State Pension age under threat again

MX5huggy

Workerdrone said:

LV_426 said:

sevenhills said:

p00hsticks said

I suspect that the problem with that approach is that when you crunched the numbers you'd find that at the current contribution rates most ordinary people simply wouldn't have put enough away over their lifetimes to be able to retire comfortably at the same sort of age as the State Pension Age is now.

I believe in personal responsibility, but it's great if we can get rich people to make the poor richer.
But instead of giving people money that they have not earned, the rich should pay for infrastructure and things like the NHS and free public transport.

I do agree with you, but don't you think it would make the rich find a more attractive place in the world to live, and take the wealth out of this country. Net result would be the economy here being worse off for everyone.
I'm just guessing really as I'm no economist. It's a fine line between allowing people to accumulate and keep wealth, but also taxing in order to spend money on public services etc. After all, those with immense wealth are not going to pay for infrastructure out of the kindness of their heart, are they?
To me there's a direct conflict of interests here, and I'm not sure how you best resolve that. Which is why governing a country is so hard. I suppose if a party had worked out a way of keeping everyone happy, they'd be in power.

I'd be less irked by taxation in general if there were significant efficiency drives in government. The NHS alone has far to many managers.

Really? What percentage of an organisation should be “managers”? How many staff can one person manage? 

https://www.nhsconfed.org/long-reads/nhs-overmanaged

Malthusian

xylophone said:

And all those lucky beggars who are already benefiting from this government largesse should look out because the "good behaviour force" will  be requiring a monthly report on how they are spending these vast sums - anybody smoking/drinking/gambling will be penalised at the rate of 50p in the pound - and beware those foreign holidays!

But an annual week in Bognor will be permitted. 

Smokers are already penalised at 50p in the pound. 1,000 cigarettes costs £635 on average, at least £348 of which is tax. So are drinkers of cheap wine - the cost of a £5 bottle of wine is 60% tax. Gambling is taxed at up to 50p in the pound depending on the casino's turnover.
If you already knew that, I'll accept my whoosh.

Workerdrone

MX5huggy said:

Workerdrone said:

LV_426 said:

sevenhills said:

p00hsticks said

I suspect that the problem with that approach is that when you crunched the numbers you'd find that at the current contribution rates most ordinary people simply wouldn't have put enough away over their lifetimes to be able to retire comfortably at the same sort of age as the State Pension Age is now.

I believe in personal responsibility, but it's great if we can get rich people to make the poor richer.
But instead of giving people money that they have not earned, the rich should pay for infrastructure and things like the NHS and free public transport.

I do agree with you, but don't you think it would make the rich find a more attractive place in the world to live, and take the wealth out of this country. Net result would be the economy here being worse off for everyone.
I'm just guessing really as I'm no economist. It's a fine line between allowing people to accumulate and keep wealth, but also taxing in order to spend money on public services etc. After all, those with immense wealth are not going to pay for infrastructure out of the kindness of their heart, are they?
To me there's a direct conflict of interests here, and I'm not sure how you best resolve that. Which is why governing a country is so hard. I suppose if a party had worked out a way of keeping everyone happy, they'd be in power.

I'd be less irked by taxation in general if there were significant efficiency drives in government. The NHS alone has far to many managers.

Really? What percentage of an organisation should be “managers”? How many staff can one person manage? 

https://www.nhsconfed.org/long-reads/nhs-overmanaged

Fair point. I'll replace managers with inefficiencies. Without going on to reveal too much, in preparation for her band 7 interview my wife was told to read the chief execs blog. It was simply one quango, process and policy nested inside of another like a bunch of Russian dolls. Precious little of it could be seen to have a direct positive benefit on clinical outcomes.

xylophone

If you already knew that, I'll accept my whoosh.

I knew that tax on such items was high (but being non smoking/drinking/ gambling, not how high!)

But the  new "conduct levy" comes on top.....

That'll larn em!

bluenose1

After reading "Britannia Unchained" with named authors including our glorious leader Liz Truss and Kwazi Kwateng I fear what is coming re state pensions and benefits if they have their way. The only hope is their own MP's dont let them implement what they would like to as they know it would be political suicide.                 
Think we really will have to be wealthy and healthy to exist in their vision of the future.

Andy_L

Workerdrone said:

LV_426 said:

sevenhills said:

p00hsticks said

I suspect that the problem with that approach is that when you crunched the numbers you'd find that at the current contribution rates most ordinary people simply wouldn't have put enough away over their lifetimes to be able to retire comfortably at the same sort of age as the State Pension Age is now.

I believe in personal responsibility, but it's great if we can get rich people to make the poor richer.
But instead of giving people money that they have not earned, the rich should pay for infrastructure and things like the NHS and free public transport.

I do agree with you, but don't you think it would make the rich find a more attractive place in the world to live, and take the wealth out of this country. Net result would be the economy here being worse off for everyone.
I'm just guessing really as I'm no economist. It's a fine line between allowing people to accumulate and keep wealth, but also taxing in order to spend money on public services etc. After all, those with immense wealth are not going to pay for infrastructure out of the kindness of their heart, are they?
To me there's a direct conflict of interests here, and I'm not sure how you best resolve that. Which is why governing a country is so hard. I suppose if a party had worked out a way of keeping everyone happy, they'd be in power.

I'd be less irked by taxation in general if there were significant efficiency drives in government. The NHS alone has far to many managers.

What do you think the NHS management overhead is and how do you think that compares to other large organisations?