It's not just the public sector....

CLAPTON

RenovationMan wrote: »

I don't understand why you're discussing goods and services consumed when talking about the burden of a penson on future generations?

What other burden is there but consumption of goods and services and it's relation to production of the same?

If pensioners spent no money then they would be no burden. It's when they spend it on goods and services that it means that they become a burden on the working population.

What do you think the idea of a burden on future generations actually mean?

Road_Hog

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am going to give you this link, w

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/ten_top_facts_on_local_governm.aspx

Sorry, but why would I want to read about a link, for a union that sponsors communist thugs United And Fascist and who took £18 million of our - taxpayers money?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7473683/Union-behind-BA-strike-receives-18m-from-taxpayers-in-money-laundering-deal-with-Labour.html

I see the outgoing leader walked off with over half a million last year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/18/unite-leader-golden-goodbye-row

Please can I have my 25% back please and can your lot return the £18 million you swindled out of the taxpayer.

RenovationMan

CLAPTON wrote: »

What other burden is there but consumption of goods and services and it's relation to production of the same?

If pensioners spent no money then they would be no burden. It's when they spend it on goods and services that it means that they become a burden on the working population.

What do you think the idea of a burden on future generations actually mean?

Clearly not what you think it means, and to be honest I don't think I'm alone. I've already gone through what I think the burden is and I'm not going to go over it again. If you can't see the difference between a fully funded money puchase pension and an unfunded final salary pension and don't know what an annuity is and how that is funded, then there seems little point pursuing that line of discussion.

To touch on your idea of burden. How is it a burden on society if a pensioner spends money?

ruggedtoast

Road_Hog wrote: »

Sorry, but why would I want to read about a link, for a union that sponsors communist thugs United And Fascist and who took £18 million of our - taxpayers money?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7473683/Union-behind-BA-strike-receives-18m-from-taxpayers-in-money-laundering-deal-with-Labour.html

I see the outgoing leader walked off with over half a million last year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/18/unite-leader-golden-goodbye-row

Please can I have my 25% back please and can your lot return the £18 million you swindled out of the taxpayer.

OK, you won't educate yourself, listen to an opinion other than your own incorrect one, or do anything else otherwise self improving.

You may wallow in your ignorance.

That is all.

The_White_Horse

treliac wrote: »

It's also interesting that the very fact it is likely to happen doesn't seem to inspire the same condemnation public sector workers attract.

(a) it is not public sector, hence I am not paying for it, so I don't care. if unilever products rise in price to pay for massive salaries and pensions, I will just stop buying them.

(b) public sector workers are already on massively generous pensions and their refusal to change to something more affordable is DISGUSTING. they are greedy scum.

The_White_Horse

people should not be forced to pay into pensions if they don't want to. however, if they don't have one when the time comes, that is their tough luck. no state handouts.

why should dave go to Spain every year for a holiday and get his state pension, when bob has not gone on holiday and saved the money for his retirement.

about time people took repsonsibility and the public sector saw sense.

they understand everything except the fact that there is no money to pay them. but they still want more. scum.

CLAPTON

RenovationMan wrote: »

Clearly not what you think it means, and to be honest I don't think I'm alone. I've already gone through what I think the burden is and I'm not going to go over it again. If you can't see the difference between a fully funded money puchase pension and an unfunded final salary pension and don't know what an annuity is and how that is funded, then there seems little point pursuing that line of discussion.

To touch on your idea of burden. How is it a burden on society if a pensioner spends money?

It is not a burden on society if some-one consumers goods or services; it a burden to the people that produce that good or service.
Its a burden in the sense that they forego the full fruits of their labour so that part of it is given to the pensioner.
The amount they forego is not dependent upon whether the pensioner has a fully funded pension or a state handout.

I think that you wish to think only in terms of the monetary value and the origin of the money rather than the physical reality.

One thing we do agree about it the majority of people with no economic training agree with your rather than me.

Thanks for the discussion but I believe we have probably gone as far as we can go.

RenovationMan

CLAPTON wrote: »

It is not a burden on society if some-one consumers goods or services; it a burden to the people that produce that good or service.
Its a burden in the sense that they forego the full fruits of their labour so that part of it is given to the pensioner.
The amount they forego is not dependent upon whether the pensioner has a fully funded pension or a state handout.

I think that you wish to think only in terms of the monetary value and the origin of the money rather than the physical reality.

One thing we do agree about it the majority of people with no economic training agree with your rather than me.

Thanks for the discussion but I believe we have probably gone as far as we can go.

It's interesting how you keep alluding to some higher knowledge of economics and yet you don't understand the basis of how an economy works. If no one purchases the fruits of other people's labours then there is no economy. The burden on the person producing the goods or service isn't in the actual act of producing the goods or service it's in the selling of the goods or service. The burden is that they have the financial outlay of producing the goods or service and no profit from the venture if buyers cannot be found. Indeed an actual loss on the venture in terms of both time, effort and monetary costs if raw materials had to be purchased.

Put simply, if no one is there to purchase your product or service, there will be no product or service.

CLAPTON

RenovationMan wrote: »

It's interesting how you allude to some higher knowledge of economics and yet you don't understand the basis of how an economy works. If no one purchases the fruits of other people's labours then there is no economy. The burden on the person producing the goods or service isn't in the actual act of producing the goods or service it's in the selling of the goods or service. The burden is that they have the financial outlay of producing the goods or service and no profit from the venture if buyers cannot be found. Indeed an actual loss on the venture in terms of both time, effort and monetary costs if raw materials had to be purchased.

Put simply, if no one is there to purchase your product or service, there will be no product or service.

Indeed an economy does require producer, sellers and consumers and buyers.

However, if I produce goods and sell them all to buyers and I get goods and service of equal value in exchange (or their monetery equivalent ) then indeed there is no burden on me. I have simply exchanged goods and services of equal value.

However, if I produce goods and services and I have to give some to the state and some to 'owners' (profits) then these things can responsibly be called burdens on me.

Now if some of those profits are given to pensioners (who had fully funder schemes) and some of the tax was given to state funded pensioners then I can responsibly say that these pensioners are a burden on me.

The burden exists whether I pay to the taxman or to profits.

RenovationMan

CLAPTON wrote: »

Indeed an economy does require producer, sellers and consumers and buyers.

However, if I produce goods and sell them all to buyers and I get goods and service of equal value in exchange (or their monetery equivalent ) then indeed there is no burden on me. I have simply exchanged goods and services of equal value.

However, if I produce goods and services and I have to give some to the state and some to 'owners' (profits) then these things can responsibly be called burdens on me.

Now if some of those profits are given to pensioners (who had fully funder schemes) and some of the tax was given to state funded pensioners then I can responsibly say that these pensioners are a burden on me.

The burden exists whether I pay to the taxman or to profits.

Now we get to the crux of the thing. Why are your products or services 'given' to pensioners? Why are the pensioners not paying for your goods and services with cash from out of their pensions?