[capybara]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

Bad news for the Lib-Dems as support evaporates for them in this Sunday Telegraph poll. Ironically there seems to be a fair degree of support for the tough budget ,but Clegg an Co are being squeezed. They will certainly need to achieve more of their measures asap. At the very least they will need to have their headline tax threshold in place. I guess this was always a danger for them,but it will be interesting to see the reaction from the Liberal Left.

.

[Scary Bear]

capybara, on 20 June 2010 - 11:05, said:

The Liberal Democrats, Greens and Independent MSP Margo MacDonald have all this week separately vowed that they will fight any plans the new SNP Scottish Executive have to ditch the plan to return trams to the capitals streets.

The Greens have denied that by joining the SNP in a coalition they will fight any less for the tram scheme – which they, along with every other political party in the city, back. Robin Harper, MSP for Lothians, said: “If they try to block the trams we will go incandescent and do everything we can to stop that. So far as I can see, there is still a majority in favour of a tram system for Edinburgh."

Meanwhile, Margo MacDonald, Independent MSP for the Lothians, has tabled several motions in the Scottish Parliament ensuring that the tram scheme still goes ahead as well as plans for a rail link to the airport and that there is recognition of the city status of Edinburgh.

The motion on the trams says that she: “urges the Scottish Executive, together with the City of Edinburgh Council, to expedite the introduction of a trams system for Scotland's capital immediately on taking office". Finally, the Liberal Democrats have also tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament in an attempt to save the tram scheme. The leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Nicol Stephen, has also named the tram plan as top of the list of issues that his party wishes to pursue in Parliament.
Source: The Scotsman


Aye well..Margo jumps on another bandwagon..

Do you think the Lib-dems see the trams as a vote winner? I haven't heard a positive word about them from anyone who works or lives in Edinburgh.

This post has been edited by Scary Bear: 28 June 2010 - 14:18

[capybara]

Scary Bear, on 28 June 2010 - 14:17, said:

Do you think the Lib-dems see the trams as a vote winner? I haven't heard a positive word about them from anyone who works or lives in Edinburgh.

Not now,i guess all the proponents are hoping for the beat. But it will continue to cost money.It will raise its head at election time. I am more miffed at Margo, s vocal support till it becomes politically expedient to oppose the scheme.

[renton]

From the guardian:

My link

Leaked treasury figures show the probable loss of 1.3 million jobs over the next five years.

The kicker is that it breaks down as 500-600,000 public sector jobs and 600-700,000 private sector jobs. So much for reducing the 'waste' in the public sector so that the private sector doesn't feel so crowded out.

The rationale for getting away with this is the idea that slashing the public sector will somehow unleash the inner entrepeneur in private business, encouraging them to take over as the engine of the economy.

Yet, that engine is not exactly firing on all cylinders. Our biggest export market (the reviled EU) is kaput at the moment and the US is showing signs of running out of steam, bank credit is available but only on unfavourable terms ot the business taking them, interest rates can hardly get lower either.

Spending cuts may be necessary, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that this has f**k all to do with necessity, and even less to do with sound ecconomic management.

This post has been edited by renton: 30 June 2010 - 09:56

[vikingTON]

renton, on 30 June 2010 - 09:55, said:

Spending cuts may be necessary, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that this has f**k all to do with necessity, and even less to do with sound economic management.

Precisely. While Brown is guilty of excessive public sector spending without reform for the sake of his own political advancement and cause, Darling for the previous two years has operated on a pragmatic approach to the crisis. Control of the ship has been handed back again to frothing (this time small state) ideologues in the middle of the storm. It is going to be a ruinous economic bloodbath for political means.

This post has been edited by vikingTON: 30 June 2010 - 19:31

[Ad Lib]

To be fair, renton, you've neglected to tell the full story, which includes an estimate of 2.5 million jobs being created over a 5 year period, leading to a net employment gain of 1.2 million. Indeed, employment in 2015 should be considerably higher than Labour left it going into the election.

There's no quick fix to the problems with the public finances, but if we take the medicine now, we can accelerate growth much more rapidly (granted from a lower base).

As things stand, it's thought by many that even the Tory measures won't be enough to half the deficit in 5 years, the cross-party target. The hit's got to fall somewhere, and frankly if that means higher unemployment in the short term, that's just how it's got to be.

[capybara]

I wonder how we can square the circle of now having to work longer. If the retirement age keeps rising, where are the jobs coming from. Try getting a job in your 50/60,s

[Ad Lib]

capybara, on 30 June 2010 - 20:22, said:

I wonder how we can square the circle of now having to work longer. If the retirement age keeps rising, where are the jobs coming from. Try getting a job in your 50/60,s

I'd be interested to see exactly what percentage of the workforce is within 1 year of state funded retirement age at any given time. I can't see it being more than 2%; probably less.

I'll probably get the "young un" put down but frankly, I don't think the state should pay people just to "be" over 65 and "not work". It's such a waste of money. It would be far better to incorporate elderly state assistance into other benefits such as those related to incapacity. I don't believe that the state owes an obligation to people to provide them a lifestyle just because they've reached a certain age. If people want to retire, fine, but do it off your own back and using your own pension fund or other tax-incentive savings scheme.

Employment is a lifestyle choice. Retirement is a lifestyle choice. Neither are an entitlement and both should be earned through endeavour.

[Merkin]

Ad Lib, on 30 June 2010 - 20:43, said:

I'd be interested to see exactly what percentage of the workforce is within 1 year of state funded retirement age at any given time. I can't see it being more than 2%; probably less.

I'll probably get the "young un" put down but frankly, I don't think the state should pay people just to "be" over 65 and "not work". It's such a waste of money. It would be far better to incorporate elderly state assistance into other benefits such as those related to incapacity. I don't believe that the state owes an obligation to people to provide them a lifestyle just because they've reached a certain age. If people want to retire, fine, but do it off your own back and using your own pension fund or other tax-incentive savings scheme.

Employment is a lifestyle choice. Retirement is a lifestyle choice. Neither are an entitlement and both should be earned through endeavour.

Does the state owe an obligation to educate your children or treat you if you get ill or put police on your street?

[Ivo den Bieman]

Ad Lib, on 30 June 2010 - 20:43, said:

I'd be interested to see exactly what percentage of the workforce is within 1 year of state funded retirement age at any given time. I can't see it being more than 2%; probably less.

I'll probably get the "young un" put down but frankly, I don't think the state should pay people just to "be" over 65 and "not work". It's such a waste of money. It would be far better to incorporate elderly state assistance into other benefits such as those related to incapacity. I don't believe that the state owes an obligation to people to provide them a lifestyle just because they've reached a certain age. If people want to retire, fine, but do it off your own back and using your own pension fund or other tax-incentive savings scheme.

Employment is a lifestyle choice. Retirement is a lifestyle choice. Neither are an entitlement and both should be earned through endeavour.

Jesus what a load of every-man-for-himself Thatcherite cockrot.

Someone who started work in 1963, aged 18, who has worked all their lives, paid National insurance every month, has a right to the retirment age and accrued pension which they have struggled all their life to achieve.

If you turn around now, tear all that up and go "tough shit, we've got your money and you're not getting any back because we can no longer afford it" then you might as well tear up all long term pension planning, as it will become inherently valueless. Then the problem becomes much bigger.

How civilised a place is is in large part, to my mind, determined by how the old, the ill and the vulnerable are looked after. the sort of place you'd like to see doesn't sound very civilised at all. Old folk need a little more than prim, glib, comfortably-off middle class platitudes to get by.

This post has been edited by Ivo den Bieman: 30 June 2010 - 20:59

[Ad Lib]

Merkin, on 30 June 2010 - 20:50, said:

Does the state owe an obligation to educate your children or treat you if you get ill or put police on your street?

Education is necessary to produce an able workforce and to advance human knowledge.

High standards of physical and mental well-being are necessary for a productive workforce and a high standard of living.

Effective enforcement of the law is necessary for an orderly society, protection of basic human rights and prevention of crime.

Why is state assisted retirement necessary?

[Ivo den Bieman]

er, because people have worked and paid all their lives to receive a basic state pension on retirement?

what right have you to the money you put in the bank? I'd rather see the bank pass it on as profit to shareholders.

[Ad Lib]

Ivo den Bieman, on 30 June 2010 - 20:57, said:

Jesus what a load of every-man-for-himself Thatcherite cockrot.

Someone who started work in 1963, aged 18, who has worked all their lives, paid National insurance every month, has a right to the retirment age and accrued pension which they have struggled all their life to achieve.

If you turn around now, tear all that up and go "tough shit, we've got your money and you're not getting any back because we can no longer afford it" then you might as well tear up all long term pension planning, as it will become inherently valueless. Then the problem becomes much bigger.

How civilised a place is is in large part, to my mind, determined by how the old, the ill and the vulnerable are looked after. the sort of place you'd like to see doesn't sound very civilised at all. Old folk need a little more than prim, glib, comfortably-off middle class platitudes to get by.

The point being that instead of having to contribute a portion of their income to fund the state pension, it would go straight to you, with tax incentives to invest it, be that through private pension schemes or other means (e.g. ISAs). That way, those who want to retire can do so, off the back of their own savings, and those who don't want to aren't obliged to enter such agreements, and have much greater freedom to work beyond the typical retirement age.

As I've already suggested, the old are not inherently ill or vulnerable. Just "being old" does not make you less able to work. Being ill or vulnerable puts you at risk and entitles you to state support. Mere age is but a correlative factor to the actual reasons the state helps the ill and vulnerable.

[Ivo den Bieman]

I never suggested that the old were automatically "ill or vulnerable".

Still, I see that the legal niceties of the government taking money from someone for an entire working life then refusing to pay out are beyond you.

[Ad Lib]

Ivo den Bieman, on 30 June 2010 - 21:09, said:

I never suggested that the old were automatically "ill or vulnerable".

Still, I see that the legal niceties of the government taking money from someone for an entire working life then refusing to pay out are beyond you.

And I still see that you completely miss the point that the existing portion of salaries that would otherwise fund the state pension would no longer be taken by the government at all, but would go directly to the pocket of the individual, who would be incentivised by tax breaks to invest it for future retirement or bequeathing as they so desire.

[Merkin]

Ad Lib, on 30 June 2010 - 21:01, said:

Education is necessary to produce an able workforce and to advance human knowledge.

High standards of physical and mental well-being are necessary for a productive workforce and a high standard of living.

Effective enforcement of the law is necessary for an orderly society, protection of basic human rights and prevention of crime.

Why is state assisted retirement necessary?

Yes but if you reduced taxation the work force could pay for their own offspring to be educated and for their health needs to be taken care of, and they could organise a local militia to protect law and order.

Surely the only way the state can be 'obligated' to do or provide anything can be if the people who vote them in, legitimise their existence and give them their funding say that they should provide something for them.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Yeh.

and what happens when these lovely private companies mis-sell pensions/the boss fucks off to Turkmenistan with the investor's money and his secretary/the company goes bust?

That's right- the government picks up the pieces, only without any money to actually pick up the pieces with. So you still pay for old people to retire through your taxes anyway.

Actually, in your world, you probably don't. You'd happily see them stuck in a cardboard box somewhere, with the added humiliation of a pious lecture from you on thrift and wise investment as you step over them on your way to work.

Paying the government is a much easier- and fairer-solution than the dog-eat-dog lottery of private pensions. Even in that case, it's not as though pensioners are living like kings on the back of your taxes- the state pension is a pittance.

You'll probably get your way, though. At the rate things are being privatised generally, now, by the time I'm at retirement age we'll probably all be wearing metered air tanks and paying private companies for the air we breathe, as a free use of the atmosphere will be presented by insufferably smug right wing p***ks like you as "a luxury we can't afford anymore" and a "regrettable necessity".

[Ad Lib]

Merkin, on 30 June 2010 - 21:16, said:

Yes but if you reduced taxation the work force could pay for their own offspring to be educated and for their health needs to be taken care of, and they could organise a local militia to protect law and order.

Surely the only way the state can be 'obligated' to do or provide anything can be if the people who vote them in, legitimise their existence and give them their funding say that they should provide something for them.

You fail to recognise the distinction between a service and a hand-out. Education, healthcare and policing are all services best provided on a macro-scale, because they require resources, skill sets, and some sort of central co-ordination.

The state pension is just a hand-out arbitrarily handed out to non-working old people. If you don't take the money from people in the first place, you save on administration, can tweak the NI/Income Tax bands to make sure workers would be earning a reasonable amount at the lower levels to save and invest, and then they are as entitled to the money raised by their lifetime labour with or without the choice of retirement. It is not for the state to dictate or to normalise a choice not to work because you are old.

[Merkin]

Ad Lib, on 30 June 2010 - 21:22, said:

You fail to recognise the distinction between a service and a hand-out. Education, healthcare and policing are all services best provided on a macro-scale, because they require resources, skill sets, and some sort of central co-ordination.

The state pension is just a hand-out arbitrarily handed out to non-working old people. If you don't take the money from people in the first place, you save on administration, can tweak the NI/Income Tax bands to make sure workers would be earning a reasonable amount at the lower levels to save and invest, and then they are as entitled to the money raised by their lifetime labour with or without the choice of retirement. It is not for the state to dictate or to normalise a choice not to work because you are old.

There is no distinction, just like there is no pre-existing obligation for the state do anything. But they take your money and what right do they have to do that if you and the public at large aren't the ones telling them what to do with it?

Yes schools, hospitals, policing require resources, but that doesn't mean that they can only, or even only be best performed by the state. There's no reason why schools or hospitals or even policing have to be run by the state. The only reason they are is because the people broadly want it to be that way. The people also seem to want the reassurance that once they have worked the best years of their lives paying much of their income to the state that the state will not ignore them and let them die penniless.

[Ad Lib]

Merkin, on 30 June 2010 - 21:37, said:

There is no distinction, just like there is no pre-existing obligation for the state do anything. But they take your money and what right do they have to do that if you and the public at large aren't the ones telling them what to do with it?

Now this is broadly correct.

Quote

Yes schools, hospitals, policing require resources, but that doesn't mean that they can only, or even only be best performed by the state. There's no reason why schools or hospitals or even policing have to be run by the state.

As is this (which is why we have independent schools and private healthcare supplementary to the state system). However...

Quote

The only reason they are is because the people broadly want it to be that way.

No it isn't. The state provides it in the absence of sufficiently universally effective and coordinated provision by non-state actors.

Quote

The people also seem to want the reassurance that once they have worked the best years of their lives paying much of their income to the state that the state will not ignore them and let them die penniless.

This is where it all falls down again though. I'm not advocating an immediate abolition of the state pension. What I'm arguing for is a re-evaluation of what we should expect from the state, and remove unnecessary reshuffling of money arbitrarily by age. My belief is that, whatever the transitional arrangements, the system would ultimately be fairer by giving no preference to people ceasing work at an arbitrary age, instead fostering a culture of saving for the future, whether that be for a working or a non-working old age. If you want to make sure the most vulnerable are looked after, you incorporate their state assistance into existing provisions outside of arbitrary pensions. It boils down to an old person not necessarily being vulnerable and not necessarily being incapable of working. The arguments being put against my idea are all based on this "they've been giving money to the state all their life so they deserve something back" but they totally miss my point: why is the state arrogating to take their money in the first place if only to tell them they can only have it back if they stop working at age 65?

[Merkin]

Ad Lib, on 30 June 2010 - 21:51, said:

This is where it all falls down again though. I'm not advocating an immediate abolition of the state pension. What I'm arguing for is a re-evaluation of what we should expect from the state, and remove unnecessary reshuffling of money arbitrarily by age. My belief is that, whatever the transitional arrangements, the system would ultimately be fairer by giving no preference to people ceasing work at an arbitrary age, instead fostering a culture of saving for the future, whether that be for a working or a non-working old age. If you want to make sure the most vulnerable are looked after, you incorporate their state assistance into existing provisions outside of arbitrary pensions. It boils down to an old person not necessarily being vulnerable and not necessarily being incapable of working. The arguments being put against my idea are all based on this "they've been giving money to the state all their life so they deserve something back" but they totally miss my point: why is the state arrogating to take their money in the first place if only to tell them they can only have it back if they stop working at age 65?

You're making a good point here, but isn't it negated by your previous point?

Quote

The state provides it in the absence of sufficiently universally effective and coordinated provision by non-state actors.

The reason the state got into the position in the first place that it would provide people with Old Age Pensions was because there was no other actor there to be look after people in a comfortable enough way that people would deem acceptable. Now you could argue that isn't the case anymore and there are private pensions available and there are still some company pensions which are enough to take care of their retired staff and there isn't any need for the state pension to exist so we could stop paying into and take care of it ourselves. But you and I aren't really paying for our pensions, we're paying for our parents and grandparents pensions with the presumption that the next generation will do the same for us. If we stop paying and tax is reduced accordingly then there won't be enough for the current round of pensions and if we keep paying but on the understanding that we won't be getting the same when we retire we will be out of pocket because we won't have been able to put as much aside privately.

[Ad Lib]

Merkin, on 30 June 2010 - 22:49, said:

You're making a good point here, but isn't it negated by your previous point?

The reason the state got into the position in the first place that it would provide people with Old Age Pensions was because there was no other actor there to be look after people in a comfortable enough way that people would deem acceptable. Now you could argue that isn't the case anymore and there are private pensions available and there are still some company pensions which are enough to take care of their retired staff and there isn't any need for the state pension to exist so we could stop paying into and take care of it ourselves. But you and I aren't really paying for our pensions, we're paying for our parents and grandparents pensions with the presumption that the next generation will do the same for us. If we stop paying and tax is reduced accordingly then there won't be enough for the current round of pensions and if we keep paying but on the understanding that we won't be getting the same when we retire we will be out of pocket because we won't have been able to put as much aside privately.

The reason there are Old Age Pensions is because it was seen donkeys years ago as the best way to provide a stable income for the masses upon retirement. This falls apart on two prongs of my argument:

1. The state is no longer necessarily the best medium to achieve the goal of paid retirement, especially not in its current set-up (put simply: times change)

2. Retirement arrogates an expectation of entitlement from the state for not working just because of your age, something I consider to be profoundly unfair as a concept.

Your point about us paying for other people's pensions, whilst technically correct, is exactly why I'm not advocating an immediate abolition. The current system has entrenched itself in financial practicalities which mean it only ever could be phased out. That doesn't make it a fair way for the state to distribute money, though, and it doesn't mean we should keep it. I have suggested above ways in which you could plug the hole in transitional arrangements: altering NI payments and Income Tax to cover the cost, then tweak them again to ensure the poorest paid have enough to put away into savings for their old age once the state pension has been totally removed or otherwise incorporated into other types of benefit (such as incapacity). I want to foster a society where a work ethic for prosperity's sake, rather than "to serve your time and get your pension" is the norm.

This post has been edited by Ad Lib: 30 June 2010 - 23:06

[Merkin]

"Serve your time and get your pension". You have a high opinion of the lives of the poor don't you.

I don't believe people see serving their time to get their pension as the motivation to work. You say that you want people to work for the sake of prosperity and that's fine. You also say that you find the arbitrary nature of the government picking an age at which people should retire to be unfair. People should work until they have saved enough money that they think that they live comfortably on for the remainder of their lives. Ideally that would be fine. But the way you say that we could continue to pay for the current generations of state pensions wouldn't work. You accept that we are paying for the pensions of people in retirement now, but whichever way you say it 'tweaks' means that people would have to be paying for both their own private pensions and the pensions of their parents. Something which would be doubly hard on the poor if those in the highest tax brackets are retiring earlier, causing them to have to work longer still. Which is fine for you because they are just waiting to die anyway, what with them being too lazy or stupid to work harder.

[vikingTON]

Ad Lib really is a quite tedious piece of jizz dripping from the fatty thigh flap of Thatcherism.

[Ad Lib]

Merkin, on 30 June 2010 - 23:34, said:

"Serve your time and get your pension". You have a high opinion of the lives of the poor don't you.

I don't believe people see serving their time to get their pension as the motivation to work.

Tell Ivo Bieman that then. That's essentially what he inferred up the page.

Quote

You say that you want people to work for the sake of prosperity and that's fine. You also say that you find the arbitrary nature of the government picking an age at which people should retire to be unfair. People should work until they have saved enough money that they think that they live comfortably on for the remainder of their lives. Ideally that would be fine.

Which is why we should simplify the benefits system to make it possible, including a phasing out of the state pension.

Quote

But the way you say that we could continue to pay for the current generations of state pensions wouldn't work. You accept that we are paying for the pensions of people in retirement now, but whichever way you say it 'tweaks' means that people would have to be paying for both their own private pensions and the pensions of their parents.

It's really not that complicated. Decrease the state pension gradually year on year until it is no longer. Alongside this, gradually cut the contributions people have to make to National Insurance and Income Tax, starting by increasing the personal allowance of lower earners, tapering-off to zero for those earning over £30k. Once the Old Age Pension is effectively eradicated, raise the tax allowance uniformally, incentivising all to save and invest for a pension for a retirement age of their choosing, with payout affected by the deal they strike with their pension fund, or to invest for other purposes.

The rest of the benefits system would be adjusted where necessary to ensure that those who are not merely old but also ill or otherwise vulnerable/unable to find work receive exactly the same support as someone below the state retirement age. If they would truly face hardship as a result of the withdrawal of the state pension, then the residual system ought to protect them, but not merely "because they are old".

Quote

Something which would be doubly hard on the poor if those in the highest tax brackets are retiring earlier, causing them to have to work longer still. Which is fine for you because they are just waiting to die anyway, what with them being too lazy or stupid to work harder.

As explained above, it wouldn't be doubly hard on the poor because you would give them bigger tax breaks during the transitional arrangements and place the greater burden on the more affluent. The point I'm rather making is that I think retirement should generally be discouraged unless you are genuinely too frail to work or have made a conscious decision to face the consequences of not working by making appropriate preparations during your lifetime.

I'm not a Stuart Dickson. I don't think that old people are "just waiting to die" and are "too lazy or stupid to work harder". That doesn't mean I think they're entitled to just not work with state assistance because they've reached an arbitrary age. Old age is not a vulnerability. The state owes no moral obligation to support people for being old.

This post has been edited by Ad Lib: 01 July 2010 - 07:39