Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

cyclonebri1

atush wrote: »

Can some lazy peeps get off their butt long enough to Google?


http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/discussionpapers/CHE%20Discussion%20Paper%20138.pdf

poke around long enough and you'll find the one they use lol.

And can you tell that to the 65 year old miner with dust lung and the 65 year old navvie without a joint left????

Moby

dshart wrote: »

You still fail to answer my question as to whether you would accept budget cuts and cuts to public service pensions if they were demanded by Europe? and if you think it would not be the case then take a look at what Greece and Italy are having to do to their budgets to get bailed out.

We were not required to sign up to such a deal! I have already said this. Your question is therefore superfluous!

Whats the point in accepting something if you have no intention of going along with it. The new proposals allow for new rules to be pushed through with a majority vote, so at some stage down the line we would still be in this same position where the majority voted for something and we would not have the option of opting out apart from leaving the EU.

Again totally wrong. There are other countries who are not intending to be a part of the 'inner group' they seem to have avoided issuing the veto! We were not in a position of either accept something or leaving the EU!

There are those who believe the Euro was doomed from the start because you cannot have a single currency when you have different countries with different tax systems. The Euro will only work if you have a united Europe and I am afraid at the moment the only thing that unites them is the fear of the Euro collapsing. If closer integration and fiscal union in Europe is the best option why has it taken a crisis to bring it about, why were these powers of budgetary control not pushed for before now? or was it because in the good times of excessive spending and easy money all these Euro members couldn't agree.

Totally agree but has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

If Germany really wants to save the Euro then why do they strongly object for the issue of Eurobonds which would share the risk between all the Euro using countries. The reason is they are hedging their bets in case the Euro cannot be saved, then at least Germany can come out okay at the end. France also has self interest at heart so why shouldnt Britain. Why did the Merkozy partnership have a separate meeting on the 5th December to thrash out a deal suitable to them without inviting DC if Britain was to be such a major player? They met and arranged a deal that they knew would be unacceptable to DC.

France and Germany have separate meetings all the time in order to discuss how to save the Euro....we are not in the Euro! In any event every country has self interest at heart .....the difference is the others....none of them.... used the veto! and therefore compromised their future negotiating position! We are now 'compromised' as a major player because Cameron couldn't see any other way of fobbing off his own party! Again he put party above his country's interests!

MikeR71

For the record, I don't believe any of those stats!

The government should NOT be looking to cut salaries and pensions as its solution to economic problems. I am sure there are many other expenses that can be cut instead. I just can not and will not accept that cutting pensions and salaries is the only solution and there is no other.

MikeR71

worldwheeler wrote: »

The politician is a type of creature known for its propensity to lie

The beggar thy neighbour which the politicians are playing with the public is obscene. "the situation has changed and the country's in a mess, therefore your pension which you signed up to is to be changed to something less favourable to you, now suck it up!" Why are PFI agreements, which are THE most expensive way of financing services, not renegotiated. Why hasn't the government gone to the CEOs of PFI companies, let's say the one getting £40k a day for services a dozen or so brand new & EMPTY fire command centre buildings, and said sorry we can not afford the PFI agreements tieing the tax payer in for 25years no matter what happens, SO, now we will pay a lot less for a lot fewer years AND only when the services are actually being delivered??????????????????

The answer is the tax payer will be made to bleed before any corporate entity has to forego even a penny they, their lawyer and complicit politicians have and are defrauding the taxpayer of. The pension debacle is because the financial institutions have gambled and stolen most of the pension money, more and more tax revenues have been used to cover the publicised losses of the banks, while they retain private owned profits, so the pensions are going to have to suffer a huge loss for the bonus culture of the fraudulent money system.
Corporations - too big to fail
The 99% taxpayers - too big not to steal from.

Or why not make Philip Green pay his taxes in this country? Last year alone he dodged £300mil, by diverting all the profits from his businesses to his wife who is a Monaco resident.
I am sure there are other rich fat cats whose taxes will reach at least £1 billion a year. That easily would cover the the shortfall the government is hoping to recoup with a 1% cap on pay rises for the squeezed public sector.

Andy_L

MikeR71 wrote: »

For the record, I don't believe any of those stats!

Why not? Do you not trust ONS or will you only believe stats that match your preconceptions?

rpc

MikeR71 wrote: »

Or why not make Philip Green pay his taxes in this country? Last year alone he dodged £300mil, by diverting all the profits from his businesses to his wife who is a Monaco resident.

How are you going to acheive that? He did not divert profits - he paid dividends to shareholders (her). Strictly, that income was not his so why should he pay tax on it? Should you be taxed on your wife's income just in case it is really yours? Then you could both be taxed on the same income!

It is just an extreme example of what a number of families do when the two partners are in different tax brackets. All of my BILs savings are in his wife's name because she doesn't work and he does. My in-laws savings are all in my MILs name because she paid basic rate tax and my FIL paid higher rate. Should that also be banned? If so, how?

Then you have the problem that many companies pay dividends and shareholders are international - so while Philip Green's case may be simple, how are you going to set up rules for much bigger companies with shares?

"Make him pay tax here" is easy to say, actually making it happen is rather difficult.

worldwheeler

MikeR71 wrote: »

The government should NOT be looking to cut salaries and pensions as its solution to economic problems. I am sure there are many other expenses that can be cut instead.

The economic model that the world has been running on, which is mathematically unsustainable, has always been the fall back solution of growth. Now though, paradoxically, the solutions being put forward of austerity which will drive growth to negative and put society economics into a downward spiral. The growth model would resume if wages for the 99% were increased. But no, the solution is to cut everything away from the 99% and hype up the "trickle down" economic wealth distribution method. Funny, the people who engineered jacking themselves higher and higher above the 99% now say that the solution is to basically grease a large section of the bottom of the ladder. Because the people at the bottom are dragging everyone down and should be allowed to slide into the depths. DON'T, for one second, think that the people at the top are, have always been, and will always, push as many people down as they can.

The growth model would only work in a world of infinite resources.
We were always going to arrive at the limit of resources, so the engineered financial train crash is a way of achieving a command and control divide between the 99% and the 1%.
So, just before the resources dwindle the elite have elevated themselves to make sure they are are in a position of ultimate power and control. They now can have all the remaining resources to themselves while the rest of humanity is left to shiver, starve and pay carbon credits for breathing.

dshart

Moby wrote: »

We were not required to sign up to such a deal! I have already said this. Your question is therefore superfluous!

So please tell me what did the 26 sign up to if it was not an agreement for state budgets to be scrutinized and agreed by Europe before they could be implemented?

MikeR71

Andy_L wrote: »

Why not? Do you not trust ONS or will you only believe stats that match your preconceptions?

That would be nice!

But seriously, these numbers are usually exaggerated to fit a purpose. They tell us what they want to push through their agendas. Like now they are saying we don't have any money so they have to cut pensions and salaries. Yet I bet if there is a war they want to get involved in, they will miraculously find billions to spend on it and would convince us that our lives are in danger unless we do.

rpc wrote: »

How are you going to acheive that? He did not divert profits - he paid dividends to shareholders (her). Strictly, that income was not his so why should he pay tax on it? Should you be taxed on your wife's income just in case it is really yours? Then you could both be taxed on the same income!

Then you have the problem that many companies pay dividends and shareholders are international - so while Philip Green's case may be simple, how are you going to set up rules for much bigger companies with shares?

"Make him pay tax here" is easy to say, actually making it happen is rather difficult.

Oh I know all this. It's just hard to take when the same Philip Greene is employed as an adviser, probably paid out of the tax payer purse, by the government.

The economic model that the world has been running on, which is mathematically unsustainable, has always been the fall back solution of growth. Now though, paradoxically, the solutions being put forward of austerity which will drive growth to negative and put society economics into a downward spiral. The growth model would resume if wages for the 99% were increased. But no, the solution is to cut everything away from the 99% and hype up the "trickle down" economic wealth distribution method. Funny, the people who engineered jacking themselves higher and higher above the 99% now say that the solution is to basically grease a large section of the bottom of the ladder. Because the people at the bottom are dragging everyone down and should be allowed to slide into the depths. DON'T, for one second, think that the people at the top are, have always been, and will always, push as many people down as they can.

And all this will continue until people seriously get off their asses and do something. So long as everyone is happy to be part of this unjust system then nothing will change. It will only get worse.

Those who complained about public sector strikes saying it caused inconvenience are extremely short-sighted. When people decide to stand up for themselves and their rights they are put down by their own kind, which is the most disappointing thing.

worldwheeler

MikeR71 wrote: »

That would be nice!

But seriously, these numbers are usually exaggerated to fit a purpose. They tell us what they want to push through their agendas. Like now they are saying we don't have any money so they have to cut pensions and salaries. Yet I bet if there is a war they want to get involved in, they will miraculously find billions to spend on it and would convince us that our lives are in danger unless we do.

The MSM propaganda machine is mighty. It convinces people that they have power because they can decide which sellout-ibrity can dance the best, or which singer has the right to be a puppet money earner for Simon. Some people are so far into the smoke and mirrors they will not be aware of anything that effects their lives until the door of the oven they were guided into shuts behind them. So the propaganda machine will easily persuade people that ALL truth comes from the telly.
Black Mirror