Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Yes, but perhaps not direct taxation of people. Lots of other possibilities exist. Try opening up your narrow mindset.
Such as?It seems you favour taking funding away from some of the poorest people / countries in the world (foreign aid) and use it to fund excessive pensions for public sector workers.
Perhaps you aren’t as morally superior as you like to portray!!
Better than private sector pensions, again ordinary workers. Again you can easily find examples of overly generous pensions. But private sector workers have a choice or had a choice, the PSS work was and still is available to those who want better benefits in terms of pension provision.
Morally superior to you, but that’s such a low bar so no bragging rights there
Why do you suggest that I am in favour of ‘taking money’ away from the poorest people?
Certainly foriegn aid I see as a waste, I say this on the basis of reported fraud and waste of our money gifted. Unless we have much closer control we will continue to fund drug barons, that is not charity, it is madness. Charity begins at home, we give money to India and yet they have enough cash to fund thier own space program, and yet are content to cast thier eyes away from thier own people living in filth. Much could be said regarding foriegn aid, I would rather help our own people first, those dying on our streets for example.
The taxation possibilities are so wide and available for scrutiny it is pointless to suggest specific areas.
crankedup said:
Excessive!!!! you are not serious? Sure you will find some examples of overly generous, in today’s modified financial climate, but for the vast majority of ordinary workers that is simply ridiculous to say PS pensions are excessive.
For the amount paid in the returns are excessive, to the extent that they are unaffordable. It is not realistic for someone to contribute 8-10% of salary for 40 years & then expect to receive 65% of salary for 30 years in retirement. It's equally unreasonable to expect those not in receipt of such generous terms to have to pay for it to the detriment of their own retirement planning.
Most of the country has woken up to this concept- it's time for you to get with the program too.
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
Excessive!!!! you are not serious? Sure you will find some examples of overly generous, in today’s modified financial climate, but for the vast majority of ordinary workers that is simply ridiculous to say PS pensions are excessive.
For the amount paid in the returns are excessive, to the extent that they are unaffordable. It is not realistic for someone to contribute 8-10% of salary for 40 years & then expect to receive 65% of salary for 30 years in retirement. It's equally unreasonable to expect those not in receipt of such generous terms to have to pay for it to the detriment of their own retirement planning.
Most of the country has woken up to this concept- it's time for you to get with the program too.
Not all retire and live for another 30years, how many I don’t know, butvthe a enrage death age of a man is currently 83 years. So if they retire at 65 years age obviously that’s not 30years
why is everybody so keen to race to the bottom, work to get to the top
The choice is available to those who want to work in e PPS, if they don’t want to then they shouldn’t carp over the PPS.imo
When you say most of the Country has woken up, whatever that means, why is it that Corbyn is gaining traction in the political World.
We live in a Country that provides good public services, these have to be paid for along with the workers who fulfil the work.
No way will I back the race to he bottom.
The Country has plenty of wealth, it’s the distribution that’s wrong, wanting workers to get poorer is morally bankrupt imo. That’s all workers BTW
Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 27th February 11:10
crankedup said:
I thought that the employers contributed into PSS pension schemes?
Who do you think the employer is?crankedup said:
Not all retire and live for another 30years, how many I don’t know, butvthe a enrage death age of a man is currently 83 years. So if they retire at 65 years age obviously that’s not 30years
1. Some live much longer than 30 years2. Some schemes have retirement ages at 60 or earlier
3. Average age at death (minus 65) is not the same as expected future lifetime at age 65
4. Longevity contributes to improve
crankedup said:
why is everybody so keen to race to the bottom, work to get to the top
There it is, the bulls
t bingo “race to the bottom argument”!!crankedup said:
The choice is available to those who want to work in e PPS, if they don’t want to then they shouldn’t carp over the PPS.imo
When you say most of the Country has woken up, whatever that means, why is it that Corbyn is gaining traction in the political World.
We live in a Country that provides good public services, these have to be paid for along with the workers who fulfil the work.
No way will I back the race to he bottom.
The Country has plenty of wealth, it’s the distribution that’s wrong, wanting workers to get poorer is morally bankrupt imo. [b{That’s all workers BTW[/b]
Repeated for extra emphasis!!When you say most of the Country has woken up, whatever that means, why is it that Corbyn is gaining traction in the political World.
We live in a Country that provides good public services, these have to be paid for along with the workers who fulfil the work.
No way will I back the race to he bottom.
The Country has plenty of wealth, it’s the distribution that’s wrong, wanting workers to get poorer is morally bankrupt imo. [b{That’s all workers BTW[/b]
Where do you think the money comes from?
crankedup said:
Five year old news, silly old me thinking the past is no guide to future performance. I’m more interested in news not history! especially when money is involved.
WTF?You miss the point, discussions about infrastructure have going on for years, this is just the latest in a series of consultations. Not that you’d be expected to know that.
crankedup said:
You don’t have any clients investing into infrastructure! go on surprise me 
You expect me to give away confidential client information?crankedup said:
I thought that the employers contributed into PSS pension schemes?
The employer of those in the public sector is the taxpayer. Where else could the money come from?crankedup said:
Not all retire and live for another 30years, how many I don’t know, butvthe a enrage death age of a man is currently 83 years. So if they retire at 65 years age obviously that’s not 30years
Many have retired at 52 due to the 'rule of 85'- that gives 31 years to age 83. Also women live a little longer on average. crankedup said:
why is everybody so keen to race to the bottom, work to get to the top
I continually hear about 'race to the bottom'- it's a meaningless phrase used by unions in place of 'acceptance of economic reality'. As for 'work to get to the top', where exactly does the money come from to cover it? It would be nice for everyone to have everything but that isn't realistic.crankedup said:
The choice is available to those who want to work in e PPS, if they don’t want to then they shouldn’t carp over the PPS.imo
When too many people are drawing too much out the solution is not to have more people doing so.crankedup said:
When you say most of the Country has woken up, whatever that means, why is it that Corbyn is gaining traction in the political World.
Because many are stupid & gullible & he is offering them free stuff without any idea of how it can be paid for.crankedup said:
We live in a Country that provides good public services, these have to be paid for along with the workers who fulfil the work.
The current system is unsustainable and cannot go on as it is. We spend more than we bring in therefore we need to curtail our spending.crankedup said:
No way will I back the race to he bottom.
Ignoring the amusing typo, do you mean that you refuse to see that we can't afford to do what we're doing? It's not a 'race to the bottom' it's cutting back unaffordable excess.crankedup said:
The Country has plenty of wealth, it’s the distribution that’s wrong, wanting workers to get poorer is morally bankrupt imo. That’s all workers BTW
I don't want workers to get poorer, I'd want everyone to be rich. However, that's fairlyland Utopian dreaming. Also I don't see heavily taxing the population so as to fund the pensions of part of that population as a good way of distributing some of the wealth.crankedup said:
Excessive!!!! you are not serious? Sure you will find some examples of overly generous, in today’s modified financial climate, but for the vast majority of ordinary workers that is simply ridiculous to say PS pensions are excessive.
You ‘do the math’...crankedup said:
Better than private sector pensions, again ordinary workers. Again you can easily find examples of overly generous pensions. But private sector workers have a choice or had a choice, the PSS work was and still is available to those who want better benefits in terms of pension provision.
crankedup said:
Morally superior to you, but that’s such a low bar so no bragging rights there
I’m sure you’d like to pretend that is the case. But it’s not about fine words on Internet forum, it’s about doing real stuff in the real world. HTHcrankedup said:
Why do you suggest that I am in favour of ‘taking money’ away from the poorest people?
Certainly foriegn aid I see as a waste, I say this on the basis of reported fraud and waste of our money gifted. Unless we have much closer control we will continue to fund drug barons, that is not charity, it is madness. Charity begins at home, we give money to India and yet they have enough cash to fund thier own space program, and yet are content to cast thier eyes away from thier own people living in filth. Much could be said regarding foriegn aid, I would rather help our own people first, those dying on our streets for example.
If only we weren’t paying over £30bn p.a. On public sector pensions, maybe we could do more...,Certainly foriegn aid I see as a waste, I say this on the basis of reported fraud and waste of our money gifted. Unless we have much closer control we will continue to fund drug barons, that is not charity, it is madness. Charity begins at home, we give money to India and yet they have enough cash to fund thier own space program, and yet are content to cast thier eyes away from thier own people living in filth. Much could be said regarding foriegn aid, I would rather help our own people first, those dying on our streets for example.
crankedup said:
The taxation possibilities are so wide and available for scrutiny it is pointless to suggest specific areas.
Sounds pretty vague. I wonder why this massive untapped potential for tax has never been used before. I’m sure there will be no adverse impacts either...i did some sums for the benefit of a fb exchange with a momentumy type i know socially. it was actually extremely sobering...
“Let’s say there were relatively modest increases in Corp tax and income taxes - Let’s say income tax from 45% to 60%, combined ni from 25% to 30% and Corp tax from 21% to 25% let’s give you an example....keep up at the back!!!
If a businessman worked their asses off to get another £3333.33 +vat turnover a week in a decently profitable business where they netted 15% that’d leave £500 to play with.
Corp tax £125
Income tax £225
Ni £112.5
That’d leave the director with £37.50 in their pocket.... and HMRC with £462.5 with vat.... TWELVE TIMES AS MUCH
God forbid they manage to accrue any residual wealth, when they have the temerity to die, hmrc will want another 40% of whatever’s left...
And you think that’s fair?????
Me..... I wouldn’t bother, would you?
There comes a time when you’ve got to run a calculator over the socialist wet dream and apply some harsh realities. “
“Let’s say there were relatively modest increases in Corp tax and income taxes - Let’s say income tax from 45% to 60%, combined ni from 25% to 30% and Corp tax from 21% to 25% let’s give you an example....keep up at the back!!!
If a businessman worked their asses off to get another £3333.33 +vat turnover a week in a decently profitable business where they netted 15% that’d leave £500 to play with.
Corp tax £125
Income tax £225
Ni £112.5
That’d leave the director with £37.50 in their pocket.... and HMRC with £462.5 with vat.... TWELVE TIMES AS MUCH
God forbid they manage to accrue any residual wealth, when they have the temerity to die, hmrc will want another 40% of whatever’s left...
And you think that’s fair?????
Me..... I wouldn’t bother, would you?
There comes a time when you’ve got to run a calculator over the socialist wet dream and apply some harsh realities. “
Rovinghawk said:
sidicks said:
Sounds pretty vague. I wonder why this massive untapped potential for tax has never been used before. I’m sure there will be no adverse impacts either...
Do you know nothing?????Tax 'the rich', ideally until the pips squeak. I'm amazed you aren't aware of the concept.
Greg_D said:
i did some sums for the benefit of a fb exchange with a momentumy type i know socially. it was actually extremely sobering...
“Let’s say there were relatively modest increases in Corp tax and income taxes - Let’s say income tax from 45% to 60%, combined ni from 25% to 30% and Corp tax from 21% to 25% let’s give you an example....keep up at the back!!!
If a businessman worked their asses off to get another £3333.33 +vat turnover a week in a decently profitable business where they netted 15% that’d leave £500 to play with.
Corp tax £125
Income tax £225
Ni £112.5
That’d leave the director with £37.50 in their pocket.... and HMRC with £462.5 with vat.... TWELVE TIMES AS MUCH
Income tax & corp tax both applied to the same £500? (Also 60% of £500 is £300 not £225, 30% NI is £150.)“Let’s say there were relatively modest increases in Corp tax and income taxes - Let’s say income tax from 45% to 60%, combined ni from 25% to 30% and Corp tax from 21% to 25% let’s give you an example....keep up at the back!!!
If a businessman worked their asses off to get another £3333.33 +vat turnover a week in a decently profitable business where they netted 15% that’d leave £500 to play with.
Corp tax £125
Income tax £225
Ni £112.5
That’d leave the director with £37.50 in their pocket.... and HMRC with £462.5 with vat.... TWELVE TIMES AS MUCH
Your example needs the maths reworked.
Make the most of it chaps, Corbyn is on his way. I really can’t be bothered to reply to the onslaught of usual questions from usual suspects, I have made my stance clear enough and you disagree. Nothing more to add other than this :
No I don’t like that idea of a Corbyn Government either but it is a result of the unequal wealth distribution resulting from a very poor Government Policies over the past 30years. Brown tax grab on the pensions being the most damaging to a tune of 200 billion + Meanwhile I shall continue to enjoy my early retirement from her at race.
No I don’t like that idea of a Corbyn Government either but it is a result of the unequal wealth distribution resulting from a very poor Government Policies over the past 30years. Brown tax grab on the pensions being the most damaging to a tune of 200 billion + Meanwhile I shall continue to enjoy my early retirement from her at race.
crankedup said:
Make the most of it chaps, Corbyn is on his way. I really can’t be bothered to reply to the onslaught of usual questions from usual suspects, I have made my stance clear enough and you disagree. Nothing more to add other than this :
No I don’t like that idea of a Corbyn Government either but it is a result of the unequal wealth distribution resulting from a very poor Government Policies over the past 30years. Brown tax grab on the pensions being the most damaging to a tune of 200 billion + Meanwhile I shall continue to enjoy my early retirement from her at race.
No wonder you are happy supporting policies which you won’t be paying for!! Not sure there is much ‘morality’ in that!No I don’t like that idea of a Corbyn Government either but it is a result of the unequal wealth distribution resulting from a very poor Government Policies over the past 30years. Brown tax grab on the pensions being the most damaging to a tune of 200 billion + Meanwhile I shall continue to enjoy my early retirement from her at race.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Make the most of it chaps, Corbyn is on his way. I really can’t be bothered to reply to the onslaught of usual questions from usual suspects, I have made my stance clear enough and you disagree. Nothing more to add other than this :
No I don’t like that idea of a Corbyn Government either but it is a result of the unequal wealth distribution resulting from a very poor Government Policies over the past 30years. Brown tax grab on the pensions being the most damaging to a tune of 200 billion + Meanwhile I shall continue to enjoy my early retirement from her at race.
No wonder you are happy supporting policies which you won’t be paying for!! Not sure there is much ‘morality’ in that!No I don’t like that idea of a Corbyn Government either but it is a result of the unequal wealth distribution resulting from a very poor Government Policies over the past 30years. Brown tax grab on the pensions being the most damaging to a tune of 200 billion + Meanwhile I shall continue to enjoy my early retirement from her at race.
"everything"
when do we want it
"now"
who's going to pay for it
"someone else"
i have no words
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Make the most of it chaps, Corbyn is on his way. I really can’t be bothered to reply to the onslaught of usual questions from usual suspects, I have made my stance clear enough and you disagree. Nothing more to add other than this :
No I don’t like that idea of a Corbyn Government either but it is a result of the unequal wealth distribution resulting from a very poor Government Policies over the past 30years. Brown tax grab on the pensions being the most damaging to a tune of 200 billion + Meanwhile I shall continue to enjoy my early retirement from her at race.
No wonder you are happy supporting policies which you won’t be paying for!! Not sure there is much ‘morality’ in that!No I don’t like that idea of a Corbyn Government either but it is a result of the unequal wealth distribution resulting from a very poor Government Policies over the past 30years. Brown tax grab on the pensions being the most damaging to a tune of 200 billion + Meanwhile I shall continue to enjoy my early retirement from her at race.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Five year old news, silly old me thinking the past is no guide to future performance. I’m more interested in news not history! especially when money is involved.
WTF?You miss the point, discussions about infrastructure have going on for years, this is just the latest in a series of consultations. Not that you’d be expected to know that.
crankedup said:
You don’t have any clients investing into infrastructure! go on surprise me
You expect me to give away confidential client information?Then why raise the issue in the first place about ‘your clients ‘ very odd!
crankedup said:
I raised the point about infrastructure investments, it’s just moved on since your link you posted was five years old.
Lots of ongoing changes, the latest consultation is just an extension of what has gone before.But let’s not forget the key point / it has nothing to do with ‘DB pension assets lying around earning very little’!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff