Reply to: Tories on Trident

[AtW]

Sounds like currency speculation to me.

No, it's not speculating - it's proper hedging (not what "hedge" funds do).

Speculation would have been if you used your savings or pension to move them between multiple currencies in a hope to make more money in the process.

[HairyArsedBloke]

There should be an option to pay into BoE account, that can also be nominated in multiple currencies to protect onself against devaluation.

Sounds like currency speculation to me.

[AtW]

You are starting to prove my point about an adminstrative nightmare.

Why should it be admin nightmare? Every taxpayer should have online access to his/her account with a few numbers there, if their bank account worth is higher than X then they get exemption from paying NI - all those people should be expected to fill in tax return anyway as it would be high rate taxpayers who are likely to get such exemption anyway.

Of course that's not going to happen because "the rich" essentially subsidise social security for "the poor".

[minestrone]

There should be an option to pay into BoE account, that can also be nominated in multiple currencies to protect onself against devaluation.

You are starting to prove my point about an adminstrative nightmare.

[AtW]

Sure I pay a pension for 40 years and can prove that I am paying in, then the day before I retire the pension company goes bust or all my offhore funds drop 90% in one day.

There should be an option to pay into BoE account, that can also be nominated in multiple currencies to protect onself against devaluation.

I turn up and ask for a state pension and get told to bugger off so then a 65 year old is living on the streets. It just won't work.

I'd say the level of state pension is so small that essentially they tell to everyone to bugger off and live on streets.

[minestrone]

It's easy to administer such things online - of course it's not possible if contracts are awarded to EDS and enture.

The prove you can support yourself can be easy - private pension contributions or salary above certain level: this can be verified by looking at amount of tax paid.

Isn't mean testing support to deny support to those who have too much money left in the bank? Well, then those people should have right to opt out from NI payments.

Sure I pay a pension for 40 years and can prove that I am paying in, then the day before I retire the pension company goes bust or all my offhore funds drop 90% in one day. I turn up and ask for a state pension and get told to bugger off so then a 65 year old is living on the streets. It just won't work.

[AtW]

That would be an administrative nightmare above the ability of this country and also it is impossible to prove that you will be able to support yourself in 30 years and therefore should be exempt from pension/social security taxes in the present.

It's easy to administer such things online - of course it's not possible if contracts are awarded to EDS and enture.

The prove you can support yourself can be easy - private pension contributions or salary above certain level: this can be verified by looking at amount of tax paid.

Isn't mean testing support to deny support to those who have too much money left in the bank? Well, then those people should have right to opt out from NI payments.

[minestrone]

I'd agree generally with it, but it would lead to a lot of people making stupid decisions, I think pension/social security taxes should be optional to those who wish to opt out from them but already have means of supporting themselves.

That would be an administrative nightmare above the ability of this country and also it is impossible to prove that you will be able to support yourself in 30 years and therefore should be exempt from pension/social security taxes in the present.

[AtW]

Why stop there - why not abolish pensions completely - let the individual carry on working - if he prefers not to work then its his responsiblity to cater for himself by saving money prior to his retirement

I'd agree generally with it, but it would lead to a lot of people making stupid decisions, I think pension/social security taxes should be optional to those who wish to opt out from them but already have means of supporting themselves.

[AlfredJPruffock]

If anything taxpayers should be getting higher pensions than public sector.

Why stop there - why not abolish pensions completely - let the individual carry on working - if he prefers not to work then its his responsiblity to cater for himself by saving money prior to his retirement - if he cannot find work then give him unemployment beenfit till he finds work.

I have no pension and rebut the notion of retirement firmly.

[AtW]

As for unions - I would hope that they've got bigger problems when the next government comes in - i.e., the mass redundancy of whole tranches of the civil service (or at least, one would hope so).

I'd say their final salaries are a bigger issue than most people realise - it's not just that they will have to be paid in the distant future, but right now Govt has to be seen as doing something about it as otherwise UK might go proper bankrupt.

Given those crazy taxes that were used to prop up public sector, it would only be fair if their pensions get taxed unless they agree volunterily to reduce them. Frankly public sector pensions should be no different to pensions received by taxpayers, if anything taxpayers should be getting higher pensions than public sector.

[Menelaus]

The main issue with UK is wasteful public sector especially their final salaries - those need to be renegotiated and if unions refuse then a tax needs to be introduced on their pensions that would have the same net effect - reducing them: this is far more important than removal of Trident program.

Agreed. I'm currently off the bench with The Pensions Regulator (government body) and the government pension schemes seem to be exceptionally generous.

As for unions - I would hope that they've got bigger problems when the next government comes in - i.e., the mass redundancy of whole tranches of the civil service (or at least, one would hope so).

[AtW]

Are Russia communist?

Yes it is (Soviet that is, not communist - it's worse thing than communism actually). It wasn't for about 3-4 years somewhere between 1991 and 1996.

FYI Russia could not afford to invest into space program as near as much as Soviet Union did, essentially it just continued to do same things that were before - manned launches for example are done using technology from the 60s.

Soviet Union was never good when it came to satellites or anything that required good electronics etc, the main spying was done using more effective means - moles in relevant places.

The main issue with UK is wasteful public sector especially their final salaries - those need to be renegotiated and if unions refuse then a tax needs to be introduced on their pensions that would have the same net effect - reducing them: this is far more important than removal of Trident program.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Interesting points and well thought out.

I think you'll find that Liam's ambitions for the Trident upgrade will be over-ruled by Camerons Austerity Drive - we simply cannot afford this level of public spending for the nebulous benefits that the upgrade would in theory offer - again as long as we are a member of NATO we have little to fear of 'nuclear blackmail'.

I quute :

We will have to take account of the economic train wreck that we would inherit if we come to Government next year and that would of course be very difficult," he said.

[Menelaus]

We've got a massive, massive problem with overspending in the public sector and - even though I've met Liam Fox when he held a Glasgow alumni reception at Parliament a couple of years ago - I must disagree with him on the replacement for Trident.

Estimates of the cost of replacing Trident are of the order of 200bn. That's 200bn that we genuinely can't afford to spend - and there are other things on the drawing board that could be scrapped too, including:

- HMS Prince of Wales / HMS Queen Elizabeth II (aircraft carriers for power projection - we're no longer a "world power" and there's a good argument that we haven't been for years)
- A400M air-to-air refuelling project

ALL capital projects in the MoD should be subject to major intervention and have to prove its' worth. We should retract into a Swedish model of the armed forces - ie, peacekeeping and national defence only.

Equally, however contentious this might be, there's an argument that massive reduction in capital projects could give us a Gorbachev-style "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War.

Many years ago when I was but a baby soldier we held a discussion group where we concluded (in a wholly un-PC manner) that Gorbachev could with some validity claim that the Cold War was a draw - for no other reason that he said "we're not playing anymore" and engaged in unilateral action, irrespective of what Reagan did.

Finally, I heard a worrying statistic this morning that 20% of all civil servants work for MoD. A smaller defence estate will mean the ability to remove a whole swathe of uncivil servants.