Higher taxes and longer working lives

[Mich the Tester]

The government. Same as is paying the state pensions for private sector parasites already retired.

As is often pointed out in the context of public sector pensions, this is a deal that has already been made. Another side of the deal was the years of public service that the public sector workers already put in. Of course the government could escape the cost of this deal, having already taken the benefit. Don't know about you, but I call that stealing. I don't want my government to do that.

It is a separate argument whether the deal that was made was more generous than you would like.

It is also a separate and fascinating argument whether the government and taxpayers of today should be bound by deals made by the governments of yesterday. Thomas Jefferson thought that they should not, because the governments of today would be bound to lay their bills at the doors of the taxpayers of tomorrow. But you would have to be aware of the consequences of that constitutional situation: nobody would ever take your IOU. Gilts would be worthless. Government would be cash only. There would be little or no investment in the future: why build for the future if the future won't contribute?

Personally I would prefer to see government more provident, not less. That means coughing up for decisions made by governments that ruled before I voted, or even was born. That is part of belonging to the nation, which is seen as being the same nation as in my parents' day.

Excellent sentiments; you're obviously a fair minded person. However (and you knew I'd say 'however'), I really think that on the pensions front the government is going to have to screw somebody. I don't believe in making the distinction between public and private sector workers, but I do think that government is playing a dangerous game by procrastinating. If you don't screw the current generation of shortly-to-retires out of a couple of years of pension, you'll have to screw people out of 10 or more years of pension somewhere down the line. That's the decision; do you screw 55 to 65 year olds now, for 2 years of their pension, by saying 'as of tommorow morning, state pension age will be 67, for men AND women', or do you put 30 to 45 year olds in a position of having to work until they're well over 70?

I think unfortunately that if you want to be equitable, it will be about choosing the least unfair option.

[Mich the Tester]

What they should do is privatise the public sector pension funds, and let bankers take the money as bonuses.

ftfy

[SueEllen]

. If you don't screw the current generation of shortly-to-retires out of a couple of years of pension, you'll have to screw people out of 10 or more years of pension somewhere down the line. That's the decision; do you screw 55 to 65 year olds now, for 2 years of their pension, by saying 'as of tommorow morning, state pension age will be 67, for men AND women',

They are already doing that.

Women age 54 born after 6 December are retiring at 65 with I think a years notice.

After that if the next government needs to speed up the retirement age to 68 for both men and women.

Which it's suppose to be when I am suppose to retire.

[Mich the Tester]

They are already doing that.

Women age 54 born after 6 December are retiring at 65 with I think a years notice.

After that if the next government needs to speed up the retirement age to 68 for both men and women.

Which it's suppose to be when I am suppose to retire.

Good, IMNVHO. This will be better than further procrastination.

Here's another story from the torygraph related to the demographic timebomb;

'Intolerable' bed-blocking crisis threatens NHS - Telegraph

[Ignis Fatuus]

Excellent sentiments; you're obviously a fair minded person. However (and you knew I'd say 'however'), I really think that on the pensions front the government is going to have to screw somebody. ....

I'd say 'however' too. But when I see one side of an argument presented, I just have to do the other side.

[SueEllen]

Remind me again who caused the pension selling scandal?

Oh yes.

It was those nice insurance companies.

That's what happens when you pay people on commission with targets.

[Mich the Tester]

Remind me again who caused the pension selling scandal?

Oh yes.

It was those nice insurance companies.

Again.

Fecking robbers.

Yes, and this is why I distrust the insurance industry. Here in Holland it turned out that insurance companies spent years pocketing over 20%, and in some cases 40% of the contributions in the so-called 'woekerpolis' scandal. People thought they were investing, say, 200 euros per month for their pension and then found that it was ony 120 euros and the rest had disappeared in 'administrative charges'. Administrative charges, my arse; multi million euros bonuses for fat tulips who lie to call themselves 'directors', or even more offensively, 'entrepreneurs' while they themselves have taken no risk whatsoever.

Of course, this all blew up around the same time as the very same insurers lost all the money by investing with the incompetent bankers with whom they share head offices and golf club membership.

[Ignis Fatuus]

So who's paying for the public sector parasites already retired?






Classic!

Thankgod the government are paying and not the taxpayers.

We need brilliant thinkers like you in this country!

Actually that is exactly the point that I was making. Constitutionally this government is the "same" government as any earlier government that made this or that agreement. That is the one and only reason why any government is able to make agreements lasting longer than its current term. And that applies even if the current taxpayers are not the same taxpayers as were there when a previous incarnation of this "same" government made deals that this current lot of taxpayers have to pay for.

Or in plain language, it doesn't matter if you didn't decide on public sector pensions 40 years ago, it was Her Majesty's Government that did, and it's still Her Majesty's Government that will pay them, using HMG tax receipts to do so. The continuity of HMG is what guarantees that.

And the government's having power of taxation is the one and only reason why anyone takes its IOUs.

Take away either of those 2 constitutional features, and you have a Somalia government, that can't do anything.

I don't mind if you say that's what you want, but please understand the constitutional position first.

[Mich the Tester]

And the government's having power of taxation is the one and only reason why anyone takes its IOUs.

But if the situation is such that not breaking a commitment today will lead almost definitely to breaking an ever bigger commitment tomorrow, how should they deal with that?

I think that both you and I are pointing toward a catch22 situation, caused by too many years of having a soft touch.

[ThomasSoerensen]

The problem is if someone is prone to a genetic disease which they don't know about until they are 40 odd or know the environmental factors that mean it will express itself, then you are either putting into much money or not enough.

Or they have a freak accident where no-one is to blame i.e. sue which means they can't work for the rest of their working lives. For example I was reading a case about a woman who had 2 children and now due to injury due to child birth can't work ever as she just about can sit up, and she is in her mid-30s.

Anyway in the UK the government is in trouble on how they have speeded up equalling the retirement age between men and women. So if you are a woman aged 54 born after 6 December you are going to retire when you are 65 instead of 63.

I forgot to add the money you are paying in goes to the pensions of the people who already retired. The only way to fund your own pension would be to stop paying for these people.

My system will impact yourself in stead of your children or in deen your neighbours children. That seems more fair. And health insurance could take care of payments into the accounts of people unable to work.

I passionately hate the idea of older generations partying for bowwoed money that their grandchildren have to pay back. But that is likely just me being old fashioned.