a point of mine earlier, increasing tax might not increase revenues and vice versa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve)

Or, to quote JFK:
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

Now I can't be sure that applies now but it seems, politically, discussion about whether or not we could increase revenues by cutting taxes is unpalatable.

Obv you're right, it is about finding the ideal taxation point...but does anyone really know what it is?

I imagine that enough data exists for the experts to have an educated guess... My point is more the argument over the 50p tax rate seems to ignore this entirely.

omg!

The desperation of a terrible strike hits

I hadnt heard the Jeremy Clarkson kerfuffle, but having heard what UNISON have just said - i lol'd hard

#worldgonemad

i know bongo is not a twat but i was getting annoyed with the keyboard warrior snipes. He still hasn't answered my question....


Taxing you more will motivate you to be more succesful to earn more money to cover the amount you're losing, win win? :)

It's somewhat ironic that on a forum in which people make their living through something we all agree is a skill game, yet pay no tax on their winnings, that people are advocating others paying more tax.

Hmm.

He advocated shooting everyone that went on strike.  :D

Clarkson was just doing what he always does, which is trolling, and this time he's got a major biter.

Taxing more motivates those that can do to move to places which don't tax as much

And at the level just below that it just de-motivates people to work any harder

[ ] he meant it
[ ] people who complained should be taken seriously

• people who complained should be taken out and shot [ ] literally

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100120977/jeremy-clarksons-critics-should-be-taken-out-and-shot/

[X] using boxes when they're not needed is extremely fucking tedious

how about what the strike generated for the economy being put into their pensions?

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/883416-public-sector-strike-leaves-shopping-centres-full-as-retailers-cash-in

WEEE!

I think your question was based on a faulty premise, I was talking about 2 different things really...
1) The coalition's plan (and how I don't think it's good, just I don't see any better ones).
2) How talk of taxing the rich more never takes into account things like the Laffer Curve

You still haven't answered the question of what would you do differently?

I don't know what we are meant to do, but without growth their plans are not plausable, i fear they are jsut trying to ride it out until natural growth occurs. Everything they have done has either been anti growth or inadequate, the autumn statement announcements seemed to be a few token gestures to try to keep everyone on side.

Its impossible to cut the deficit while driving up unemployment and driving down investement.

Lol I thought the strikers were wankers before, but seriously they need to get a life after this nonsense.

Also the funny thing is they keep saying how the country is supporting them, I haven't met a single person who supports them yet!

The economy is growing - so that's okay then

not at a rate that has any benefit to our problems.

Taxing poor people more and rich people less seems like a good motivator for everyone to want to be successful.

rotflmfao @ the BBC apologising. Could not agree more with James Delingpole here (Other than his last paragraph)

this may be so, but the vast majority of people do not realise that no option is palatable

a) Spend more. Ain't going to happen
b) Tax more at the top end. Again ain't going to happen. Significant deterrent to economic activity, and as a minor factor politically difficult depending on stage of the electoral cycle. Even the Blair and Brown governments shied away from "socialist" policies on tax. Just not a runner in this political economy
c) Cut the same but slower. Might happen if the current opposition gets in. but only prolongs the pain

We have a generation ahead of stagnant growth and a very painful adjustment to reversing high personal and sovereign debt levels.

If the Eurozone goes bust along the way, more widely than already, its more painful than that as well

As part of this there is a nasty confluence of factors in the pensions market too

- A big bulge of people 40-60 years old retiring 2015-25, many on old defined benefit schemes
- People living a lot longer, so the burden of greater numbers on state pensions lasts for longer

These factors only delay the reduction of the budget deficit too

So people are asked to take real terms cuts in their pensions, work longer etc etc

All this is irrespective of whether the government is Tory, Labour, coalition or whatever

Clearly the only solution is some sort of Logan's Run/Soylent Green scenario for those over 65.

I thought the answer is that they give us the public sector budget and we spin it up for them

very much this. I've been on the phone the cameron already and told him how good I'm running at roulette atm.

He says he'll be in touch to ship the first £100bn sometime this week. Hope Gala Gibraltar can cover it ;)

Sigh, Cameron is such a mug, should have given the lot to Bopkin to punt on volleyball.

prolly didn't need confirming ITT ;)

jesus h christ.

i just saw the unison head compare Clarkson to Gaddafi.

think I'm going to be a little sick in my mouth. wanker.

Yep, Unison might take legal action as they want him sacked, The BBC apologised (after knowing exactly what he would say when asked such a question) and
Labour leader Ed Miliband described his comments as "absolutely disgraceful and disgusting".

He said: "Jeremy Clarkson should apologise for those comments. He obviously does not understand the lives of the people who were going out on strike."

Obv Milliband agrees with the unions (not because the unions have always supported Labour and the only way Milliband can get elected is with massive support of the unions obviously but from an ideological stand point) and wants to encourage more strikes.

Milliband is massively irresponsible when supporting this type of strike action and is showing every day that he would be feckless as a PM, IMO.

though I'm guessing that he thinks the strikes are wrong rotflmfao;

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI

What a tool.

Soooo many lol comments on this thread, not even worth trying to argue with all the concrete thinking of the private sector masses here. The daily mail would be proud

nice bit of trolling  ;)

I have worked in the private sector all my life as well. I employ a young part-time fitness instructor called Charlotte. She is a single mum and doesn't get much support from her estranged family so life is quite a struggle. It would be easy for her to claim benefits full-time but she is determined to make something of herself. She dreams of being a personal trainer and so works 2 jobs, studies at college, manages a house and her two kids at just 20 yrs old. I am full of admiration for her and that battling attitude. On Wednesday she couldn't go to college to attend her course and couldn't come to work because of no buses. She can barely afford to miss either of these things cos exams in 2 weeks and spends every last penny of her wages. 

I don't really know why public sector workers expect sympathy from people in the private sector. When Charlotte's electricity card runs out a couple of days before pay day she will be more concerned with her own situation I imagine. I think the strike action was an insanely selfish thing to do with the whole country reeling and without public support it is a dire strategy from the unions. Charlotte doesn't have a pension just like everybody else who works in this industry. If I mentioned it to our MD he would prob laugh in my face and remind me where the exit is. Similarly if any public sector worker vacated their job in these times a thousand people would be in the queue to take it and the country would run just the same. I don't buy this good pensions are needed to attract talent either. My binman hasn't got the talent to collect my rubbish if it's in the wrong colour bin.

Picture of Charlotte please

Wow, just listening to the moaning twats on the radio about Clarkson. Seriously some some people need to shut the fuck up and get a life, I'm sick of all these PC wankers moaning about everything they don't like to hear!

I think Clarkson should sue that miserable Unison woman for comparing him to Gadaffi. That would be poetic justice :).

I think we should campaign to have her sacked for making ridiculous comparisons.

I hate Clarkson, well above his station in many regards, but to moan at his comments is silly.

I know this is going back in the thread a little bit but I don't think anyone really believes that you should pay more tax.  You are, in real terms, not rich but a small businessman that is trying to earn a living and part of that ambition includes you returning back to your community with things like job creation etc but most people are sick to death of hearing about things like Vodafone doing a deal with HMRC to reduce their tax bill from £8bn to £1.5bn or Goldman sachs being 'let off' £10m interest on an overdue tax bill.  I agree wholeheartedly that we need to look at our pension provisions and, probably, a whole load of other things that are going to hurt but we also wonder why we have to feel the pain whilst big firms and the ultra rich can get away with tax evasion and avoidance on a wholescale basis which could easily go a long way to paying off this national debt that everyone is talking about. 

So how much money is lost through tax evasion by the ultra rich then?
And how big is the deficit that needs to be plugged?

Total tax evasion is approx £15bill a year (by comparison benefit fraud on which there is A LOT of focus is estimated at £1.1bill). IRS has done really welll in clawing quite a bit of that money back though. (Approx 7bill in 2007 according to one report)

 Also bear in mind that companies like Voda are officially not classed as tax evaders...They just settle whatever megabill they have for a fraction of the value so can be classed as Tax avoidance (which cost approx £70bill a year)

http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/tax-avoidance-justice-network


Now can we STOP linking the pensions debate to this tax debate? Everyone payinga bit more tax does not make the current public pension system sustainable.

Fair point otherwise MW but deficit != debt.

According to most research £42 billion tax gap, this includes non collection, error by HMRC and avoidance/fraud.

According to PCS union £120 billion, so imagine figure is somewhere inbetween.

Obviously, not all this is "the rich" whatever that is defined at, avoiding tax.

National debt at the moment stands at £966bn.  The fact that one company by paying their bill in full can reduce that by almost 1% is a staggering figure imo but not quite as staggering as the fact that they are allowed to just write it off.  It is estimated that the strike the other day cost the economy £500m so whilst the public sector strikes got front page coverage everywhere its real cost to the economy was actually about 6% of that one single deal that Vodafone did and yet that barely managed to get on the front page of the broadsheets.

I know but "...easily go a long way to paying off this national debt..." is such a super ridiculous statement to make if you actually mean national debt that I assumed the deficit was what was meant.

I haven't seen the £42bn figure anywhere, only the £15bn that Boldie mentions - but either way I was just pointing out that the standard - stop the rich avoiding tax and all our problems will be solved argument just doesn't add up at all.

Well, they didn't want to lose their advertising revenue did they? (Obv, not saying that that was behind the desicion not to hound Voda....well, it was for one paper ....alledgedly and only according to someone senior I know at Voda) :)

How much of our national debt could the Guardian's tax dodging pay off?  ;hide;

They pay their tax....they just pay it in the Caymans...obv the Guardian is a Cayman newspaper and not a British one.

That wasn't really my point.  My point, albeit probably badly expresssed, was that every sector of society should be playing their part and I find it somewhat ironic that the Prime Minister will stand up in Parliament and condemn public sector workers for going on strike and costing the country £500m when a deal done with a single company on his watch cost 16 times as much. 

Is this not what Vodaphone would do if they were forced to pay in full, its better to have them pay something than force them out the country?

Yeah, that's pretty much the argument. It's a big problem when dealing with big business TBH. Moving one office to a tax haven is enough for them to dodge paying loads of cash. You can't blame them TBH, they are obviously mainly responsible to their share holders and noone expects them to feel a moral obligation.

I do think it's funny that the Guardian does it though..they are very keen on hammering home leftist ideas but don't want to act like it themselves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/11/ftse100-subsidiaries-tax-data

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1611272/Super-rich-paying-no-income-tax.html

(I think I read something, somewhere, probably on the internet, so it must be true, that Dyson was the only Brit from the Top 100 Rich list that pays income tax to the government)

GMG not listed in that article?

Not listed on the spreadsheet.

No surprise really that the article doesn't even include a footnote to say "BTW, our parent company is no better than the big ones we are just having a pop at here"

Just completed my tax return.  Doubt that's going to make any significant dent in anything though, other than my bank account.

You should get Bopkin's guy to have a look at it that way you too can have a nice flash holiday in the next couple of weeks.

*sits back and waits for Boshi's Cape Verde brag*

;)

Read an interesting article in the Sunday Times a month or so back.

It listed FTSE 100 companies where the CEO's salary was higher than their company's corporation tax bill. Very surprised by the number on the list.

I hate the moral turpitude at the top of business as much as I do the entitlement culture of, just for example, the public sector.

In the end I think we all just go along with things, cause we're all pretty rich by global standards. And TBF, the better offness of a FTSE CEO on millions a year versus me is a tiny gap compared with the better offness of me versus a rural 3rd worlder and I'm not whinging about that too much.
 

v solid point imo. it's all relative, yo.

Private Sector is this big:
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Private sector employees who get big bonuses and share issues: <---->

I know plenty of people who have got 'company' cars with their job - ones that worked in the public as well as the private sector


Apparently there used to be a time when the terms and conditions were generally worse in the public sector - but it's not been during my working life



It's not that anybody doesn't think it's bad that the pensions will be downgraded - it would be great if everybody in the public sector had a brilliant pension just like it'd be great if the state pension kept everyone in the same style they had when they were working.

But it's not possible.

It's already been mentioned on this thread - nearly all the good private pension deals were done away with 2 or 3 years ago; when the companies did that they said - "look at your terms and conditions, they say we can do this" - it still comes back to the same identical principle, this is just the public sector catching up.

Also, your illustration of the public sector being represented by:

and the private sector being represented by:

doesn't exactly scream 'objectivity' :)

I'm sorry, whilst I agree with lotttts of what you posted (although don't support the strikes because I think they aren't an effective form of protest), I have to flick it in and call here.

The benefit system in Germany is incredibly, incredibly generous, and it's an oft misquoted myth that you don't get benefits. Whilst true that you don't get unemployment benefit after a certain period of time, this is only after (varies depending on a lot of factors eg marital status, if you have a car, etc etc) at least 6 months where they've been paid at least half (and often much, much more, up to 80% iirc) of their previous salary and turned down multiple job offers. Unemployement benefit is then replaced by a variety of other benefits which make sure you have a roof, basic living items (e.g. if your washing machine breaks they will replace it, etc) and can buy food (although this varies by state on how it's administered). This is all part of the Hartz-IV legislation where they asked the former Director of HR at Volkswagen to resolve unemployment benefits. As the IV tells you, he had attempts I, II and III already, and the IVth incarnation isn't really widely supported by business (who pay for a lot of it), it has stuck.

There's a famous (well, in Germany, lol) case from Bavaria where a guy turned down lots of jobs and was on his last chance, but had a nice car, 4 contract mobile phones and a variety of other benefits and the Bild newspaper (like the Sun, with some Daily Mail tendancies) went mental about it and elicited a response from the CSU (like the Tories, but only in Bavaria) head for work. He snap offered the guy a job as a researcher in his office, but he turned it down. He lost his benefit but reclaimed it all in other benefits. Cue absolute life tilt from the Bild.

Ofc I agree that benefit and social welfare reform is really important, but to follow the German system would be a mistake.

If I was able to retire in a couple of years and I am abruptly in danger of losing my gold plated pension, I'd be on strike too. Ultimately, we're talking about individuals coming to the end of their working lives and wanting to defend their quite lucrative retirement.

On a personal level, do I blame them? Not in the slightest.

Sure, it's not in the interest of the nation. I don't think I'd be particularly bothered were I about to retire, though. I've worked for you for 20 years. You offered me x. I expect x to be honoured. The feasibility of what is offered doesn't bother the individual. Sure, it's selfish. You can pin that on most folks.

The NHS Pension Scheme is unfunded. As is the Teachers' Pension Scheme, and the Civil Service, and the Armed Forces, and the Police, and the Firefighters.

They are all paid for out of general taxation, not an underlying investment fund.

Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10912958

C/P from http://boards.fool.co.uk/there-is-no-such-thing-as-public-money-12421693.aspx?sort=whole#12422517

Bit irrelevant because even under the reforms proposed under Hutton they will remain "unfunded". Though try telling those staff facing a increase of employee contributions that they are not "funding" something (deficit reduction?)

Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions. 

Accrued benefits ie both your examples are not affected by the proposed changes.

The changes supposedly won't affect anyone who is due to retire in the next TEN years.

I find the argument that some unionistas are making about funding deficit reduction is ludicrous. Money is fungible. It doesn't matter whether it goes into a ringfenced pension fund or just goes into central gov bank account - if you end up with the same thing at the end of the day, what's the difference? You want to actually see your money directly fund your pension? Opt out of the government scheme and pay your contributions into a private pension instead. Be interesting to show them what they'd get for their money in that case and start complaining about how "fair" that is.

I pay about 10% of my gross into a private pension. My employer contributes basically bugger all (about 1%, the equiv of the employers NI they save). I'll no doubt end up with a much worse % of final salary as a public sector employee would. I pay large wads of tax (42% on a proportion of my earnings, 32% on most of the rest once you add NI, plus large lumps of VAT, fuel duty, road tax, insurance tax, council tax, etc etc). A decent lump of that goes straight into funding public sector pensions; why should I pay for my pension and theirs as well?

This was all way overdue for reform anyway - the retirement age has not changed in line with life expectation. It's not sustainable to go from an average retirement length of 7 years to 14 years without changing pension funding.

They should all be taken out and shot.

"Money is fungible" - What an awesome word :)

"42% on a proportion of my earnings" - No attempt at veiling whatsoever. I like it!

"They should all be taken out and shot" - True dat.

I love that they think they contribute to their pensions in the PS - essentially, I pay for that as well

Notice that no public sector workers have mentioned Hutton's comments over the weekend that the government's proposed changes are fair.