Forum menu
DB pensions were closed due to the liabilities being unmanageable for companies
I wonder how many of these are the employers who stripped billions from their DB schemes through the contributions holidays they took in the 1990s?
Just because private companies were allowed to impoverish their pensioners does not mean you have to punish state employees. Public sector pensions are totally affordable and reduce the benefits bill. Liabilities were only unmanageable because they were allowed to stop contributing to the pension pots in times of boom. ~What would have been your decent pension has gone to shareholders as dividends
60 years of pubic service from two folk. I get £830 a month in pensions. gold plated. for an amount of contributions that properly invested in a private pension would have got me far more - because public sector pensions have no real pot of money to access so much of the money just disapeared when Mrs TJ died
the NHS pensions - there was a deliberate attempt by the tories to justify cutting using the absurd numbers quote by Mefty. they cut the terms significantly to new entrants making the terms much worse. The hope and aim was to get all new3 NHS employees to take out private pensions instead so they could then close the NHS pension fund as no more money would be coming in. fortunately this piece of chicanery failed. I;ll just point out again that the NHS scheme is in surplus by millions a year. and will continue to be so,. contributions coming in are greater than pensions going out.
do not be angry with the public sector for the modest pensions as deferred salary. Be angry at the private companies who gutted your pensions and at the tories who enabled this.
I'll just point out again that the NHS scheme is in surplus by millions a year. and will continue to be so,. contributions coming in are greater than pensions going out.
And that is why the NHS and state pensions die with you. There is no money, only a Ponzi scheme that need to at least break even (except the state pension does not). To build a pot rather than cover expenses, there would have to be a large increase in surplus.
The USS, of which I am a former member, is the largest pension fund in the UK (which is why it's always in the news). I will get 5/60th of my salary compounded to account for inflation, but I could choose to swap this final salary for a sum in a personal pension pot. And the USS would love this as it removes liability. If you have no dependents and would like to leave that pot to the Donkey Sanctuary*, this can be a good idea. Not an option for the NHS scheme as there is no pot.
There is about a trillion GBP in private pensions. It's so big that governments looking for money can't look elsewhere. Income tax receipts are about 0.3 trillion.
*Other charities and/or relatives may be available.
And that is why the NHS and state pensions die with you
correct - its a deferred employment benefit really. I just point this out because its never mentioned when comparing private and state pensions - they are not comparable as there is no pot of money in most public sector pensions so it dies with you.
Government are also sniffing around Local Government pension schemes, as of March 2023 the market value of all the schemes was £359.2 billion, income £17.3 billion, expenditure £15.3billion.
For clarity, local government pensions are funded.
But there is still no personal pot of money you can access. However it does put lie to the "unfunded" nonsense we keep on being told. I believe teachers are the same that there is an overall pot of money invested
If all pension contributions in the NHS had been invested rather than used as revenue by various governments it would be a huge fund with plenty to cover all future liabilities
Its not my fault the government spent my pension contributions rather than investing them
All electric vehicles are to pay £200 rfl. They are heavy and wear out the roads as much as everyone else.
The only exception is for electric cars, which are very heavy (Relatively speaking) and pay little/no VED
Electric vehicles registered from 1st April 2017 will pay £165 (likely to rise) from April 2025. Means that my EV will pay £135+ More VED than my old diesel estate.... These plans were already in place from the last government.
Local Government pensions do have a pot of money and you can access it by transferring it out of the scheme
This is actuallty great from Murphy.
All about the 22bn 'black-hole'.
The Q/E option is a goer to me. Simple accounting.
Richard Murphy for Chancellor of the Exchequer, bring back Corbynomics!
How appropriate that thatcherite centrist should describe keynesian economics as "Corbynomics".
How appropriate that thatcherite centrist should describe keynesian economics as “Corbynomics”.
Surely a Corbynista should know who the man behind Corbynomics is......
Local Government pensions do have a pot of money and you can access it by transferring it out of the scheme
In some circumstances. I could not access it for Julies pensions - I got a small death benefit far less than the nominal value of the pot. The only private pension she had I got the whole pot
To be fair to you argee you did say "bring back" which at least suggests that you accept keynesian economics was an established economic model.
To be fair to you argee you did say “bring back” which at least suggests that you accept keynesian economics was an established economic model.
I meant bring back our lord and saviour to deliver us from Starmer and Reeves
his is actuallty great from Murphy.
Are you sure you're not being paid by him to post his content?
@nickc We learn by repetition and practice. Some need more than others before the information is assimilated and then applied as knowledge.
It's "great" because he agrees with it. I don't agree with it because it is MMT and I think MMT is "new paradigm" BS. I do have sympathy though with the underlying premise that Reeves is playing politics rather than doing economics with the £22bn black hole claim.
Richard Murphy for Chancellor of the Exchequer, bring back Corbynomics!
So which bits of what he has said do you disagree with?
I meant bring back our lord and saviour to deliver us from Starmer and Reeves
Ah, so you don't understand that what you label "Corbynomics" is in fact just basic keynesian social-democracy.
I had mistakenly thought that you did.
In that case I suggest that you do a bit of research and educate yourself 💡
So which bits of what he has said do you disagree with?
I don't disagree or agree, i just think it's the usual armchair pundit giving his tuppence worth, and most of the choices he supplies are more than likely discounted already by the those who work, or support the treasury (and many other government departments), as they are simple 'create money out of thin air', 'create more bonds and increase debt', 'stop buying back bonds and use that to fill any deficit' or 'tell the BoE to lower interest rates'.
I doubt any of those options passed the brainstorming session at the treasury, and for good reasons.
Ah, so you don’t understand that what you label “Corbynomics” is in fact just basic keynesian social-democracy.
Again, you are going off-piste with the response, my original statement was regarding Richard Murphy, who is credited as being the man behind Corbynomics, i haven't labeled Corbynomics at all, just linked a with b.
Again, you are going off-piste with the response, my original statement was regarding Richard Murphy, who is credited as being the man behind Corbynomics, i haven’t labeled Corbynomics at all, just linked a with b
No he was not.
He was in the initial meetings then was never involved in much else. James Meadway was really part of that package. He's strongly anti-MMT but does engage on twitter.
Corbynomics for the record was built around the fully funded orthodox model. Not MMT - they rejected it.
Argee you just avoid evidence. Tell us how 400bn was created then in the pandemic?
The fact that you can never demonstrate with any info to support your arguments tells me everything.
Honestly it's not unusual for centrists and progressives to push back against MMT because they've been bought up on Tory style economics - usually without any insight.
It's a wonder why we're in the mess we're in 😉
Seems like this thread just disappeared down a black hole?
What happend?
Irrespective if this total fabrication of accounting for government spending. The Labour government should not be using more austerity to solve anything.
Seems like this thread just disappeared down a black hole?
What happend?
Everyone got tired of you constantly harping on with your Magic Money Theory.
Everyone got tired of you constantly harping on with your Magic Money Theory.
Not half as tired as I am listening to people justifying Tory economics.
It's a thread about a 22bn black hole. What else are we going to talk about?
I mean why join a discussion about government finances and complain about the debate?
I don't spend time in threads that bore me.
The minute Labour stop playing Tory and turn on the spending taps - then I'm on side mister.
Not half as tired as I am listening to people justifying Tory economics.
With classic Tory terminology such as "magic money tree" do you mean?
John Crace is still reminding Guardian readers of Labour's Tory black hole extravaganza. From yesterday's Guardian :
You get the feeling that Reeves has been waiting all her life for this moment. Not just to be chancellor. But to be the Prophetess of Doom. The Slayer of Pleasure. Much of the time she can appear robotic at the dispatch box. Reciting her lines metronomically into the middle distance. Making eye contact with no one. A woman totally at home with saying no.
But mention the £22bn hole in the public finances and her eyes light up. Her voice becomes animated. This is her time. Her chance to shine.
There is no money, she grins. Things are terrible. Worse than even she had dared imagined. For imagined, read hoped. This is her best life. I guess, you take your fun where you find it.
As the Prophetess of Doom, Rachel Reeves takes on the role she’s waited for all her life
The Guardian has turned into a parody paper, i'm absolutely sure Rachel Reeves was desperate for her entire life to get to this position of public office to be the bearer of bad news, her lifetime ambition was always to work out how to balance budgetary requirements rather than spending tens of billions we don't have on projects that may, or may not work out.
Would a transactional tax if say 10% mean that we could reduce all other taxes? It would end the Global companies from screwing the system via offshoring. As soon as a transaction takes place here, some of it goes straight to HMRC.
You mean like VAT?
her lifetime ambition was always to work out how to balance budgetary requirements rather than spending tens of billions we don’t have on projects that may, or may not work out.
Doesn't sound like a very progressive ambition does it. Maybe she should have been an accountant in a large company?
A government needs to spend billions on projects and some may work some may not but a bit of upfront analysis should help them go in favour of working with money that we do actually have but you refuse to understand.
But let's pretend she does need to fix the 'blackhole' by making cuts, what happens when it is fixed? Who will actually notice any difference (other than the negative effect for those who have had things cut)?
If we allow this constant theme of balance budgets to keep going the upshot will be silly restrictions of spending here and there.
It makes no sense to run a country like this.
Part of the calculation that hasn't been mentioned is that the OBR forecasted inflation incorrectly.
> Departmental budgets for 2024-25 were set at SR21 in cash terms, but inflation has been significantly higher than forecast at the time. At SR21 the OBR forecast that the cumulative increase in prices as measured by the GDP deflator over that three-year period would be around 7%. In reality, cumulative inflation over the first two years was around 13% and is forecast to be 15% over all three years.
100% incorrectly calculated.
This is why the fiscal rules are ridiculous too relying on what might happen five years for instance.
In much better speculative news for October, it's looking like what might happen in the budget is Reeves will remove the Q/E purchased bonds from the public 'debt' as part of the final figure. 2.7trillion to 2.
That is, bonds owned effectively by the UK Government on the BoE balance sheet. That's 700bn of the public debt.
(So reserves that were created and swapped from the Gov to the BoE - a total accountancy trick in reality but added to classic view of what constitutes 'debt'. Q/E created debt.)
If she does do that - a good move, the government will have less debt on the balance sheet and she can redefine what we can spend. Debt to GDP will immediately contract - literally over night.
The Tories will attack her for messing with the books but they were effectively silly numbers in the first place.
This would be a great move. Totally unnecessary in the scheme of real restrictions but if it allows them to believe they've created fiscal space - then crack on.
It's also bloody ridiculous! Can you see how silly the way the government's books operate is?
Not a household! Try eliminating your debt at home with your own bank.
Labour will then still work within the fiscal rules.
Well that's a surprise, who could possibly have predicted that hammering the non-doms would be a terrible idea:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o
Can they please reduce my tax as I am thinking of leaving the UK and it may keep me here?
No, didn't think so.
The Guardian has turned into a parody paper, i’m absolutely sure Rachel Reeves was desperate for her entire life to get to this position of public office to be the bearer of bad news,
Tell me you don't normally read The Guardian without telling me you don't normally read The Guardian. John Crace is responsible for biting satirical sketch articles, loosely based on the news.
Well that’s a surprise, who could possibly have predicted that hammering the non-doms would be a terrible idea
As usual an empty threat by the egregiousl rich as they won't go it's too comfortable and cultured here that's why they chose to live here. Also economics like nature abhors a vacuum and something will fill the hole.
Can they please reduce my tax as I am thinking of leaving the UK and it may keep me here?
No, didn’t think so.
I think it rather more likely we await next weeks announcement to that the pledge not to increase PAYE tax is unsustainable and we should all enjoy paying more tax, to receive less
Can they please reduce my tax as I am thinking of leaving the UK and it may keep me here?
No, didn’t think so.
The reason you're not paying 80% tax and 80% VAT is precisely because you can go abroad or fake anxiety and quit.
It's already priced in. And the fact you're still here shows they got your reduced rate of tax about right, for now.
Well that’s a surprise, who could possibly have predicted that hammering the non-doms would be a terrible idea
The Daily Telegraph?
It's much easier to say we don't need their money, and that claiming it was going to pay for loads of stuff was a nonsense from the start.
Stupid 'pay-for' arguments totally self-defeating. Another pointless shit-storm brewing.
It’s much easier to say we don’t need their money, and that claiming it was going to pay for loads of stuff was a nonsense from the start.
But 'Tax the Rich' has been long held position for many who want to see punitive taxes raised on a group that are swerving taxation (paying their "fair share") by moving their wealth to assets rathe than income. It was never about 'paying for stuff' and always about attempting to reverse increasingly egregious societal inequality