20 replies to this topic

[Ion Cannon!]

Having seen the massive over reaction from the public union workers I am seriously worried that people just don't seem to get it. They're talking about striking over measly insignificant pension rises, its not like its a flat increase either, the ones earning most pay a greater increase than those with lower salaries. Sounds fair right? Well apparently not to the unions.. they seem to think that they can get away unscathed that any increase is unfair. Wake the fuck up, we're 800bn+ in debt and that increases by 160bn a year, on interest alone we pay more than the funding for the entire education sector! And thats only set to increase as we borrow more. People just generally seem in denial about the whole thing, they voted in a tory government to cut spending and now seem suprised when it effects them in the slightest.. To give you an example of the increase a teacher on 15-25k will have to contribute an additional £100 a year! oh shock fucking horror, by striking for 1 day they lose the same amount of pay roughly.. On the top end of the scale, doctors or teachers on 110k+ have to contribute an extra £1200 approx.

I can understand people are miffed about essentially a pay cut but can they not see the bigger picture? Plus all this is really doing is offsetting the rising pension scheme cost, its not like they're pocketing the extra 1.1bn to use for wine parties and to entertain bankers.

So please England, don't be fucking pussys and strike like mad like the french, understand that things have to change and that like it or not, those changes will affect you.

[Wizard]

Ion Cannon!, on 28 July 2011 - 23:27, said:

So please England, don't be fucking pussys and strike like mad like the french and greeks, understand that things have to change and that like it or not, those changes will affect you.

Phix'd a little there.

What annoys me is that they act as though it's their right that they get pensions far in excess of the private sector without contributing any where near the same levels.

Public sector workers are hardly known for being effecient, productive and unbureaucratic. Man up and deal with the fact that we're all in the shit and you weren't good enough for the private sector wages in the first place.

[SquigPie]

Shouldn't this be in the political subsection...?

I don't know how much I can contribute, we've had the same problem here in Denmark (Everyone demands a way to fix economy, cuts are made, people get angry, strike, revert cuts and act surprised when economy continues to be shit). But judging on the level of anger you two express, it seems to not be quite on the same level.

Edited by SquigPie, 29 July 2011 - 12:45.

[Wizard]

Indeed, and moved accordingly.

What Ion and I are annoyed about is that certain "groups" in this country think that they are immune from global economic pressures because they either broke or non-market affected employment. Which is quite frankly, utter bollocks. It affects everyone, without exception and that people who have, in all fairness, guaranteed, cast-iron, gold plated pensions, should just STFU about having to pay a pathetically nominal amount more given the far wider ramifications than if they don't.

[Ion Cannon!]

I actually meant for this to be in the political forum anyway, so thanks for moving it.

I guess I just thought teachers and doctors would know better, but it seems not even they can see the bigger picture.. Some of them then pointed to the bankers making huge bonuses again. And I can understand their ire somewhat but really, theres already the bank levy that makes several billion per year and heres the main thing. Bankers generally make money, the public sector makes jobs, but it does not make money. I think the torys could indeed be a little tougher on the bankers but they have to be careful they don't scare them away to China. Plus to simply say "Don't make us pay more money, instead introduce more bankers taxes" People seem to think everything can be solved by taxing the banks more, this is simply not true and if ANYONE, even a stupid person, put any thought into it, they would see why. Why can people not just for once use their fucking brains!

[Jinzor]

Finally somebody who thinks like me. This striking crap just because people have to pay a little more is bullshit, this country is full of spoilt people. I don't know exactly what the situation for people was back 50 or 60 years ago, but I can imagine that it was far worst than today (after WWII and all) and people here are going all crazy just because they have to pay a little more when they're getting paid a lot more than people did back 50 or 60 years ago? How are we supposed to get out of this debt when people are just always strongly opposed to changes which will help the economy like this?

Edited by Jinzor, 30 July 2011 - 10:20.

[General]

and I say ; Please World, wake the f**k up, same shit goes everywhere.

[Pav:3d]

They have every right to do this, while the super rich get richer and have tax breaks and whatnot, the government have the sheer bloody audacity to go and charge doctors and teachers an extra penny? Its insane!



We should be taxing the high heaven shit out of the super rich and the people who got us into this mess and keep us in this mess and dont do anything to get us out of this mess.

If you think those striking are the real problem then YOU need to wake the fuck up.

[Wizard]

Pav:3d, on 30 July 2011 - 21:26, said:

They have every right to do this, while the super rich get richer and have tax breaks and whatnot, the government have the sheer bloody audacity to go and charge doctors and teachers an extra penny? Its insane!



We should be taxing the high heaven shit out of the super rich and the people who got us into this mess and keep us in this mess and dont do anything to get us out of this mess.

If you think those striking are the real problem then YOU need to wake the fuck up.

Sorry, but wtf are you talking about? I don't want to sound like an arrogant arsehat but I have to wonder whether your grip on the understanding of the situation is quite clear.

If you want to blame someone for getting us into this mess, blame Mr. Gordon Brown, for allowing banks total and utter free reign to do what they want (a policy he instigated btw), for spending more than he could possibly afford and for paying everyone who didn't feel like getting a job, a lot of money to sit on their arse in the pub all day. Don't pretend that 40 upper-middle class twits at Northern Rock and RBS were solely responsible for the deficit in the UK budget (they will have repaid any debt that they have to the Government, probably before you graduate). Blame the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer for spending more than he had. /discussion

[Ion Cannon!]

Pav:3d, on 30 July 2011 - 21:26, said:

They have every right to do this, while the super rich get richer and have tax breaks and whatnot, the government have the sheer bloody audacity to go and charge doctors and teachers an extra penny? Its insane!



We should be taxing the high heaven shit out of the super rich and the people who got us into this mess and keep us in this mess and dont do anything to get us out of this mess.

If you think those striking are the real problem then YOU need to wake the fuck up.

So what do you propose? Taking 160bn from the private market? that would cripple the UK economy beyond reason. Everyone is going to be effected by these cuts because we have all been living beyond our means. Or at least most of us, and as a country we have gotten to used to low taxes and good services.

Pension costs have risen beyond their intended price because people live longer. It was not designed to support people for another 15-20 years. If anything this increase in contributions is merely going to somewhat offset the rising pensions cost. It will save 1.1bn this year, and 2.3bn next year. Out of the total 160bn thats still a drop in the ocean.

There is no easy fix for something like this, the torys are cutting hard but frankly, they have to. I don't completely agree with some aspects mind. I think their deficit reduction should have both tax increases and spending cuts, instead they are leaning much more towards the cuts, but thats understandable as people are completely irrational when a tax rise is even suggested.

[Dauth]

There are more intelligent ways to have done the cuts though. Yes we needed to save money but if in 5-10 years when we're over the worst of this we need to restart these services then there is a good chance we're going to have to spend more money to do it.

We should have kick started a high tech, high quality manufacturing industry concentrating on clean energy. Give it tax breaks and encourage people to get basic things like double glazing and loft insulation. People are spending a fortune on energy bills, you make the homes more efficient then they have more money to spend which in turn stimulates the economy. Money doesn't generate wealth by existing, it generates wealth by moving around from x to y to z.

Also take this further and we could have started on the road to energy independence. Think how much we'd save not being over a barrel (pun intended) to Russia or OPEC. Then you can sell on the techs to others too.

In summation, cuts were needed but they were executed so badly that strikes are the result.

[Ion Cannon!]

I would have thought most people have double glazing by now? Though I guess it's just one of those things I have always taken for granted. But on your other points I agree. However it's not really a case of having to restart services, as generally they all still exist, they are just being restructured and cut back.

I do have to say though I think the university cuts was the worst place imaginable to cut. I mean afterall the people who go to university are the people who are going to make the money in generations to come. I believe the university sector needed a restructure, but this wasn't it. I am a litle bias though, being a student

[Wizard]

Dauth, on 31 July 2011 - 06:06, said:

We should have kick started a high tech, high quality manufacturing industry concentrating on clean energy. Give it tax breaks and encourage people to get basic things like double glazing and loft insulation. People are spending a fortune on energy bills, you make the homes more efficient then they have more money to spend which in turn stimulates the economy.

This is a good idea. It would've been entirely possible to have offered tax incentives to alternative energy companies, but, and I am playing devil's adovcate here, cutting taxes for this would not have magically turned the economy around. Plus there are already several enegy effeciency drives that make insulating your home almost free (it's just that the government don't advertise them).

The issue, I believe, is that we waste money on lots of social services. The NHS, for example, is a bloated and ineffecient rotting cash cow. Also, the public sector pension scheme is horribly draining on the countries resources (not just the UK, the US as well). It would serve the government better to increase basic pay by 1/3rd across the board and allow people to make pensions private. Freeze the pension system for workers as it stands and then look at how the deficit balances itself out in the next 5-10 years.

Edited by Wizard, 01 August 2011 - 07:36.

[Alias]

Out of curiousity, would you mind giving a basic outline how the welfare system in the UK works (NHS, pensions, welfare/dole etc) as from what I've read, it seems both the UK and the US systems seem comparatively poorly run compared to the Australian systems.

[Wizard]

I am not entirely sure I follow what you mean when you say "a basic outline how the welfare system works"?

In short:

If you are out of work (and supposedly seeking a job), you are paid by the government.
If you are unable to work due to disability or illness, you are paid by the government.
If you are in excess of retirement age, you are paid by the government (State Pension, all those who have paid NI for 30 years or more are entitled to this)
All parents of children under 18, are given money by the governement (shortly this will be reduced based upon gross combined family income, iirc).

All those who work, pay National Insurance contributions and Income Tax (PAYE employes pay considerably more NI than self-employed or non-PAYE employees, and employers also pay NI contributions). Afaik, NI is supposed to be specifically in respect of your state pension. The rest of your tax pays for everything else, NHS etc.

Edited by Wizard, 01 August 2011 - 09:52.

[Golan]

I really don't get why so many people are hell bent on cutting down government involvement in leading and shaping society and prefer private solutions instead. Pensions are to be privatized, job security is your own deal if you don't mind dear sir, and that thing over there doesn't work either... privatize it! It's not like all those problems miraculously disappear if you switch from a system that has to barely break even to one that is interested in gaining as many pennies as possible.

The biggest shit hit the fan for us when we switched most of our social security systems, job security laws and the like to "market friendly" versions. Sure unemployment rates dropped sharply, but most of the "new" jobs are literally too shitty to afford a living. Health care is plagued with a myriad of competing systems and at the basics it's better not to go to a doctor at all unless you've lost a leg and two arms. Most of those cuts and changes sure have lowered costs, but simply by breaking down the system to the point where costs are saved through being barely worthwhile for their intended purpose.

Anyways, to get slightly back on topic, as far as I can tell the issue of most British social/public systems is not so much too high investments but rather mismanagement and inefficiency (which results in high costs as resources aren't used properly). Of course cutting down investments and raising taxes slightly lessens the symptoms but it doesn't actually address the true problems. Especially seeing how mismanagement and inefficiency pretty much caused the whole mess in the first place, the average person has only little motivation to literally pay for someone's else's failures.
It would be much more efficient as well as better communicable to first get your systems up to speed, then evaluate (instead of just cutting seemingly at random) the most efficient level and lastly make cuts/rises to achieve this level.

[Ion Cannon!]

For the most part I am strongly against privitisation. Our health system is infinitely preferable to what they have in the US.

On the issue of wastage on the British social/public systems, then yes, thats what always gets touted, efficiency savings ect or you hear about the ridiculous projects labour or the tories have made, but that still only accounts for a small % of the total bill. But really I think you can only cut so much inefficiency, I believe the term efficiency savings is used as a "buzz word" to make the public believe that the entire deficit is due to such a thing, but I really doubt that is the case.

The main problem is just that people have gotten used to living beyond their means, people want it all but are not prepared to pay for it. Yes there is wastage, I think there is in anything when the size of the thing being run is an entire country, but to actually reduce the deficit to a much lower level will mean either A)Cutting services or B)Tax Rises. A combination of both is probably best.

[Wizard]

Golan, on 01 August 2011 - 18:30, said:

I really don't get why so many people are hell bent on cutting down government involvement in leading and shaping society and prefer private solutions instead.

I prefer this solution to across the board tax increases. I also prefer a competitive economic market, not a defacto monopoly that drains the public purse strings. Granted it isn't a perfect solution, but I would rather choose to purchase something than pay for it in tax. The NHS is the only exception to this rule.

Another reason is that I have to accept that for at least 50% of my life there will be people in government who do not share my personal beliefs, and many more who I do not consider competent enough to shape to play dough.

Golan, on 01 August 2011 - 18:30, said:

It's not like all those problems miraculously disappear if you switch from a system that has to barely break even to one that is interested in gaining as many pennies as possible.

Indeed, privitisation does not instantly solve a problem. What it does do, however, is to shift the fiscal burden from the government, one of the severist burdens any government face.

Golan, on 01 August 2011 - 18:30, said:

Anyways, to get slightly back on topic, as far as I can tell the issue of most British social/public systems is not so much too high investments but rather mismanagement and inefficiency (which results in high costs as resources aren't used properly). Of course cutting down investments and raising taxes slightly lessens the symptoms but it doesn't actually address the true problems. Especially seeing how mismanagement and inefficiency pretty much caused the whole mess in the first place, the average person has only little motivation to literally pay for someone's else's failures.
It would be much more efficient as well as better communicable to first get your systems up to speed, then evaluate (instead of just cutting seemingly at random) the most efficient level and lastly make cuts/rises to achieve this level.

I completely agree that mismanagement is probably the sole cause of the wastage in our governmental affairs. It's strange though, how competitive markets manage to weed that out....

[Golan]

Ion Cannon!, on 02 August 2011 - 11:36, said:

On the issue of wastage on the British social/public systems, then yes, thats what always gets touted, efficiency savings ect or you hear about the ridiculous projects labour or the tories have made, but that still only accounts for a small % of the total bill. But really I think you can only cut so much inefficiency, I believe the term efficiency savings is used as a "buzz word" to make the public believe that the entire deficit is due to such a thing, but I really doubt that is the case.

Your OP lists the benefits of this new increase is even less than 1% of the union member pay, which by all means should be much smaller than "a small% of the total bill". Cutting down on a inefficient system means smaller cost but also smaller gain - cutting down through raising efficiency (which can and usually will include cutting down costs/jobs/whatever) means similarly smaller cost but less decrease of the gain as the remaining resources are put to better use.
Just as the "buzz word" of (in)efficiency isn't the entire cause of the problems, high wages/costs aren't either. However, efficiency affects costs as well (while it is barely the other way round) so you should focus on efficiency first.

Wizard, on 02 August 2011 - 11:49, said:

I prefer this solution to across the board tax increases. I also prefer a competitive economic market, not a defacto monopoly that drains the public purse strings. Granted it isn't a perfect solution, but I would rather choose to purchase something than pay for it in tax. The NHS is the only exception to this rule.

Care to elaborate why you prefer it that way? What makes the NHS so special and other social systems not?

Wizard, on 02 August 2011 - 11:49, said:

Another reason is that I have to accept that for at least 50% of my life there will be people in government who do not share my personal beliefs, and many more who I do not consider competent enough to shape to play dough.

So your problem is the government then, yes? Might I ask why you are adhering to any of its laws and rules, then?

Wizard, on 02 August 2011 - 11:49, said:

Indeed, privitisation does not instantly solve a problem. What it does do, however, is to shift the fiscal burden from the government, one of the severist burdens any government face.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. The most effective way to shift fiscal burden from the government is to get rid of it, which is what you proposing on a small scale. It's a trivial argument as it doesn't solve or address the problems, just shifts them outside of the boundaries imposed by the question. Your solution is pretty much "let someone else think of a solution".

Wizard, on 02 August 2011 - 11:49, said:

I completely agree that mismanagement is probably the sole cause of the wastage in our governmental affairs. It's strange though, how competitive markets manage to weed that out....

Could have sworn I just said they don't in my country.
Free market mismanagement is drastically different from social security mismanagement and so applying the rules of one to weed out the other is bound to fail one way or another. The entire point of all the social security systems is to (temporarily) cushion the fall of those that have failed or are in an inefficient position. Free market thinking is the entire opposite - you don't make money by insuring failures, you make money by insuring those that have a reasonable chance of success. However, this isn't the point of social security systems. Social security systems only work because the entire society works together to lessen the strain on the weaker parts of society.
So, social security systems are by construction unfit for competitive market management - the large scale "inefficiency" is the goal of the system as society as a whole can function more efficiently when the effects of outliers are lessened. Competitive market management, which could get rid of small scale mismanagements, would however require cutting the the whole of society into smaller pieces to allow competition - this however clashes with the initial idea, as the most effective is the one that completely weeds out the negative outliers, which isn't the point of the system.

Edited by Golan, 02 August 2011 - 19:28.

[Wizard]

Golan, on 02 August 2011 - 18:36, said:

Wizard, on 02 August 2011 - 11:49, said:

I prefer this solution to across the board tax increases. I also prefer a competitive economic market, not a defacto monopoly that drains the public purse strings. Granted it isn't a perfect solution, but I would rather choose to purchase something than pay for it in tax. The NHS is the only exception to this rule.

Care to elaborate why you prefer it that way? What makes the NHS so special and other social systems not?

Despite my personal distate for social security, or more precisely, the abuse of it, I believe that it is everyone's right to receive the medical treatment they need. I can think of nothing worse than having a medical problem, serious or not, and compounding that problem with worrying if you're covered for it.

I don't take issue with additional economically driven medical care, having been a beneficiary of it when I was much younger. I just believe that a person, no matter how lazy, is entitled to it.

Golan, on 02 August 2011 - 18:36, said:

Wizard, on 02 August 2011 - 11:49, said:

Another reason is that I have to accept that for at least 50% of my life there will be people in government who do not share my personal beliefs, and many more who I do not consider competent enough to shape to play dough.

So your problem is the government then, yes? Might I ask why you are adhering to any of its laws and rules, then?

And you have no issues with government then? Ergo you adhere to all it's rules and laws. Not one tiny thing about it you might change?

Golan, on 02 August 2011 - 18:36, said:

Wizard, on 02 August 2011 - 11:49, said:

Indeed, privitisation does not instantly solve a problem. What it does do, however, is to shift the fiscal burden from the government, one of the severist burdens any government face.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. The most effective way to shift fiscal burden from the government is to get rid of it, which is what you proposing on a small scale. It's a trivial argument as it doesn't solve or address the problems, just shifts them outside of the boundaries imposed by the question. Your solution is pretty much "let someone else think of a solution".

And what is wrong with that? Setting a cut off point for additional pension liabilities rids the government of further increasing the fiscal burden it is under. It doesn't solve the entirity of the problem, but it removes the bulk of it. Paying someone x more now for a finite period of their employment is cheaper than having to decrease the deficit brought about ongoing pension systems.

Golan, on 02 August 2011 - 18:36, said:

The entire point of all the social security systems is to (temporarily) cushion the fall of those that have failed or are in an inefficient position.

A pension is not a temporary position. It is, effectively, even if by choice, a permanent one.

Golan, on 02 August 2011 - 18:36, said:

Free market thinking is the entire opposite - you don't make money by insuring failures, you make money by insuring those that have a reasonable chance of success.

Simply not the case in terms of private pension schemes or life insurance. Both work on the basis of the payment having to be made, within a pretty certain range of probablility.

Golan, on 02 August 2011 - 18:36, said:

So, social security systems are by construction unfit for competitive market management

Social security being unemployment benefit are, by definition, I agree, unfit for the competitive market. I simply cannot agree that pensions fall within this definition as they are not social security systems, they are a social payroll infrastructure.

[Golan]

Wizard, on 03 August 2011 - 15:26, said:

Despite my personal distate for social security, or more precisely, the abuse of it, I believe that it is everyone's right to receive the medical treatment they need. I can think of nothing worse than having a medical problem, serious or not, and compounding that problem with worrying if you're covered for it.

I don't take issue with additional economically driven medical care, having been a beneficiary of it when I was much younger. I just believe that a person, no matter how lazy, is entitled to it.

I'm sorry, I might have been unclear here. Why do you feel that social security systems other than NHS should not be government controlled? Health care isn't really worth much if you can't afford food to stay healthy or a home to find shelter.

Wizard, on 03 August 2011 - 15:26, said:

And you have no issues with government then? Ergo you adhere to all it's rules and laws. Not one tiny thing about it you might change?

I'd prefer to rid government influence of incompetence than to rid me of government influence.

Wizard, on 03 August 2011 - 15:26, said:

And what is wrong with that? Setting a cut off point for additional pension liabilities rids the government of further increasing the fiscal burden it is under. It doesn't solve the entirity of the problem, but it removes the bulk of it. Paying someone x more now for a finite period of their employment is cheaper than having to decrease the deficit brought about ongoing pension systems.

The problem with your pension systems is that your society as a whole is incapable of handling it. Shifting the pension system to non-governmental control will remove future burdens from the government but not the society - it's still you having to pay for it. Yes, the government's bill will look cleaner but the bottom line will stay the same. Especially if the government just pays a bonus for people to invest in their pensions, that just means the government paying a third party service to do the job.

Wizard, on 03 August 2011 - 15:26, said:

A pension is not a temporary position. It is, effectively, even if by choice, a permanent one.

People have that odd tendency to die.

Wizard, on 03 August 2011 - 15:26, said:

Simply not the case in terms of private pension schemes or life insurance. Both work on the basis of the payment having to be made, within a pretty certain range of probablility.

Sorry? This is exactly the case here, life insurance and pension fees are strongly dictated by factors identifying your chance of "succeeding" in dying in a way as to not cost more than what you've paid. It is extremely unfavorable for a pension company to insure people with a high life expectancy, for example (which is kinda your problem, as pretty much all people fall into this category nowadays).

Wizard, on 03 August 2011 - 15:26, said:

Social security being unemployment benefit are, by definition, I agree, unfit for the competitive market. I simply cannot agree that pensions fall within this definition as they are not social security systems, they are a social payroll infrastructure.

I'm sorry, but poverty in old age seems like a prime target for social security systems. The population numbers of pretty much every state simply do not allow for life-long work. This means that there is a guaranteed point in everyone's life when you won't be able to earn your money through work - similar to unemployment benefit, you have to rely on an outside party to cover you financially in this. If this cover is not present, it's just a matter of time until these people have to be covered by other social security systems.
Strictly defined pensions are simply a way to keep things organized enough to keep the burden off of "true" social security systems. In the end, pensions too suffer from factors discriminating against underprivileged people, so the government would have to take care of those falling through the cracks anyways - only if the system is privatized, they have no one but those people, resulting in an even higher debt as those capable of properly paying their fees no longer do so.