Nurses, Rail Staff and Now Driving Examiners

[anonymous-user]

JagLover said:

The state pension is set at such a low level that it can cover only basic living costs excluding housing so the fact that pensioners will not have a mortgage is rather the point.

You may rather the money went to Nurses but I suspect you are in a rather small minority based on polling.

Yes you are probably right, people are prepared to offer moral support to nurses (clapping and banging pots) but not financial, hence their need (and right) to strike just like any other group

[oyster]

Tobermory said:

Kermit power said:

Electro1980 said:

JagLover said:

valiant said:

And yet 10% was found for pensioners…
.

Despite the efforts by some to pretend it is unusual as far as I am aware the basic state pension has increased by at least the level of inflation since its creation around a hundred years ago, if it didn't then it would be useless as a means of provision for retirement, and no-one could rely upon it.

So "finding" the funding to meet its basic obligations doesn't really say much about the level of funding available for everything else.

Why is there no obligation to ensure the same level of confidence in pay? What makes pensions so special? I find it interesting you see the state pension as sacrosanct but not healthcare.

Pensions are easier to sell because there are more pensioners (who aren't likely to say no) plus the rest of us all expect to claim one at some point.

They are also the group most likely to need to use the NHS and should have an interest in a proper recruitment and retention policy. The state pension is a lifeline for many, but equally there are well off pensioners receiving it when they have adequate investment income to live off. It's a question of intergenerational fairness.

Why not lower the starting point for the 40% tax rate for the over 65's to make the State Pension to a degree more progressively taxed and use this money to contribute to the NHS? This group of wealthy pensioners are less likely to be still working and therefore the argument about losing productive high earners to immigration would not be as relevant and as they benefit more from public services it would be justified that they pay more. After all why should someone earning over £50K in retirement be protected fully from the economic downturn?

Edited by Tobermory on Wednesday 30th November 10:04

How much will that raise?

You seem to have lots of little policy ideas that basically to f-all except re-right a wrong as you see it.
Government debts and deficits are enormous, little tinkering envy policies like yours do absolutely nothing to either address that OR find more cash for nurses.

[Kermit power]

Tobermory said:

Kermit power said:

Electro1980 said:

JagLover said:

valiant said:

And yet 10% was found for pensioners…
.

Despite the efforts by some to pretend it is unusual as far as I am aware the basic state pension has increased by at least the level of inflation since its creation around a hundred years ago, if it didn't then it would be useless as a means of provision for retirement, and no-one could rely upon it.

So "finding" the funding to meet its basic obligations doesn't really say much about the level of funding available for everything else.

Why is there no obligation to ensure the same level of confidence in pay? What makes pensions so special? I find it interesting you see the state pension as sacrosanct but not healthcare.

Pensions are easier to sell because there are more pensioners (who aren't likely to say no) plus the rest of us all expect to claim one at some point.

They are also the group most likely to need to use the NHS and should have an interest in a proper recruitment and retention policy. The state pension is a lifeline for many, but equally there are well off pensioners receiving it when they have adequate investment income to live off. It's a question of intergenerational fairness.

Why not lower the starting point for the 40% tax rate for the over 65's to make the State Pension to a degree more progressively taxed and use this money to contribute to the NHS? This group of wealthy pensioners are less likely to be still working and therefore the argument about losing productive high earners to immigration would not be as relevant and as they benefit more from public services it would be justified that they pay more. After all why should someone earning over £50K in retirement be protected fully from the economic downturn?

1. If they've saved enough to pay themselves £50k in retirement, then they're almost certainly amongst the minority who've already contributed significantly more in their lifetime than they'll take out. Is it really justifiable to yet again bend them over and yank their pants down?

2. If they're already retired, then most have a finite pot of cash with which to fund their retirement. It would be unreasonable to suddenly load a big tax increase onto them when they don't have any realistic options to increase the pot.

3. You claim that they benefit more from public services so it would be justified that they pay more. How about flipping that on its head and saying if I've contributed far more than average to public services over my working life, I should be getting more out in retirement?

I'm not retired, btw, but I do look at the French system where the State pension is linked to salary (and therefore to tax paid over a working lifetime) and think it's far fairer than what we have here.

[Kermit power]

JagLover said:

Tobermory said:

Immigrants from the EU contribute statistically more to the UK economy compared to what they take out in benefits than those from outside the EU, in part due to the greater tendency for immigrants from outside the EU to bring non-working family members with them. Both groups are net contributors compared to 'natives' who take out more than they contribute on average (one reason we have an economy reliant on Government debt).

EU (A10) countries +12%
EU (other) + 64%
Non EU +3%

So immigration helps the economy and immigration from the EU especially so.

Another way in which Brexit was and continues to be counterproductive.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/f...

A study from 2011 and before further expansion of the EU. In any case such figures are a net total and heavily dependent on high earners raising the average, the difference between EU other and EU (A10) rather clearly shows the difference that more highly skilled migrants make to such calculations.

A worker VISA scheme is quite capable of delivering the workers we actually need and work VISAs are at record levels.

It's a bit disingenuous to say that work visas are at record levels as though that's a good thing! It's basically because we've forced an extra 300M+ people to get visas to come and work here, along with all the admin that goes with that.

You also can't just calculate whether immigrants benefit the economy based on whether they, individually, are net contributors or not.

There are a whole host of jobs - teachers, nurses, care workers, supermarket shelf-stackers, plumbers, etc, etc, etc - where the impact of not having enough people carrying them out can impact the economy infinitely more than just their individual earnings one way or the other.

This government publication contains lots of stats estimating the cost to employers and the wider economy of sickness, for example. To pick just one...

The Department for Work and Pensions said:

In the UK, the total economic cost of sickness absence, lost productivity through worklessness, informal care giving, and health-related productivity losses, are estimated to be over £100bn annually.

So, even if every nurse or care-giver you brought into the country took out £10k more from the State than they paid in directly, if you could reduce that £100Bn by half, you could still bring in 5 MILLION additional workers before the overall impact to the economy became negative!

[andy43]

Please continue working as normal until I raise my hand and shout “STRIKE”.
When I do, I want you to bring your work to a controlled stop.

[Mrr T]

JagLover said:

Mrr T said:

Any social contract between pensioners and the government is unwritten and the triple lock is relatively new. As for NIC as you know there is no direct monetary link between what is being paid now by those in work and pensioners who receive so much of it.

The triple lock may be relatively new but the state pension has alternated between being raised in line with prices or wages and it isn't that unusual to be uprated in line with earnings after a period where it fell back in relation to them. In relation to average earnings the state pension is actually still below the level it was in 1979.

As for the National Insurance Fund it is clearly stated that this is for the primary purpose of providing state pension and other contributory benefits to those paying for it with any excess transferred to the NHS. Total National insurance receipts are £155bn and state pension spending is £115bn so it is not correct that there are insufficient funds to pay for the state pension as the insurance payment set up to fund it is considerably in excess of the payment required.

Mrr T said:

The fact is I am sure most would also support an inflation rise for nurses. However, the UK will struggle to meet that and the rise in pensions. Who should suffer, pensioners? Many of whom will have other income and saving, will not have a mortgage, and likely live in a house with significant equity. Or nurses who have none of those advantages.

The fact is I would rather the money go to nurses and I am a pensioner.

The state pension is set at such a low level that it can cover only basic living costs excluding housing so the fact that pensioners will not have a mortgage is rather the point.

You may rather the money went to Nurses but I suspect you are in a rather small minority based on polling.

As you know there is no legal connection between NIC and the amount of pension. The government can increase NIC and or taxes and it makes no difference to pensions. The fact is the UK pension schemes has always been a ponzi scheme. And now the chicken is on the way to its roost.

Comparing the pension in 1979 to today is ignoring the fact pensioners are much wealthier today than in 1979. I accept a pensioner on only a single pension who rents needs the triple lock. However, 25% of pensioners are worth over a £1m. Do they need or deserve the increase when nurses are getting less.

As for opinion polls. The poll you linked to just related to the triple lock. I am sure a poll on nurses pay would support an increase. I think a poll in which you had to select one over the other might favour nurses.

The fact is we cannot afford the triple lock and we need a difficult discussion on how our taxes are spent. My own choice would be to increase means tested benefits for pensioners while removing the lock.

[richardxjr]

Perhaps all these public sector workers could elect out of their final salary pension contributions and immediately enjoy a 10% pay rise at no cost to the taxpayer?

Then they get to enjoy living on small private pension drawdown and the state pension like most of the rest of us.

Win Win?

[ChocolateFrog]

I bet the Eurostar strikes get sorted out PDQ.

Can't have the middle classes Christmas getaway disrupted.

[ChocolateFrog]

Mrr T said:

As you know there is no legal connection between NIC and the amount of pension. The government can increase NIC and or taxes and it makes no difference to pensions. The fact is the UK pension schemes has always been a ponzi scheme. And now the chicken is on the way to its roost.

Comparing the pension in 1979 to today is ignoring the fact pensioners are much wealthier today than in 1979. I accept a pensioner on only a single pension who rents needs the triple lock. However, 25% of pensioners are worth over a £1m. Do they need or deserve the increase when nurses are getting less.

As for opinion polls. The poll you linked to just related to the triple lock. I am sure a poll on nurses pay would support an increase. I think a poll in which you had to select one over the other might favour nurses.

The fact is we cannot afford the triple lock and we need a difficult discussion on how our taxes are spent. My own choice would be to increase means tested benefits for pensioners while removing the lock.

25% of pensioners are worth over £1m?

Seems unlikely.

[JagLover]

Mrr T said:

The fact is we cannot afford the triple lock and we need a difficult discussion on how our taxes are spent. My own choice would be to increase means tested benefits for pensioners while removing the lock.

Well I would not support automatically rising in line with earnings, should they once again rise faster than prices, at a time of poor public finances, but rising in line with prices is the bare minimum you would expect.

As for unaffordability, the number on the state pension has fallen over the past ten years due to rises in the pension age. Most middle to higher earners receive less in the state pension than before 2016 due to the replacement of SERPS with the new state pension. Before all the lockdown craziness the share of GDP going to the state pension (excluding pensions for employees) was stable and its share of public expenditure had fallen from 13% to 10% over the previous ten years.

Almost as if some are determined to demonise the sole remaining significant universal benefit and one that the majority of the population rely upon in retirement. It is funny as well that many of those demonising the state pension fully support far more generous public sector final salary pension schemes.

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 30th November 15:34

[anonymous-user]

richardxjr said:

Perhaps all these public sector workers could elect out of their final salary pension contributions and immediately enjoy a 10% pay rise at no cost to the taxpayer?

Then they get to enjoy living on small private pension drawdown and the state pension like most of the rest of us.

Win Win?

Why should they enjoy a small private pension when they have contributed to the NHS pension for decades? That has no bearing on their reasonable wish for a decent wage.

Tobermory said:

 
 
They are also the group most likely to need to use the NHS and should have an interest in a proper recruitment and retention policy. The state pension is a lifeline for many, but equally there are well off pensioners receiving it when they have adequate investment income to live off. It's a question of intergenerational fairness.
 
Why not lower the starting point for the 40% tax rate for the over 65's to make the State Pension to a degree more progressively taxed and use this money to contribute to the NHS? This group of wealthy pensioners are less likely to be still working and therefore the argument about losing productive high earners to immigration would not be as relevant and as they benefit more from public services it would be justified that they pay more. After all why should someone earning over £50K in retirement be protected fully from the economic downturn?

Kermit power said:

1.  If they've saved enough to pay themselves £50k in retirement, then they're almost certainly amongst the minority who've already contributed significantly more in their lifetime than they'll take out.  Is it really justifiable to yet again bend them over and yank their pants down?

 
Yes, because that is how progressive taxation works. Tax is not a savings pot that you draw down on over a lifetime, it’s by definition redistributive. People who earn more should pay in more than they contribute, that’s the whole point.
 

Kermit power said:

2.  If they're already retired, then most have a finite pot of cash with which to fund their retirement.  It would be unreasonable to suddenly load a big tax increase onto them when they don't have any realistic options to increase the pot.

This I agree with, any change would have to be phased to avoid unintended hardship
 
 

Kermit power said:

3.  You claim that they benefit more from public services so it would be justified that they pay more.  How about flipping that on its head and saying if I've contributed far more than average to public services over my working life, I should be getting more out in retirement?

 
See above re Tax being a redistribution scheme rather than a savings plan
 

Kermit power said:

I'm not retired, btw, but I do look at the French system where the State pension is linked to salary (and therefore to tax paid over a working lifetime) and think it's far fairer than what we have here.

 
That’s fine up to a point but in practice how would it work? You could assess lifetime earnings, and that would have some merit, but then you could end up with people who had earned similar amounts and yet had very different amounts of capital at retirement (possibly for reasons well outside of their control) being paid the same. Assessing the ability of a wealthy pensioner to contribute more would need either an assessment of assets, which would be complex and likely spawn a whole industry of avoidance schemes, or income, this would be more practical and harder to evade I think. You could include some element of capital gains in this calculation. Remember this wouldn’t be a tax so much as a targeting of the State pension to those who genuinely need it, freeing money to be used elsewhere (eg nurses).

[JagLover]

ChocolateFrog said:

25% of pensioners are worth over £1m?

Seems unlikely.

They are likely including the house they live in in that and the notional value of the pension rights they have accrued. Someone on a final salary pension scheme in a three bed semi in the south might have assets of a £1m or more. How much they have to live is another matter of course and you can only "spend" your house if you downsize or take out one of those expensive equity release mortgages.

[JagLover]

richardxjr said:

Perhaps all these public sector workers could elect out of their final salary pension contributions and immediately enjoy a 10% pay rise at no cost to the taxpayer?

Then they get to enjoy living on small private pension drawdown and the state pension like most of the rest of us.

Win Win?

It would be more like a 20% pay rise minimum these days. It would certainly bring some clarity to the public sector pay debate. If an alternative were offered of 15% higher pay with a DC scheme with 5% employer contribution.

[anonymous-user]

JagLover said:

richardxjr said:

Perhaps all these public sector workers could elect out of their final salary pension contributions and immediately enjoy a 10% pay rise at no cost to the taxpayer?

Then they get to enjoy living on small private pension drawdown and the state pension like most of the rest of us.

Win Win?

It would be more like a 20% pay rise minimum these days. It would certainly bring some clarity to the public sector pay debate. If an alternative were offered of 15% higher pay with a DC scheme with 5% employer contribution.

You can make the argument for that certainly especially when average private sector employers' contributions are around 4.5% (although higher in certain sectors such as finance nearer 10%), but given that the total remuneration package is failing to attract enough staff at present offering the same package split up in different ways wouldn't seem to be a solution. If there is a recruitment crisis as there is, the package needs to be a better one.

[JagLover]

Tobermory said:

You can make the argument for that certainly especially when average private sector employers' contributions are around 4.5% (although higher in certain sectors such as finance nearer 10%), but given that the total remuneration package is failing to attract enough staff at present offering the same package split up in different ways wouldn't seem to be a solution. If there is a recruitment crisis as there is, the package needs to be a better one.

Many don't value the pension sufficiently or have need for more salary now rather than more pension in thirty/forty years (if buying a house say). I actually underestimated the percentage and it is more like 40%+ based on some of the numbers I have seen online, as in every year of working accrues pension rights worth £15K

So retention might well improve with a £45K salary on DC voluntary alternative and it is retention that is the issue, recruitment is limited by number of training places which are always oversubscribed.

[irc]

Is there a recruitment crisis? First stat I found showed number of NHS nurses increasing every year since 2009.

Is that wrong?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/679976/number-...

[JagLover]

irc said:

Is there a recruitment crisis? First stat I found showed number of NHS nurses increasing every year since 2009.

Is that wrong?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/679976/number-...

The number of British trained Nurses has been constrained for many years by the number of places on courses available, said courses always being oversubscribed. Numbers are then made up by recruiting from overseas, which can be over 40% of the new recruits in any one year. The morality of this is often debated as the UK is effectively poaching nurses trained in poorer countries.

According to the government there are record numbers of Nurses but demand seems to have increased by even more.

[Electro1980]

JagLover said:

richardxjr said:

Perhaps all these public sector workers could elect out of their final salary pension contributions and immediately enjoy a 10% pay rise at no cost to the taxpayer?

Then they get to enjoy living on small private pension drawdown and the state pension like most of the rest of us.

Win Win?

It would be more like a 20% pay rise minimum these days. It would certainly bring some clarity to the public sector pay debate. If an alternative were offered of 15% higher pay with a DC scheme with 5% employer contribution.

Only if all benefits are in line with private sector. Car allowance, bonuses and so on…

And let’s not forget that DB pensions are more and more limited, with salary thresholds meaning a chunk of the pension is DC.

Edited by Electro1980 on Wednesday 30th November 16:17

[sawman]

richardxjr said:

Perhaps all these public sector workers could elect out of their final salary pension contributions and immediately enjoy a 10% pay rise at no cost to the taxpayer?

Then they get to enjoy living on small private pension drawdown and the state pension like most of the rest of us.

Win Win?

Lots of nhs workers have already opted out of their pension either by stopping payments for a while, or flexi retiring to try to make ends meet, whilst their pay has been eroded over the last 12 years

Edited by sawman on Wednesday 30th November 16:25

[menousername]

sawman said:

Lots of nhs workers have already opted out of their pension to try to make ends meet, whilst their pay has been eroded over the last 12 years

Disagree that in the majority of cases it is to make ends meat

There are two important factors (1) they simply have no concept of pension- they see it as a deduction in pay with no benefit so they take the pay. It is almost resented based on experience (2) short term-ism. As above a huge portion of nurses are here on visas. Lots stay lots do not. Those not intending to stay take the pay instead.

Edit to add - semi retirement is to take a lump sum. Then go back into the exact same job either full or part time.