Jeremy Hunt in plea to early retirees: ‘Britain needs you’

zagfles

NedS said:

DoublePolaroid said:

zagfles said:

DoublePolaroid said:

zagfles said:

Anonymous101 said:

Stubod said:

I think I would be more inclined to "help out", if I truly believed that our "leaders" shared the same commitment rather than doing their very best to avoid paying their own fair share...???

I’m sure they see it as “fair” after all they’re not PAYE worker drones. They’re far to important to play by those rules.

As opposed to, say, premiership footballers who earn in one week what an MP does in a year?

Maybe a country that values the job of kicking a football round a pitch 50 times as much as the job of running the country deserves the politicians it gets.

Don’t really get this. If you include expenses, jobbing MP’s get paid a similar salary to NHS consultants. Nobody complains about the competence of our brain surgeons, cardiologists and the like and medicine in general has no problem attracting thousands upon thousands of rather bright minds happy to work productively and (generally) for the benefit of the public for a salary that is apparently so low that it encumbers us with thick, incompetent politicians. It’s pretty clear that pay isn’t the issue. 

You understand "expenses" aren't salary, right? They're costs incurred doing the job. You may as well include the cost of the operating theater and support staff in a surgeon's salary if you're going to include offices, assistants etc for an MP.

As for PL footballers, rather unlike MP’s, they are in the top minuscule fraction of a percent for talent at a game that vast numbers play and every penny they earn is paid for by people happy to fork out to watch the post popular sport in the world. Apart from Jesse Lingard. He gets paid far too much. 

That's the point. People are prepared to pay a lot for the pretty useless talent of being good on a football pitch, but not for the pretty important talent of competantly running a country.

So you nitpicked and avoided the substantive point. Do you think we’d suddenly get substantially better MP’s if we paid them the circa £100k a consultant gets rather then the £84k they get now? Ok, compare MP’s to what used to be called specialist registrars rather than consultants then. They’re the training grade docs who basically run the hospital on the clinical side. Salaries range from somewhat less than to slightly more than an MP.

My point stands. We pay them the same money as politicians yet get smart, competent people, virtually without exception. It’s pretty clear pay isn’t the issue. 

And we then pay failed politicians £320k for appearing on a TV show to watch them eat bugs in a jungle. Shakes head in despair.

Exactly. We value that sort of entertainment more than the job of running the country.

Mind you, it was hugely entertaining reading all the social media haters frothing at the mouth whenever Matt Hancock got through to the next round. And Chris Moyles realising that he's less popular than MH

Andy_L

DoublePolaroid said:

zagfles said:

Anonymous101 said:

Stubod said:

I think I would be more inclined to "help out", if I truly believed that our "leaders" shared the same commitment rather than doing their very best to avoid paying their own fair share...???

I’m sure they see it as “fair” after all they’re not PAYE worker drones. They’re far to important to play by those rules.

As opposed to, say, premiership footballers who earn in one week what an MP does in a year?

Maybe a country that values the job of kicking a football round a pitch 50 times as much as the job of running the country deserves the politicians it gets.

Don’t really get this. If you include expenses, jobbing MP’s get paid a similar salary to NHS consultants. Nobody complains about the competence of our brain surgeons, cardiologists and the like and medicine in general has no problem attracting thousands upon thousands of rather bright minds happy to work productively and (generally) for the benefit of the public for a salary that is apparently so low that it encumbers us with thick, incompetent politicians. It’s pretty clear that pay isn’t the issue. 

As for PL footballers, rather unlike MP’s, they are in the top minuscule fraction of a percent for talent at a game that vast numbers play and every penny they earn is paid for by people happy to fork out to watch the post popular sport in the world. Apart from Jesse Lingard. He gets paid far too much. 

Have you seen what MPs can claim for expenses post duck-house-gate?
If you count them as salary you'd have to include the cost of the operating theatre and staff for the brain surgeon's salary

NedS

To be fair, I don't think I'd want to be an MP, for £84k per year or otherwise.

michaels

zagfles said:

p00hsticks said:

michaels said:

However if the govt wants to force people to work longer they should change NI so that rather than not paying it on unearned income instead you don't pay it once over state pension age.

@michaels

??? I don't believe those over State Pension Age currently pay NI on any income, whether earned or unearned.

I know that at one point they were down to pay the proposed social care surcharge element, but I thought that had all been scrapped ?

https://www.gov.uk/tax-national-insurance-after-state-pension-age

The suggestion was instead of "not paying NI on unearned income" that that only applies after state pension age, ie people would pay NI on pension income if below state pension age. Hugely controversial of course, it would be double taxation on the same income for those who didn't use sal sac and it would just encourage people to save outside of pensions eg in ISAs.

But it is only double taxation if you take advantage of retiring early (what richer people can afford to do), everyone has the choice not to draw pension until state pension age after which point no NI is payable.

LHW99

My point stands. We pay them the same money as politicians yet get smart, competent people, virtually without exception. It’s pretty clear pay isn’t the issue.

Possibly the reason lies in the fact that senior registrars and consultants have had to pass an array of fairly tough exams to get to where they are. Politicians merely have to persuade enough people to vote for them. And in some constituencies "enough" may just be the local selection committee, if the constituency is a safe seat.

MACKEM99

NedS said:

I think before they think about trying to entice people back from retirement, they need to consider how to stem the exodus. Stop it getting much worse before thinking about how they may be able to make it better.

As a civil servant given a 2% pay rise (or 2% - 10.1% = -8.1% pay cut), I need to know I'm going to at least earn the same this year as I did last year (in real terms) otherwise where is my incentive to stay? I'm already half out the door in April - you have 2 months to change my mind and make work worth my while to stay.

Hi Ned = when I was in the civil service up until just over 5 years ago they stopped paying spine increases and only paid pay increases of around 1%.  They even had the cheek to use part of the 1% increase for bonuses for some.  Every time we had a visit/meeting with a senior civil servant who asked us if we had any "gripes" we mentioned the freezing of spine increases and the limit of pay increases to just less than 1%.  The answer from everyone one of them was "If you are not happy then you need to think if this is the job for you"?  In other words " If you dont like it  - Bu**er Off".  So many of us of a certain age did.  Result - experience in the department went downhill very quickly.  So for the same party who implemented this policy to ask us to come back is a bit rich.  No thanks.

zagfles

LHW99 said:

My point stands. We pay them the same money as politicians yet get smart, competent people, virtually without exception. It’s pretty clear pay isn’t the issue.

Possibly the reason lies in the fact that senior registrars and consultants have had to pass an array of fairly tough exams to get to where they are. Politicians merely have to persuade enough people to vote for them. And in some constituencies "enough" may just be the local selection committee, if the constituency is a safe seat.

Which is of course a "problem" with democracy. It does amuse me when people continually claim politicians are "out of touch with ordinary people" - err, no, you don't win elections by being out of touch with ordinary people, because it's ordinary people who put you there! If anyone thinks they're more "in touch" they should test that by standing for election!

The problem of course is that being "in touch" doesn't necessarily mean qualified for the job. I wouldn't fly on a plane where the pilot had been democratically elected 

MACKEM99

NedS said:

DoublePolaroid said:

zagfles said:

DoublePolaroid said:

zagfles said:

Anonymous101 said:

Stubod said:

I think I would be more inclined to "help out", if I truly believed that our "leaders" shared the same commitment rather than doing their very best to avoid paying their own fair share...???

I’m sure they see it as “fair” after all they’re not PAYE worker drones. They’re far to important to play by those rules.

As opposed to, say, premiership footballers who earn in one week what an MP does in a year?

Maybe a country that values the job of kicking a football round a pitch 50 times as much as the job of running the country deserves the politicians it gets.

Don’t really get this. If you include expenses, jobbing MP’s get paid a similar salary to NHS consultants. Nobody complains about the competence of our brain surgeons, cardiologists and the like and medicine in general has no problem attracting thousands upon thousands of rather bright minds happy to work productively and (generally) for the benefit of the public for a salary that is apparently so low that it encumbers us with thick, incompetent politicians. It’s pretty clear that pay isn’t the issue. 

You understand "expenses" aren't salary, right? They're costs incurred doing the job. You may as well include the cost of the operating theater and support staff in a surgeon's salary if you're going to include offices, assistants etc for an MP.

As for PL footballers, rather unlike MP’s, they are in the top minuscule fraction of a percent for talent at a game that vast numbers play and every penny they earn is paid for by people happy to fork out to watch the post popular sport in the world. Apart from Jesse Lingard. He gets paid far too much. 

That's the point. People are prepared to pay a lot for the pretty useless talent of being good on a football pitch, but not for the pretty important talent of competantly running a country.

So you nitpicked and avoided the substantive point. Do you think we’d suddenly get substantially better MP’s if we paid them the circa £100k a consultant gets rather then the £84k they get now? Ok, compare MP’s to what used to be called specialist registrars rather than consultants then. They’re the training grade docs who basically run the hospital on the clinical side. Salaries range from somewhat less than to slightly more than an MP.

My point stands. We pay them the same money as politicians yet get smart, competent people, virtually without exception. It’s pretty clear pay isn’t the issue. 

And we then pay failed politicians £320k for appearing on a TV show to watch them eat bugs in a jungle. Shakes head in despair.

Or they are in the House Of Lords collecting over £300 per day for signing in?

mumf

unfortunately,the majority of government, MPs and the like are ex Public School, ( Hunt is) ,so therefore are from wealthy families. They are born,reared and educated in a world that is miles apart  from people who do proper work. And that basic ‘proper ‘ work was clapped for and congratulated during COVID 19. In fact ,it was rather interesting to see who wasn’t actually missed at that time -  those were the ones who earn (ed) a shed load of money ,unlike the ‘basic’ workers who were praised. How soon society and parliament have forgotten. 

zagfles

michaels said:

zagfles said:

p00hsticks said:

michaels said:

However if the govt wants to force people to work longer they should change NI so that rather than not paying it on unearned income instead you don't pay it once over state pension age.

@michaels

??? I don't believe those over State Pension Age currently pay NI on any income, whether earned or unearned.

I know that at one point they were down to pay the proposed social care surcharge element, but I thought that had all been scrapped ?

https://www.gov.uk/tax-national-insurance-after-state-pension-age

The suggestion was instead of "not paying NI on unearned income" that that only applies after state pension age, ie people would pay NI on pension income if below state pension age. Hugely controversial of course, it would be double taxation on the same income for those who didn't use sal sac and it would just encourage people to save outside of pensions eg in ISAs.

But it is only double taxation if you take advantage of retiring early (what richer people can afford to do), everyone has the choice not to draw pension until state pension age after which point no NI is payable.

Or people with gold plated public sector pensions, where retiring early is often the expectation plus until very recently they hadn't moved into the world of sal sac. Plus if you're paying NI then presumably you'd get NI benefits eg stuff like state pension accrual, unemployment, bereavement benefit etc.

It's an option though, perhaps at a lower rate eg something like the old married women's rate where NI benefits aren't accrued. Maybe combined with a carrot for instance increasing the LTA, after all that's a reason a lot of people have retired early.