General Election 2015

[feral chile]

its calculated by their final income so it looks like anyone retiring on about £48k is going to be hit.

http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/civilservicepensions-ni/index/current-members/pension_reform_2015.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15925017

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[lost]

http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/civilservicepensions-ni/index/current-members/pension_reform_2015.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15925017

Yep thats exactly what I'm talking about the next generation will have much smaller pension pots to tax. So using figures from the older system isn't going to stand up

Edited March 2, 2015 by lost

[feral chile]

Yep thats exactly what I'm talking about the next generation will have much smaller pension pots to tax. So using figures from the older system isn't going to stand up

No, but an average CS employee with 20 years service would pick up about £5000 pa.

[Big Vern]

http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/civilservicepensions-ni/index/current-members/pension_reform_2015.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15925017

according to that bbc article, it states that

The median average salary-linked public sector pension that is currently being paid out to a pensioner, is worth £5,600 a year.

That compares with £5,860 in the private sector, according to the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF).

Given that the average pension pot at retirement, before any tax free cash is taken is about £40,000, that £5,860 figure is bollocks. After tax free cash you'd be lucky to get £1,500 pa pension

[lost]

No, but an average CS employee with 20 years service would pick up about £5000 pa.

I'm not sure what a cs employee does but that seems pretty good for 20 years. If that includes 50pc spouse’s benefit and is linked to inflation you'd need a pot of over £150k at 65 with money purchase and that's without your tax free sum, So if your going 100% cash you'd have to put away £625 a month.

Edited March 2, 2015 by lost

[Big Vern]

I'm not sure what a cs employee does but that seems pretty good for 20 years. If that includes 50pc spouse’s benefit and is linked to inflation you'd need a pot of over £150k at 65 with money purchase and that's without your tax free sum, So if your going 100% cash you'd have to put away £625 a month.

all correct

[feral chile]

I'm not sure what a cs employee does but that seems pretty good for 20 years. If that includes 50pc spouse’s benefit and is linked to inflation you'd need a pot of over £150k at 65 with money purchase and that's without your tax free sum, So if your going 100% cash you'd have to put away £625 a month.

I don't want to get too involved in this, because I don't know a lot about it, but I know traditionally, the pension was supposed to compensate for lower pay. So it was part of your remuneration package. therefore, those with more than 10 years left who've been forced onto different terms feel they were misled.

They were looking into bringing in market facing pay, but that was quietly dropped. I was reading a Guardian article from 2010 I found, and apparently in most areas, the public sector didn't get paid more.

I'd be very surprised if it does now, after the lengthy pay freeze.

I don't know if there's been any realistic comparisons done, looking at salaries combined with pensions - bearing in mind the raised retirement age now, too.

(As I say, I don't know the figures, so don't know how they'd all compare - I'd be interested though).

And not that I don't think a guaranteed pension is a good deal, no matter how much it is.

I just jumped in because I read 'final salary' and '48K' and I haven't read the rest, so sorry if I've misunderstood.

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Found this:

http://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/resources/civil-servant/information/civilservicepensions/

It reckons average pay matches the private sector at 23K. I really don't know how to work out the pension contributions, they do go into it in detail

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[gary1979666]

They have.

Not exactly "tax rises", because it's being done by lesser "tax relief" rather than a new tax or increase in a specific tax rate, but the effect is the same. The amount the treasury collects in revenue from taxes will increase, by (supposedly; i've not done the calcs myself) the amount needed to cover the £3k drop in fees from each student.

Bit of a delay in reply here due to a poorly toddler to pick up. Thread seems to have gone off in a pension direction.

So from what you're saying the difference is going to come from pension pots > £1m, not sure what level of salary that would equate to, but i'm pretty sure it's going to be someone topping 70/80k (just gut feel - happy to be proved wrong).

So they're reducing costs for middlly high (can't think of a better term - 35-60k) and moving that to the high earners. Not saying the high earners paying more is a bad thing, but there has to be a better place for the extra cash to go.

[eFestivals]

Bit of a delay in reply here due to a poorly toddler to pick up. Thread seems to have gone off in a pension direction.

So from what you're saying the difference is going to come from pension pots > £1m, not sure what level of salary that would equate to, but i'm pretty sure it's going to be someone topping 70/80k (just gut feel - happy to be proved wrong).

So they're reducing costs for middlly high (can't think of a better term - 35-60k) and moving that to the high earners. Not saying the high earners paying more is a bad thing, but there has to be a better place for the extra cash to go.

From what I read before Labour's announcement yesterday (and i've still read nothing post-announcement, just to be clear), the tax relief for pension contributions would be altered for those earning more than £150k pa - so hardly people who might be struggling.

And people with earnings that high tend to make mighty big pension contributions, because they've got fuck all else to do with all the money they have and can't spend.

Of course, when they're not longer getting a tax freebie they might not put as much into their pension pot, but the other avenues open to them for where their money might go are ultimately subject to tax - so the treasury shouldn't lose.

As I've said, I've not looked into the exact numbers myself, so I've no idea how well they match up, and as I also said, these things never quite work out as planned anyway - but the general principle is sound, unless we're going to let the already steaming rich drive the rest of us into ever-greater poverty.

[gary1979666]

From what I read before Labour's announcement yesterday (and i've still read nothing post-announcement, just to be clear), the tax relief for pension contributions would be altered for those earning more than £150k pa - so hardly people who might be struggling.

And people with earnings that high tend to make mighty big pension contributions, because they've got fuck all else to do with all the money they have and can't spend.

Of course, when they're not longer getting a tax freebie they might not put as much into their pension pot, but the other avenues open to them for where their money might go are ultimately subject to tax - so the treasury shouldn't lose.

As I've said, I've not looked into the exact numbers myself, so I've no idea how well they match up, and as I also said, these things never quite work out as planned anyway - but the general principle is sound, unless we're going to let the already steaming rich drive the rest of us into ever-greater poverty.

I've not said anything against where the cut is funded from. If there's some income that isn't being taxed that can be - brill.

My issue is where that money is going. A grad earning 45k is going to be pretty comfortable as well. I'd have though ploughing another £2bn a year (or whatever the pension plan makes) in something like schools, social care, raising lower earning thresholds, etc would be a much nobler cause.

[eFestivals]

I've not said anything against where the cut is funded from. If there's some income that isn't being taxed that can be - brill.

My issue is where that money is going. A grad earning 45k is going to be pretty comfortable as well. I'd have though ploughing another £2bn a year (or whatever the pension plan makes) in something like schools, social care, raising lower earning thresholds, etc would be a much nobler cause.

As I've said, Labour have made clear this is not a long term plan, but something short term to avoid £240Bn extra being added to the national debt in the next 15 years. Presumably, the idea is to come up with a better plan once the deficit is out of the way and there's greater scope for bigger ideas.

The best plan would be one with no fees at all, which would immediately be said by the ric (but only the rich) as giving the rich money exactly as those on the side of the rich have said here - because they don't want to face the other side of that, that the rich would be higher taxed to get it back and more.

Edited March 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

Just to point out they've said the current system will add the £240bn to the debt, but they haven't said how much of that their cut will reduce it by. Granted,I still reckon it'll be a good ole chunk, but there'll still be a significant amount.

Not sure no fees is so great an idea either though. It links the unis much closer to the state, reducing their independence. Globally, there's a move to greater independence with countries with state funded unis dropping further and further down the league tables.

[eFestivals]

Just to point out they've said the current system will add the £240bn to the debt, but they haven't said how much of that their cut will reduce it by. Granted,I still reckon it'll be a good ole chunk, but there'll still be a significant amount.

Not sure no fees is so great an idea either though. It links the unis much closer to the state, reducing their independence. Globally, there's a move to greater independence with countries with state funded unis dropping further and further down the league tables.

Unis worked without problems when state funded before. It's fuck all to do with where any funds come from and everything to do with how those funds are used.

And anyway, what you're really saying is "those unis that charge the most do the best" on a global scale - and so all you're doing is saying the costs must go forever upwards, and the state shouldn't be involved so that uni becomes a preserve of only the rich.

I'm sure the rich and greedy will also find ways to criticise any plans for change, because they fear their greed-driven want of riches off the backs of others might be curtailed. Oh dear how sad never mind.

Edited March 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

Go on, I think there's a bit more room in my mouth for you to put some more words.

Not sure you're understanding this. 9k fees in the current format does not mean that 9k is paid by all. It's the amount repaid by higher paid grads. By cutting them to 6k, it is giving any grad earning over £35k an effective tax break. Maybe a grad tax is a better way to administer this, but a fee cut isn't a halfway house between the two.

I appreciate that the 9k for lower earning grads will mean a big proportion written off. If it were a company do this, they would have to make a reasonable assumption of the future write off and take the hit now. Not sure why the govt (either colour) doesn't have to do that. Neither party has said what will happen to this.

What I am saying is that more and more independent unis are climbing the global league tables and state funded ones are dropping down. Not sure the reasons, but they must be doing something different. I'm not saying we should have a fee system like the US, as repayments there look to be pretty horrendous. But the system we have now from a student point of view, looks pretty generous and don't see the benfit of reducing the fees. I will say, I do like the Labour plans to increase maintenance grants.

[eFestivals]

Maybe a grad tax is a better way to administer this,

it's not. It's not only those who go to university that financially benefit from others going to university. A plumber (for example) benefits because of the greater wealth of society as a whole.

So we need to account for that, and a grad tax doesn't do it, while general income taxation does.

but a fee cut isn't a halfway house between the two.

I didn't say it was a half-way house, i said it was a temporary solution which will reduce the amount of debt the country carries.

The amount of debt the country carries can only ever be covered via better taxing those who are taking away the country's money from covering the debt - and that's only those with surplus (the rich, to make that clear). Sooner or later everyone is going to have to wise up to this unavoidable fact of economics instead of using bullshit arguments to deflect the conversation somewhere else.

What I am saying is that more and more independent unis are climbing the global league tables and state funded ones are dropping down. Not sure the reasons, but they must be doing something different. I'm not saying we should have a fee system like the US, as repayments there look to be pretty horrendous. But the system we have now from a student point of view, looks pretty generous and don't see the benfit of reducing the fees. I will say, I do like the Labour plans to increase maintenance grants.

They don't drop down *because* they're state funded. They drop down for other reasons, such as being funded at a lower level.

And also, that "dropping down" needs to be looked at in context. Most of the world has privately funded unis, and the parts of the world where they are are the parts of the world on the rise - and so it's an inevitable consequence of globalisation that 'old world' institutions will not maintain their relative positions. It doesn't mean they're failing.

The benefit of reducing the fees is with the national debt the country carries - but strangely the tories seem to like a greater national debt when it's the rich who are running off with the money. How very strange ... or tories talk bollocks. One or the other.

Edited March 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

this -

Get out!

[gary1979666]

He can't make decent biscuits though.

[Comfy Bean]

Just to point out they've said the current system will add the £240bn to the debt, but they haven't said how much of that their cut will reduce it by. Granted,I still reckon it'll be a good ole chunk, but there'll still be a significant amount.

Not sure no fees is so great an idea either though. It links the unis much closer to the state, reducing their independence. Globally, there's a move to greater independence with countries with state funded unis dropping further and further down the league tables.

I`m with Neil`s mate Salmond on this one :

Mr Salmond unveiled the stone at Edinburgh’s Heriot-Watt University, which agreed to host it, before giving his resignation statement to the Scottish Parliament.

The tribute was made from Elgin sandstone and was inscribed with a 2011 statement in which he said: “The rocks will melt with the sun before I allow tuition fees to be imposed on Scottish students.”

He said: “The single biggest achievement by this Government has been the abolition of tuition fees. This one action has restored Scotland’s long tradition of education being based on ability to learn – not the ability to pay.”

I`m happy to think that our bright young / old educated students will go on to make their contribution to society and the economy.

Jim Murphy came out yesterday and backed the SNP policy on this. He says that if Labour win then they will continue with free education in Scotland. This may come as a surprise to some as Jim had previously described this policy as being " ‘incoherent, indefensible and unrealistic’ when he voted to impose tuition fees.

[LJS]

NEW POLL: 75% of Labour candidates would scrap Trident

http://www.cnduk.org/cnd-media/item/2104-new-poll-75-of-labour-candidates-would-scrap-trident

They are, to put it mildly, a little vague as to who they asked & who replied. However it may suggest that the Labout party is not quite 100% behind the renewal of Trident.

There's just a glimmer of hope that sanity may prevail.

[eFestivals]

They are, to put it mildly, a little vague as to who they asked & who replied. However it may suggest that the Labout party is not quite 100% behind the renewal of Trident.

There's just a glimmer of hope that sanity may prevail.

As I've already pointed out, it's not only the view of those politicians that counts. Any policy position has to ultimately be acceptable to a large enough proportion of the population.

If Labour were to pursue a no-nukes policy without the support of the military top brass, they'd be ripped to shreds in the right wing press, and I think it's likely too much of the country would be against that for Labour to push it thru.

The most important part in whether it's doable is the view of those military top brass. They might get on side, because the yanks are starting to make noises that the UK is a better military ally with current spending spent on conventional weapons and not nukes, but those top brass are probably currently too pissed off at the extent of the cutting that's going on with the military for sense to have much sway, I reckon.

[LJS]

As I've already pointed out, it's not only the view of those politicians that counts. Any policy position has to ultimately be acceptable to a large enough proportion of the population.

If Labour were to pursue a no-nukes policy without the support of the military top brass, they'd be ripped to shreds in the right wing press, and I think it's likely too much of the country would be against that for Labour to push it thru.

The most important part in whether it's doable is the view of those military top brass. They might get on side, because the yanks are starting to make noises that the UK is a better military ally with current spending spent on conventional weapons and not nukes, but those top brass are probably currently too pissed off at the extent of the cutting that's going on with the military for sense to have much sway, I reckon.

Not a problem. All they need to do is change their mind once they get elected. No doubt via some sort of enquiry which can be arranged to recommend the money would be better spent on conventional forces. Easy peasy.

You seem to have this slightly odd notion that governments require popular backing for everything they do.

[eFestivals]

Not a problem. All they need to do is change their mind once they get elected. No doubt via some sort of enquiry which can be arranged to recommend the money would be better spent on conventional forces. Easy peasy.

You seem to have this slightly odd notion that governments require popular backing for everything they do.

Thatcher had the power to force thru the poll tax, and she did. How did that work out for her?

It takes more than just having the power to do so to SUCCESSFULLY implement a policy. It also takes public acceptance.

I'm merely pointing out that unless the top brass are on-side with Labour's policy, they won't have that acceptance. The right wing media will kick up such a stink that the public will accept it'll destroy Labour's electability.

I hope those top brass get on side with a policy like that, and perhaps they will. But I suspect they'd see it as another attack on their prestige so soon after massive cuts for the military anyway that they wouldn't go along with it.

[LJS]

I, like many have been waiting for the frankly extraordinary polling figures for the SNP to start to subside somewhat as Nicola Sturgeon's honeymoon effect starts to fade and I expected the election of Jim Murphy, for all his flaws, to give Labour some sort of bounce. It would also be surprising if the relentless "vote SNP, get Tory" rhetoric had no effect at all.

But the weeks pass and there is absolutely no sign of any of the above happening - the SNP retain a consistent & handsome lead and with Lord Ashcroft's latest polls released tonight showing Labour on course to lose Gordon Browns & Alistair darling's old seats & Charlie Kennedy heading for the job centre, It looks as if things may be getting even Worse for Labour. Even Jim Murphy's own seat shows a Labour lead of only 1% and the Tories & SNP are level pegging in the Tories' sole Scottish seat.

Neil doesn't like the fact that us crazy Scots are so resistant to Miliband & Labour's charms & thinks we are punching ourselves in the face by voting SNP in such huge numbers. I see things slightly differently.

In reality it doesn't matter why so many of us will apparently vote SNP. the question that begins to matter more & more, as polling day looms ever closer, with a hung Parliament become more & more a probability rather than a possibility, is will Labour try & work with the SNP to some up with some form of workable government or will they just shrug their shoulders & wander off into the political wilderness for another 5 years? There are massive obstacles dangers for all involved if they do try & cobble something together and much has been made of these in the Indy thread mainly by Neil and I don't deny these problems are real.

But what of the dangers for the Labour if they refuse to try & form a government with support form the Nats. Will the electorate admire their "principled" stand or will they blame them from walking away from the opportunity to return to government?

Of course the electoral maths may work out in such a way that no such deal is possible - the Tories may get enough seats to form some kind of government with the support of what is left of the Libdems (assuming they have the stomach for another 5 years in coalition), but Labour would be wise to give serious and level headed consideration of what their post election tactics will be.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31738358

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/03/ashcroft-shows-snp-advancing-voting-areas/

[eFestivals]

But the weeks pass and there is absolutely no sign of any of the above happening

In all seriousness and meant as no insult: for people like you to change your mind would require you to be open to changing your mind. You're not.

Labour could offer a socialist wonderland as their manifesto, but you'd reject voting for it whilst calling yourself a socialist. And the reason for that is that you'd dismiss the Labour offering as worthless lies, and you'd invent the 'better' SNP policies from nothing they've ever said.

How do I know this? Because all of the above (without the extremes of Labour policy I've given as a hypothetical) you're already living large. Only Labour are the only party saying they'll tax the rich, and yet you hail the rich-gifting SNP as left-leaning.

For policies to count, people have to be open to policies. That's ended in Scotland.

Perhaps ask yourself why. Only you know.

Edited March 5, 2015 by eFestivals