Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Bruce Wayne]

No we don't it's a political/economic choice on the part of government.. In 1945 when they were introducing it, they didn't have a clause that said 'if life expectancy increases increase the pension age'. Blair wanted o increase the pension age for 2030ish but the Tories/Lib dems brought it forward. £6 grand less in not only my pocket but hundreds of thousand people.

Mind, there are those that bellyache about their shares that may get taxed. A 20% tax on share selling would be a good idea.

The doubling of spending on pensions since 2000 must be a myth then, we can just carry on as we are with pensions sucking up ever greater amounts of public spending at the expense of education, the NHS and so on. And for the record, when inflation is taken into account, it has gone from 6.6% of GDP in 2000 to 8% now.

As for the silly argument about firefighters, just 6% of firefighters are over 60 years of age, as there's a natural progression into desk jobs where their experience can be used as their physical capabilities decline. It's not exactly rocket science. You'll be complaining about footballers not being able to hack it until they're 66 next.

 

[hullefc]

You do realise that this mythical £450 wont be for ten years, and is 100% dependent on your company deciding to pay it anyrate?

Its utter pie in the sky cobblers, but as per, is lapped up.

Even if it is in 10 years, and doesn't help pay back the £6 grand the state took out of my pocket, and I don't benefit at least others will. There is nothing like listening to some CEO's/CBI/IoD moan about how destitute they will become, if they have to put their hand in their pockets and give the workers loose change.

 

[roydo]

Even if it is in 10 years, and doesn't help pay back the £6 grand the state took out of my pocket, and I don't benefit at least others will. There is nothing like listening to some CEO's/CBI/IoD moan about how destitute they will become, if they have to put their hand in their pockets and give the workers loose change.

Again, the CEO wont be paying a bean mate. Its a con that you have swallowed. hook line and sinker.

 

[Tubey]

Like what? Extreme wealth, if used for industry, has a lot of benefits to society, including the working classes: the created industry creates jobs, which enhances spending, which then benefits the economy, which brings in more taxes for the government, which benefits the support systems for the poor & disabled.

This has been proven to be a failed idea. It's called 'trickle down economics' - it doesn't work as the wealth doesn't trickle down; it simply gets hoarded at the top.

Your theory would make sense if you didn't consider the alternative of wealth being more spread out, so the jobs are still created but in a different way. By that I don't mean socialism, but more businesses of decent wealth employing instead of fewer businesses of extreme wealth.

It's as busted a theory as communism in that in theory it might make sense but in practice it can never work due to simple human greed.

 

[hullefc]

The doubling of spending on pensions since 2000 must be a myth then, we can just carry on as we are with pensions sucking up ever greater amounts of public spending at the expense of education, the NHS and so on. And for the record, when inflation is taken into account, it has gone from 6.6% of GDP in 2000 to 8% now.

As for the silly argument about firefighters, just 6% of firefighters are over 60 years of age, as there's a natural progression into desk jobs where their experience can be used as their physical capabilities decline. It's not exactly rocket science. You'll be complaining about footballers not being able to hack it until they're 66 next.

Point out where I said doubling of spending on pensions is a myth? So you're talking about pensioners taking money off education and health. Incredible. McDonnell hasn't been bold enough and should have a share transaction tax as well as transaction tax on the City of London that could reduce taxes for everyone and fund the pension age from 60, put more funds into the NHS.

Fire fighters were rightly complaining that there retirement age would be raised to 60 and wouldn't be able to do the job. Putting themselves and others at risk.

 

[hullefc]

Except firefighters and police retire early. And train drivers and lorry drivers are already retested.

Bringing the retirement age down would be a huge mental health time bomb as well.

The government were wanting to raise Fire fighters pension age to 60 but a campaign by the FBU forced the government to rethink. I take it you joined in with the FBU s campaign.

 

[zzr45]

The government were wanting to raise Fire fighters pension age to 60 but a campaign by the FBU forced the government to rethink. I take it you joined in with the FBU s campaign.

That wasn’t your original point though was it? You said we’d have 70 year old firefighters milling about. What if they had a private pension btw? Is it fair that under these Labour proposals that would be worth less when they retire?

 

[peteblue]

@peteblue show me the evidence that McDonell's proposals will cost jobs?

You have no understanding of business. Costs are never just eaten, there is always a way to recover, either through automation, outsourcing, pay freeze, benefits reduction, pension contributions, site closures and amalgamation. If it is the number of people that drives payment, then the number of people will be reduced, and to think otherwise is naive......

 

[hullefc]

You have no understanding of business. Costs are never just eaten, there is always a way to recover, either through automation, outsourcing, pay freeze, benefits reduction, pension contributions, site closures and amalgamation. If it is the number of people that drives payment, then the number of people will be reduced, and to think otherwise is naive......

The same things were said when the national minimum wage was introduced. So your evidence doesn't exist. Thought so.

 

[peteblue]

The same things were said when the national minimum wage was introduced. So your evidence doesn't exist. Thought so.

Yeah, you win... enjoy your life on the dole......

 

[peteblue]

Again, the CEO wont be paying a bean mate. Its a con that you have swallowed. hook line and sinker.

He does that a lot....

 

[hullefc]

Yeah, you win... enjoy your life on the dole......

I still work and even longer now because the Tories/Lib dems stole £6 grand out of my pocket. My company won't go bust.

 

[hullefc]

That wasn’t your original point though was it? You said we’d have 70 year old firefighters milling about. What if they had a private pension btw? Is it fair that under these Labour proposals that would be worth less when they retire?

I didn't hear the FBU complaining, did you? How many fire fighters have a private pension?

 

[hullefc]

Again, the CEO wont be paying a bean mate. Its a con that you have swallowed. hook line and sinker.

All the moaning they do it 'must' come out of their own pocket, surely. £450 sounds pretty good to me and I wish the CEO of my company would personally hand it to me.

 

[Number_25]

You realise that’s a really poor graph right? Some might say the particular scale has been used for full emotional effect. There's no disputing the CEO's get paid too much, but that sort of manipulation of data is just weird.

From 1999-2009 (it looks like the ASHE website is down this morning, so I've had to seek archived data) the average CEO pay has increased by 12% year on year (with a standard deviation of around 15.8%, a high of 36% in 2000 and a low of -5% in 2009) where as the average yearly pay has increased by 3% year on year (with a standard deviation of around 1.06%, a high of 5.8% in 1999, and a low of 2.5% in 2009).

Interestingly, since 2009 average UK wages have stagnated - so it'd be interesting to see how that biases this fairly simple - although telling - model.

As for the accusation of the original graph being "poor because it's biased", a well known left wing revolutionary newspaper (The Financial Times) wrote the following:

"Between 2007 and 2015, the UK was the only big advanced economy in which wages contracted while the economy expanded. In most other countries, including France and Germany, both the economy and wages have grown."

Adding:

"The UK sits on its own as a rich economy that experienced a strong economic performance while the real wages of its workers dropped."