Raising the pension age in order to pay for pensions

grizzly1911

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

We hear a lot from certain posters on here (especially Griz) who are against 'kicking the can down the road' and against the 'ponzi' scheme of high house prices. I therefore don't understand their objections to fully public sector pensions, unless it's because they have their own snout in the trough and don't want to change the status quo. If that is the case then they lack integrity.

I do not have my snout in the trough and have a private sector pension together with my own investment pot.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

All of these could/would have been done on a very incremental basis over the years.

.

Adjusting the books, and entitlements/contributions could all have been done however the accounting entries were made.

The fact they weren't was a political decision. Those decisons weren't made in ignorance of the issue. It hasn't just sprung out of the box at them.

We have continued to take on public debt as a country, sold assets, encouraged individuals to take on debt to help stem the ever growing public sector debt. We have now got to the point where we are eroding the savings of many and forcing others to consume them. Many are being consigned to lower annuity returns for the rest of their life.

Taxation has been increased and collected in different ways directly by stealth though things like green levies collected through the goods and services we consume.

These are all political decisions to keep the plates spinning.

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Adjusting the books, and entitlements/contributions could all have been done however the accounting entries were made.

The fact they weren't was a political decision. Those decisons weren't made in ignorance of the issue. It hasn't just sprung out of the box at them......

Exactly. Could have done, but didn't. That's why if they had published revenue accounts with the correct numbers in them, I just don't see how they could have 'got away with it' for so long. No party would want to be the one going down in history as presiding over the worst [you name it] ever.

GB will probably do that for benefits/tax credits. But I haven't got a clue which party, if ever, has really tackled the 30/40 year old issue of pension so-called 'time bombs'.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Exactly. Could have done, but didn't. That's why if they had published revenue accounts with the correct numbers in them, I just don't see how they could have 'got away with it' for so long. No party would want to be the one going down in history as presiding over the worst [you name it] ever.

GB will probably do that for benefits/tax credits. But I haven't got a clue which party, if ever, has really tackled the 30/40 year old issue of pension so-called 'time bombs'.

Pensions are just one of the symptoms of the underlying problem as a country we just aren't making enough for image we lie to portray.

We continue to run a current account deficit. This since around the mid 80s with only very brief periods of respite (devaluation post 1992) whilst we still had a "strong" manufacturing base. I understand that periods of economic growth have in the past been accompanied by bigger deficits I wonder which way they will go this time? What about oil revenues?

Time to sell a bit more of UKplc.

Loughton_Monkey

CLAPTON wrote: »

the main problem; if there is a problem is whether we can produce enough

the secondary issue is how we distribute the goods and services

pension rules and funded/unfunded schemes affect the distribution of GDP but not in general the total of the good and services (GDP) produced.

For the life of my I don't know where you get this crazy idea of "Distribution of GDP". Even if you could describe such a concept, surely you would need to talk about GNP instead of GDP. GDP is a statistic that measures output. There is no concept of active distribution of it. GDP is the final value of all goods produced. By the time a car is in the showroom selling for £25K, most of the costs of producing it have been "distributed" [if that's what you want to refer to]. The sale price of the car has been mostly 'absorbed' by paying suppliers, paying rates, buying tools, paying workers, giving the dealer a profit, and feeding the office cat. All that remains is to bank the profit, and pay some corporation tax (possibly) after the end of next financial year.

If you really wanted to establish where the £25K component of GDP went, [if that's what you mean by distribution of GDP] then for a single car, it would take you a lifetime. Or more. You would need to track 258 main suppliers [e.g. a bulb manufacturer]. Probably 1,725 secondary suppliers [e.g. the Malaysian tungsten provider]. That's nigh on 2,000 businesses and therefore 2,000 groups of employees. God knows how many shareholders.... 43,000? Then for each of these, you have various types of tax.........

All of this is fruitless and meaningless, and makes all your posts totally unintelligable. There could even be a bit of sense in there if only we understood it. It's a bit like trying to discuss fuel consumption with someone harping on about gallons per wheel or something equally stupid. Tends to show they know absolutely nothing about fuel consumption or even cars.

What we have, here, is production of goods and services. Almost universally by businesses. Businesses employ people and pay them money. Then they pay profits to shareholders, or invest it in the business. They pay tax. So does the shareholder. The people take their wages and also pay a bit of tax. They spend some of the rest on other goods and services, including financial services, and save the rest. The shareholders do the same. Pay a bit of tax. Probably spend the rest on other goods and services. Companies do the same. Spend a bit on new machine tools or a new computer system or a 'training session' for the top managers in Thailand.....

Nothing abnormal here. Just about 100 different types of tax. From 300 different types of person or 'entity'. Then the government uses that to invest in roads, ships, airports, and spends a whole lot more on Government staff, paper clips, gilt interest, and pot plants for Number 10. Some of this is GDP. Some of it isn't.

So now we can talk about where the tax comes from. And where the tax is spent (or distributed if you like).

But we do not 'spend' GDP. Just as we do not 'buy' immigration, or 'donate' unemployment, or 'invest' land, or 'create' depreciation, or 'consume' health, or 'smoke' education, or 'prevent' weather', or 'calculate' the Monarchy, or 'distribute' rain, or 'prosecute' inflation, or 'advertise' wars, or 'privatise' currency, or 'taper' legislation, or 'televise' debt.

MFW_ASAP

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I do not have my snout in the trough and have a private sector pension together with my own investment pot.

The system is clearly broken, it's a scheme where part of the remuneration package of current workers is paid for by the next generation and it relies on a pyramid scheme of more taxpayers than pensioners. All things you have complained about in the past when 'kicking the can down the road' and 'pyramid schemes' have been applied to financial bailouts and house prices.

I therefore don't understand why you advocate staying with the status quo for pensions? The only (poor) reason I can think of is perhaps because you know I don't like the current system and you merely want an argument with me? That's fine, but don't you think you lose some integrity and look a bit foolish arguing against your own points?

CLAPTON

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

For the life of my I don't know where you get this crazy idea of "Distribution of GDP". Even if you could describe such a concept, surely you would need to talk about GNP instead of GDP. GDP is a statistic that measures output. There is no concept of active distribution of it. GDP is the final value of all goods produced. By the time a car is in the showroom selling for £25K, most of the costs of producing it have been "distributed" [if that's what you want to refer to]. The sale price of the car has been mostly 'absorbed' by paying suppliers, paying rates, buying tools, paying workers, giving the dealer a profit, and feeding the office cat. All that remains is to bank the profit, and pay some corporation tax (possibly) after the end of next financial year.

If you really wanted to establish where the £25K component of GDP went, [if that's what you mean by distribution of GDP] then for a single car, it would take you a lifetime. Or more. You would need to track 258 main suppliers [e.g. a bulb manufacturer]. Probably 1,725 secondary suppliers [e.g. the Malaysian tungsten provider]. That's nigh on 2,000 businesses and therefore 2,000 groups of employees. God knows how many shareholders.... 43,000? Then for each of these, you have various types of tax.........

All of this is fruitless and meaningless, and makes all your posts totally unintelligable. There could even be a bit of sense in there if only we understood it. It's a bit like trying to discuss fuel consumption with someone harping on about gallons per wheel or something equally stupid. Tends to show they know absolutely nothing about fuel consumption or even cars.

What we have, here, is production of goods and services. Almost universally by businesses. Businesses employ people and pay them money. Then they pay profits to shareholders, or invest it in the business. They pay tax. So does the shareholder. The people take their wages and also pay a bit of tax. They spend some of the rest on other goods and services, including financial services, and save the rest. The shareholders do the same. Pay a bit of tax. Probably spend the rest on other goods and services. Companies do the same. Spend a bit on new machine tools or a new computer system or a 'training session' for the top managers in Thailand.....

Nothing abnormal here. Just about 100 different types of tax. From 300 different types of person or 'entity'. Then the government uses that to invest in roads, ships, airports, and spends a whole lot more on Government staff, paper clips, gilt interest, and pot plants for Number 10. Some of this is GDP. Some of it isn't.

So now we can talk about where the tax comes from. And where the tax is spent (or distributed if you like).

But we do not 'spend' GDP. Just as we do not 'buy' immigration, or 'donate' unemployment, or 'invest' land, or 'create' depreciation, or 'consume' health, or 'smoke' education, or 'prevent' weather', or 'calculate' the Monarchy, or 'distribute' rain, or 'prosecute' inflation, or 'advertise' wars, or 'privatise' currency, or 'taper' legislation, or 'televise' debt.

goods and services are produced by the economically active

goods and services are consumed by all members of society

there is thus a redistribution from the people that create the g&S to those that consume them

because we are a not a barter economy then much of distribution is done via the mechanism called money

so we need to understand how money is distributed between the people so they can obtain the G&S that have been produced

The important to note is that what is consumed by the population is the G&Ss and that pensions, wages, benefit payment, rent, dividend, interest etc are mechanism for the distribution and are not primary G&S

Irrespective of how much 'money' we have it is the per capita quantity of G&S (broadly measured by GDP) what makes us 'rich' or 'poor'.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

Irrespective of how much 'money' we have it is the per capita quantity of G&S (broadly measured by GDP) what makes us 'rich' or 'poor'.

Saving for retirement is a two pronged attack. Firstly, money will be needed to allow goods and services to be purchased and secondly, if I want first dibs on G&S I need to save more than you.

Aren't there two distinct arguments happening here? One about the value of saving and the second about who is going to produce goods and services for people in an aging population.

Perversely, to a degree, it might be better for me if you go through life working but spending every penny as this means I'll be able to outcompete you for goods and services later. Another benefit is that you'll probably have to work for longer thus helping to flatten the economic hump.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Saving for retirement is a two pronged attack. Firstly, money will be needed to allow goods and services to be purchased and secondly, if I want first dibs on G&S I need to save more than you.

Aren't there two distinct arguments happening here? One about the value of saving and the second about who is going to produce goods and services for people in an aging population.

Perversely, to a degree, it might be better for me if you go through life working but spending every penny as this means I'll be able to outcompete you for goods and services later. Another benefit is that you'll probably have to work for longer thus helping to flatten the economic hump.

yes indeed

larger pension provision for an individual does indeed allow you to 'outbid' the people with less income so you can enjoy more of the goods and services available.

Of course if everyone had a large pension pot then the benefit for you would disappear, so those frantically advocating large funded pension schemes are doing themselves no favours as they will relatively speaking be the losers.


I'm don't think that the problem would be a 'shortage' of money but rather it's distribution.

And it doesn't mean, in general that funded schemes per se now affect the size of GDP in the future.

System

The obvious answer which squares both circles is to invest in a worker.
As slavery is now illegal the acceptable solution is to aquire a younger spouse.
The deal is you provide a house, he/she provides an income from employment.