Should UK income tax be higher - discuss
Discussion
Scuffers said:
mph1977 said:
another wonderful fallacious set of PH powerfully built arguements
1. time at work = productivity rather productivity = productivity
2. there is only one set of acceptable working hours and that's what the pHer decides it is , conveniently forgetting it is possible to work in an office and start work at 0700-0730 .....
sorry to burst your bubble, but I can tell you for a fact, whilst there are a few real workers, the vast majority I have dealt with are the worlds best clock watchers ever.1. time at work = productivity rather productivity = productivity
2. there is only one set of acceptable working hours and that's what the pHer decides it is , conveniently forgetting it is possible to work in an office and start work at 0700-0730 .....
sorry but most people in the public sector wouldn't last 5 minutes in a small or medium business that required some mental or physical exertion not to say there isn't some really great people too but they get knocked down if they make much effort !!!Edited by powerstroke on Saturday 6th September 19:58
Russ T Bolt said:
But they aren't and haven't been since 2007 across the Civil Service
The pensions my friends get in the Civil Service are pitiful compared to the pension I had in the private sector.
What are the current terms of those pensions...? "pitiful', really?? The pensions my friends get in the Civil Service are pitiful compared to the pension I had in the private sector.
Russ T Bolt said:
For info final salary accruing at 1/40 ths
Edited to add, on a salary at least 3 times what a Civil Servant would earn for the same job. (In IT if that helps)
1. Which private sector company is still offering a 1/40ths final salary scheme?Edited to add, on a salary at least 3 times what a Civil Servant would earn for the same job. (In IT if that helps)
2. What were the employee contributions
3. What is the overall cost to the employer??
4. How much was the state subsidising that pension?
5. What is the relevance of one (private sector) extreme outlier to the huge cost and unaffordability of public sector pensions??
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 6th September 20:09
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 6th September 20:14
sidicks said:
1. Which company is still offering a 1/40ths final salary scheme?
2. What were the employee contributions?
3. How much was the state subsidising that pension?
4. What is the relevance of one (private sector) extreme outlier to the huge cost and unaffordability of public sector pensions??
I don't know, but I can find out.2. What were the employee contributions?
3. How much was the state subsidising that pension?
4. What is the relevance of one (private sector) extreme outlier to the huge cost and unaffordability of public sector pensions??
The one I left some years ago, if you are in the pensions business I'm surprised you don't know.
For info My Nephew (who is 24) has just joined a US owned company and is now on a very good final salary scheme.
I contributed 5%
Not relevant
I doubt it was subsidised at all.
The relevance is to show a balanced view that public sector is not always better than private sector.
I spent my career in the private sector, my wife in the Civil Service. She received no benefits whatsoever, whilst I rocked around in pretty much whatever car I wanted (company funded), stayed in 5 star hotels when away for business and a load of other things. E.g. Better medical cover, sick leave and in every case pension.
mph1977 said:
Public sector services are funded by the tax take, but not in practice ,in the simplistic way beloved of the 'I pay your wages' powerfully built borderline sociopath all too common on PH or the Daily Mail Reader ... .
Can you explain exactly what you mean by this? Do you not agree that all public sector services and salaries are paid from tax take and/or borrowing? If you could try and avoid the emotive "powerfully" stuff too, as it doesn't seem to be adding meaning to your stance.mph1977 reinforcing the stereotype of the featherbedded council employee. Listen f
k face and listen well, as numerous people have tried to tell you, there is no 'surplus' there is no 'fund', a final salary pension is not a pension it is a guarantee of a future standard of living, a bribe if you will. The covenant was that you were paid lower wages in return for a guaranteed pension and early retirement. Brown fked that by increasing pay as well.
k face and listen well, as numerous people have tried to tell you, there is no 'surplus' there is no 'fund', a final salary pension is not a pension it is a guarantee of a future standard of living, a bribe if you will. The covenant was that you were paid lower wages in return for a guaranteed pension and early retirement. Brown fked that by increasing pay as well. Russ T Bolt said:
I don't know, but I can find out.
The one I left some years ago, if you are in the pensions business I'm surprised you don't know.
For info My Nephew (who is 24) has just joined a US owned company and is now on a very good final salary scheme.
Because a pre-requisite of being in "the pensions business" is knowing the terms of all private sector pension schemes...The one I left some years ago, if you are in the pensions business I'm surprised you don't know.
For info My Nephew (who is 24) has just joined a US owned company and is now on a very good final salary scheme.
Russ T Bolt said:
I contributed 5%
Russ T Bolt said:
Not relevant
Entirely relevant as it emphasizes the massive costs of these schemes!Russ T Bolt said:
I doubt it was subsidised at all.
Exactly, no taxpayer subsidy required, so a company can provide whatever it likes to their employees. The public sector is entirely different, given the need for the taxpayer to fund those benefits.Russ T Bolt said:
The relevance is to show a balanced view that public sector is not always better than private sector.
Finding one extreme example, totally unrepresentative of the private sector in general, is somewhat meaningless.Russ T Bolt said:
I spent my career in the private sector, my wife in the Civil Service. She received no benefits whatsoever,
Why didn't she receive a pension?Russ T Bolt said:
whilst I rocked around in pretty much whatever car I wanted (company funded), stayed in 5 star hotels when away for business and a load of other things. E.g. Better medical cover, sick leave and in every case pension.
So what? It's entirely irrelevant to the size of the taxpayer subsidy for public sector pensions.bradders said:
mph1977 said:
Public sector services are funded by the tax take, but not in practice ,in the simplistic way beloved of the 'I pay your wages' powerfully built borderline sociopath all too common on PH or the Daily Mail Reader ... .
Can you explain exactly what you mean by this? Do you not agree that all public sector services and salaries are paid from tax take and/or borrowing? If you could try and avoid the emotive "powerfully" stuff too, as it doesn't seem to be adding meaning to your stance.There is a money tree which those nasty Tories are
Keeping for themselves and their greedy banker friends in the city!! And Public sector workers pay taxes so their jobs are self financing!!!
sidicks said:
So what? It's entirely irrelevant to the size of the taxpayer subsidy for public sector pensions.
I can't be bothered with answering each point. She received a pension, lesser than mine by some margin (in every job I had). But that was it. I received many more as well IN EACH job I had, so not an extreme case.Perhaps you just deal with companies who employ knuckle draggers. In the IT world benefits tend to be very good (as they are in many others like investment banking).
I love these threads. It would be hilarious if the government shut down all public services. Those on here moaning about what public sector workers receive by way of benefits ( which I have demonstrated from personal experience are minimal) would be the first to shout when the streets are awash with drugs, bins aren't emptied, no one helps when your house catches fire and most importantly when massive immigration means you no longer have a job because someone is happy to do your job for third of what you earn.
Russ T Bolt said:
I love these threads. It would be hilarious if the government shut down all public services. Those on here moaning about what public sector workers receive by way of benefits ( which I have demonstrated from personal experience are minimal) would be the first to shout when the streets are awash with drugs, bins aren't emptied, no one helps when your house catches fire and most importantly when massive immigration means you no longer have a job because someone is happy to do your job for third of what you earn.
Well this right wing nut wouldn't. Quite capable of burying or burning my rubbish and not setting fire to my house, and there are people all over the world doing my job already so that wouldn't make any difference. I might still moan about drugs and crime but I doubt I'd be the first in line. The burst cushion looking woman from the Jobcentre who has been on the sick for 8 months would be there way ahead of me. The Department of Culture and Sport would be out in force and then there's the endless stream of students, lecturers and fellow travellers who have been protesting "the cuts" since 2010.
Edited by AJS- on Saturday 6th September 20:47
Russ T Bolt said:
Perhaps you just deal with companies who employ knuckle draggers. In the IT world benefits tend to be very good (as they are in many others like investment banking).
We are talking about pensions. And pensions in IBs are of the DC variety with low employer contributions. Minimal compared to a DB final salary scheme, as found in the public sector.Russ T Bolt said:
I love these threads. It would be hilarious if the government shut down all public services.
No-one is suggesting such a thing.Russ T Bolt said:
Those on here moaning about what public sector workers receive by way of benefits ( which I have demonstrated from personal experience are minimal)
You've demonstrated no such thing, and the fact that you think you have is worrying in itself.Most people would argue that a 25% + taxpayer subsidy is NOT minimal!
bradders said:
mph1977 said:
Public sector services are funded by the tax take, but not in practice ,in the simplistic way beloved of the 'I pay your wages' powerfully built borderline sociopath all too common on PH or the Daily Mail Reader ... .
Can you explain exactly what you mean by this? Do you not agree that all public sector services and salaries are paid from tax take and/or borrowing? If you could try and avoid the emotive "powerfully" stuff too, as it doesn't seem to be adding meaning to your stance.There is a perception among some people that they 'pay the wages' of the public sector because they pay tax ...
In that case the public sector 'pay their own wages' becasue they pay tax and NI just the same as other people .
becasue something is owned by or a service commissioned by the state it doesn't mean that the amount of tax you pay determines the amount of type of service you recieve.
for all sidicks wails of misinformation from people who know / work in the public sector the anti public sector factor are spreading misinformation - such as implying that all Public sector employees can retire early on a generous pension , when the reality is that for most public sector workers they may never reach the dizzy heights of their pension being fully paid up before their statutory pension age ( e.g. 40 years full tiem service for the NHS - which given that many NHS professional and support roles are female dominated with the associated career breaks that come with motherhood - meaning that the full pension may be achieved only by working beyond the state pension age ...
sidicks said:
You've demonstrated no such thing, and the fact that you think you have is worrying in itself.
Most people would argue that a 25% + taxpayer subsidy is NOT minimal!
I have given you enough detail to work out the differences. If you want some specifics.Most people would argue that a 25% + taxpayer subsidy is NOT minimal!
My 6 years at the employer I mentioned gave me a pension of around £16k. My wife's 37 years in the Civil Service gave her around £12k. Add in my other pensions and I am in the position that I don't actually care what you think.
mph1977 said:
There is a perception among some people that they 'pay the wages' of the public sector because they pay tax ...
Perhaps you can explain where the money comes from...mph1977 said:
In that case the public sector 'pay their own wages' becasue they pay tax and NI just the same as other people .
I take it back, you really ARE that stupid!
mph1977 said:
for all sidicks wails of misinformation from people who know / work in the public sector the anti public sector factor are spreading misinformation - such as implying that all Public sector employees can retire early on a generous pension , when the reality is that for most public sector workers they may never reach the dizzy heights of their pension being fully paid up before their statutory pension age ( e.g. 40 years full tiem service for the NHS - which given that many NHS professional and support roles are female dominated with the associated career breaks that come with motherhood - meaning that the full pension may be achieved only by working beyond the state pension age ...
Point missed for the hundred time.Public sector workers take out multiples of what they put into their pension pots. That's the point. It doesn't matter whether they work for 5 years or 40 years, that's undeniable.
This excess has to come from the private sector (taxpayer). That huge subsidy is unaffordable and unsustainable.
Russ T Bolt said:
I have given you enough detail to work out the differences. If you want some specifics.
My 6 years at the employer I mentioned gave me a pension of around £16k. My wife's 37 years in the Civil Service gave her around £12k. Add in my other pensions and I am in the position that I don't actually care what you think.
Irrelevant without knowing the contributions paid in. Why can't you understand this basic issue?My 6 years at the employer I mentioned gave me a pension of around £16k. My wife's 37 years in the Civil Service gave her around £12k. Add in my other pensions and I am in the position that I don't actually care what you think.
Russ T Bolt said:
I have given you enough detail to work out the differences. If you want some specifics.
My 6 years at the employer I mentioned gave me a pension of around £16k. My wife's 37 years in the Civil Service gave her around £12k. Add in my other pensions and I am in the position that I don't actually care what you think.
My dad did 35 years in private sector and 9 in public. Gets far more from his public sector job pension than his private.My 6 years at the employer I mentioned gave me a pension of around £16k. My wife's 37 years in the Civil Service gave her around £12k. Add in my other pensions and I am in the position that I don't actually care what you think.
Just another anecdote.
powerstroke said:
The most amusing test is when these 3rd raters take reduncy and start a business !!! Its priceless and how fast they bump their ass..
Had a couple of education high flyers do this opposite us this past year. Didn't last the year. Rent free for the first 6 months, landlord ended up changing the locks on them. Published accounts show 130K owing to directors (in a year!).Apparently this was because of "tax". They would have made it apart from the "evil trinity" of tax they had to suffer.
They funded their little ego trip using their public sector, very generous, pensions. <insert your own comment about irony here>
Again, just another anecdote.
AJS- said:
Russ T Bolt said:
I love these threads. It would be hilarious if the government shut down all public services. Those on here moaning about what public sector workers receive by way of benefits ( which I have demonstrated from personal experience are minimal) would be the first to shout when the streets are awash with drugs, bins aren't emptied, no one helps when your house catches fire and most importantly when massive immigration means you no longer have a job because someone is happy to do your job for third of what you earn.
Well this right wing nut wouldn't. Quite capable of burying or burning my rubbish and not setting fire to my house, and there are people all over the world doing my job already so that wouldn't make any difference. I might still moan about drugs and crime but I doubt I'd be the first in line. The burst cushion looking woman from the Jobcentre who has been on the sick for 8 months would be there way ahead of me. The Department of Culture and Sport would be out in force and then there's the endless stream of students, lecturers and fellow travellers who have been protesting "the cuts" since 2010.
Edited by AJS- on Saturday 6th September 20:47
ETA I'd like taxes to be lower and Govt to be more efficient. However I fear that a Large Efficient organisation is an oxymoron, regardless of sector.
Edited by Countdown on Saturday 6th September 21:32
RYH64E said:
REALIST123 said:
RYH64E said:
Qwert1e said:
UK taxes are already massive.
Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
Completely agree, spending less is the answer. Taxes are too high as it is.Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
We're a nation of only 60M, in a tiny island. Yet we have 4 national parliaments/assemblies, layer on layer of local and regional government and on top of it all the debacle that is the EU.
It is patently ridiculous to think that there are not massive opportunities to save many billions from our budgets. No need at all for tax increases.
sidicks said:
Irrelevant without knowing the contributions paid in. Why can't you understand this basic issue?
I do understand, seemingly better than you.It is very simple, for years public sector salaries( like for like) have been below private sector. The employers have chosen instead to offer recompense by way of pensions. The alternative was to pay market rates, that money would have gone already.
A Civil Service IT Programme Manager would be on a salary of £50k or so in Central London. Get yourself on jobserve and see what the equivalent private sector salary is.
Countdown said:
Third world countries are an excellent example of living conditions in low tax regimes and how individuals thrive without the burdens imposed by bureaucratic officialdom.
Article dated 02 Sept which must have been quoted in this thread by now said:
In this country also, plenty of people will argue that we should be willing to pay a bit more to the Government so that better public services can make us better off. The trouble is, it is not true.
A recent study by the Institut Molinari in Brussels took total EU tax rates and compared them with the quality of life indexes calculated by the OECD and the United Nations. And what did it find? That, in fact, there is no link between taxes and a good society. Some of the highest-taxed nations score relatively poorly on all the available measures for how people feel, while their lower taxed neighbours score much higher. Europe’s high taxes are not delivering on their promises.
Forget the third world diversion. For examples of low income tax regimes consider Guernsey, Cayman Islands and the Bahamas rather than the Balhamas. Monaco too but with a twist.A recent study by the Institut Molinari in Brussels took total EU tax rates and compared them with the quality of life indexes calculated by the OECD and the United Nations. And what did it find? That, in fact, there is no link between taxes and a good society. Some of the highest-taxed nations score relatively poorly on all the available measures for how people feel, while their lower taxed neighbours score much higher. Europe’s high taxes are not delivering on their promises.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff