Pensions untouched in the Budget

lisyloo

bigadaj wrote: »

The unemployment figures are low, under employment isn't.

As you've specifically raised medics then we're still training far fewer than we need to maintain or ideally increase provision, still importing large numbers to make up the shortfall.

So your agreeing with me then that dis-incentivising GPs in their 50s from working is not a good thing?

msallen

Silvertabby wrote: »

Then unless the credit card providers become charities (unlikely) the only other way for them to make money - to pay their staff, etc, etc, - would be to increase the credit card levy charged to the supplier, not the customer/borrower. That would mean at least a 5% increase on all goods. Wonderful.

No, I'm sure the idea is to simply raise some more tax from the hideously wealthy (those earning more than twice the minimum wage) and subsidise borrowing costs from that. Either that or pay for it from the massive future profits of the re-nationalised union-controlled price-capped railways and utilities. I'm sure Comrade McDonnell will explain over the coming days.

Malthusian

Silvertabby wrote: »

Then unless the credit card providers become charities (unlikely) the only other way for them to make money - to pay their staff, etc, etc, - would be to increase the credit card levy charged to the supplier, not the customer/borrower. That would mean at least a 5% increase on all goods. Wonderful.

Easy solution. Price controls. No-one is allowed to increase the price of goods by more than CPI. Or just freeze them "as an emergency measure until the cost of living crisis is over". Remember, socialism has a solution for every problem, especially the ones it created.

At this point I'll level with steampowered and admit I don't actually believe that Corbyn has unilaterally decided to change his party's policy from capping total interest and charges at 100% of the loan to banning interest entirely. Where I differ from steampowered is that he believes Corbyn is a sensible fella and said "cap credit card debt so that nobody pays back more than they borrowed" merely as a slip of the tongue.

I conjecture that Corbyn said this because he literally has no idea what the difference is between "cap credit card debt so nobody pays back more than they borrowed" and "cap credit card interest so nobody pays more interest than the original loan". Not a clue. Why would he - he's lived on benefits most of his adult life and has never needed to care about such things. He doesn't want to understand such things because in his world money is the root of all evil; to know the difference between interest and principal is to be contaminated.

And he wants to run the country.

The problem with steampowered's interpretation that "cap credit card debt so nobody pays back more than they borrowed" is a slip of the tongue, is that there are two "slips of the tongue" ("debt" rather than "interest" and "pays back more" rather than "pays more in interest") and they are consistent with each other. If I say "My wife is a dear, I'd like to kill her" then I can say "oops, I meant kiss" with plausibility. If I say "My wife is a demon, I'd like to kill her" then it can no longer be waved off as a slip of the tongue.

Silvertabby

Malthusian - good post.

Remember when Brown scrapped the 10% (income) tax band? He stood up and promised that no-one would be worse off 'because they would get back the difference through their increased benefits'.

Still not sure if he was really daft enough not to realise that many low paid (but not eligible for means tested benefits) workers/pensioners would be worse off, or if he simply didn't care because 'only those on benefits would be voting for Labour'.

hyubh

Malthusian wrote: »

I conjecture that Corbyn said this because he literally has no idea what the difference is between "cap credit card debt so nobody pays back more than they borrowed" and "cap credit card interest so nobody pays more interest than the original loan". Not a clue. Why would he - he's lived on benefits most of his adult life

How is being an MP 'living on benefits most of his adult life'...?

and has never needed to care about such things. He doesn't want to understand such things because in his world money is the root of all evil; to know the difference between interest and principal is to be contaminated.

TBH, I'm a bit confused whether you think political opponents are necessarily bumbling idiots or the devil incarnate. Posting before 10 AM too - bit early to be on the shandies.

The problem with steampowered's interpretation that "cap credit card debt so nobody pays back more than they borrowed" is a slip of the tongue, is that there are two "slips of the tongue" ("debt" rather than "interest" and "pays back more" rather than "pays more in interest")

Outside of fervent Corbinytes, I'm not sure anything thinks of him as good with words. Ditto his opposite number at 10 Downing Street of course...

hyubh

Silvertabby wrote: »

Malthusian - good post.

Hmm, remind me, how many public sector pensions does your household currently live off...?

Remember when Brown scrapped the 10% (income) tax band? He stood up and promised that no-one would be worse off 'because they would get back the difference through their increased benefits'.

Still not sure if he was really daft enough not to realise that many low paid (but not eligible for means tested benefits) workers/pensioners would be worse off, or if he simply didn't care because 'only those on benefits would be voting for Labour'.

You're talking about a Chancellor famous for radically extending the so-called 'tax credit' system.

Silvertabby

Hmm, remind me, how many public sector pensions does your household currently live off...?
Posted by hyubh

2 x Armed Forces, one LGPS and one Civil Service, with the bulk of our pensions being in respect of our combined 50+ years in the Armed Forces.

I was once told that I was 'very lucky' to have an Armed Forces pension. I replied that yes, I was - I lived to draw it with my life, limbs and mind intact, unlike some.

bigadaj

lisyloo wrote: »

So your agreeing with me then that dis-incentivising GPs in their 50s from working is not a good thing?

I have no strong opinions on that point either way, retirement is a combination of many factors financial being just one.


I disagree with and believe it's misleading to suggest that low employment figures that are reported can be translated as an excuse for not increasing the provision and training of new people. Provision is inadequate in the UK and should be addressed by the government whether wealthy middle aged people retire or not.

lisyloo

I disagree with and believe it's misleading to suggest that low employment figures that are reported can be translated as an excuse for not increasing the provision and training of new people. Provision is inadequate in the UK and should be addressed by the government whether wealthy middle aged people retire or not.

I completely agree and I must have phrased something badly if you thought otherwise.
I think it's a very bad idea to disincentivise people from carrying on working especially those whose skills affect the front line of public services. The only benefit I could see is freeing up jobs for younger people, which in a perfect world might be a benefit.

There may be a few that love their jobs (2% was mentioned on another thread) but most GPs and their ilk who've been working for 30 years+ would be very happy to get out with close to £1Million and are disincentived by higher rate taxation.

bigadaj

lisyloo wrote: »

I completely agree and I must have phrased something badly if you thought otherwise.
I think it's a very bad idea to disincentivise people from carrying on working especially those whose skills affect the front line of public services. The only benefit I could see is freeing up jobs for younger people, which in a perfect world might be a benefit.

There may be a few that love their jobs (2% was mentioned on another thread) but most GPs and their ilk who've been working for 30 years+ would be very happy to get out with close to £1Million and are disincentived by higher rate taxation.

We're possibly talking at cross purposes, my point was that as a wealthy and developed nation we should be funding more doctors and nurses to qualify, but we aren't and after many decades are still relying on importing qualified and experienced staff, robbing other countries, often developing ones, of the staff they have trained to their cost and future value.

Whether someone retires in their fifties on a £50k+ pension is their decision, they are paying 40% tax on some of that in any case. Of all jobs I thought doctors were supposed to be more of a vocation than many, but it doesn't appear to be the case from what you're saying.