Busses
-
- Posts: 2852
- Joined: 23 Jun 2009 20:04
- Location: Even further than before
Re: Busses
Today's speech was a deflection of note designed as a deflection.
It must have gone something like.....
At home in East Dulwich Andy Coulson is watching Mean Machine in an attempt to grapple with the reality that he may end up incarcerated in a jail full of hardened vagabonds and murderers.
Bring Bring.... Bring Bring.....
AC:Hello
DC:Hi Andy?
AC:Yes????
DC:Dave C here...
AC:Hi Dave, you know you're not supposed to ring me during the inquiry?
DC:Yes yes forget that now, it's unimportant at this time.
AC:OK
DC: I've dropped a clanger and landed a few of our donors in the sticky stuff
AC: I see, go on.
DC:I've stirred up a hornets nest on tax avoidance but it's started to backfire rather badly.
AC:Oh!
DC:Got any ideas on how I can get out of this? I took some advice from Vince and the silly sod convinced me it was a good idea to blow this up, he told me it would make me look good with the electorate?
AC:Did he really?
DC:Well the trouble is I momentarily forgot that daddy was an expert in avoiding tax and used the money to buy my education.... Any advice would be welcomed and will pay dividends once myself and Rupert have finished fitting up Rebekah.
AC:I see......................Right here's what you can do....
DC: Yes, go on.
AC:Deflect the impending shit storm on to the poor unemployed.
DC:Eureka, Thanks Andy you're my rock.
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
It must have gone something like.....
At home in East Dulwich Andy Coulson is watching Mean Machine in an attempt to grapple with the reality that he may end up incarcerated in a jail full of hardened vagabonds and murderers.
Bring Bring.... Bring Bring.....
AC:Hello
DC:Hi Andy?
AC:Yes????
DC:Dave C here...
AC:Hi Dave, you know you're not supposed to ring me during the inquiry?
DC:Yes yes forget that now, it's unimportant at this time.
AC:OK
DC: I've dropped a clanger and landed a few of our donors in the sticky stuff
AC: I see, go on.
DC:I've stirred up a hornets nest on tax avoidance but it's started to backfire rather badly.
AC:Oh!
DC:Got any ideas on how I can get out of this? I took some advice from Vince and the silly sod convinced me it was a good idea to blow this up, he told me it would make me look good with the electorate?
AC:Did he really?
DC:Well the trouble is I momentarily forgot that daddy was an expert in avoiding tax and used the money to buy my education.... Any advice would be welcomed and will pay dividends once myself and Rupert have finished fitting up Rebekah.
AC:I see......................Right here's what you can do....
DC: Yes, go on.
AC:Deflect the impending shit storm on to the poor unemployed.
DC:Eureka, Thanks Andy you're my rock.
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Re: Busses
Heehee got to give it to you Mike- that was funny.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
-
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: 8 Oct 2011 23:22
- Location: Somewhere over the rainbow..
Re: Busses
Hilarious Mike!
Look forward to the next episode:
You know the one where Gary Barlow and other posh rich chums, all with gold plated
tax fiddles and long memories, decide to blackmail Desperate Dave!
Look forward to the next episode:
You know the one where Gary Barlow and other posh rich chums, all with gold plated
tax fiddles and long memories, decide to blackmail Desperate Dave!
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 16 Nov 2007 15:01
- Location: Sydenham
Re: Busses
Very good Mike!
Eagle you really shouldn't comment on things you know nothing about. The local government pension scheme has a very healthy surplus, it isn't funded by council tax or any other tax at all. Over long periods of time stock markets have provided very good returns, although that might soon change! Maybe do some research before you spout off.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Eagle you really shouldn't comment on things you know nothing about. The local government pension scheme has a very healthy surplus, it isn't funded by council tax or any other tax at all. Over long periods of time stock markets have provided very good returns, although that might soon change! Maybe do some research before you spout off.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Busses
The stock market has not shown gains for many years , as Mike pointed out.
If you are correct then why bother if your scheme wound up and you had your own personal pension to contribute to. You seem confident you would not lose out. You would need to be paying about 40% of your salary.
I suggest you consult an actuary.
Why are you so sure I do not know what I am talking about.
If you are correct then why bother if your scheme wound up and you had your own personal pension to contribute to. You seem confident you would not lose out. You would need to be paying about 40% of your salary.
I suggest you consult an actuary.
Why are you so sure I do not know what I am talking about.
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 16 Nov 2007 15:01
- Location: Sydenham
Re: Busses
There are reasons the scheme is a reasonable one but you have not got your facts right. It is not subsidised by council tax or any other tax but you have happily said this without knowing any facts about the scheme.
As it happens though I have no objection to tax helping pension funds. Tax from the rich that is. For a start we could take two thirds of the wealth of the richest 1000. This could pay off the national debt and have some aside for the state pension fund.
The French have just had their pension age reduced from 62 to 60 and ours has just gone up from 65 to 68. Yeah Call me Dave we are really all in this together aren't we!
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
As it happens though I have no objection to tax helping pension funds. Tax from the rich that is. For a start we could take two thirds of the wealth of the richest 1000. This could pay off the national debt and have some aside for the state pension fund.
The French have just had their pension age reduced from 62 to 60 and ours has just gone up from 65 to 68. Yeah Call me Dave we are really all in this together aren't we!
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Busses
This is what the GMB say on the matter
In fact cockneyrebel is right to wonder whether these very good returns have ended, as a glance on the business pages will reveal. The numbers to look for are the real yields on long index linked gilts. These tell you the long run returns that investors who want to factor out the risk of inflation are prepared to settle for. Astonishingly, these are negative. In other words, the balance of views among investors is that the economy will stagnate for decades. Of course, it might not be so bad, but is it fair for LGPS beneficiaries to bet on it with the money of other taxpayers? Not so different, when you think about it, as bankers betting on markets, and having the tax payer bail them out when it all goes wrong.
in other words, the healthy surplus is more like a 20% deficit, and the only way the actuaries can say it's sustainable is by relying on future generations of Council employees to pay more - the typical pattern of intergenerational injustice we see so much of. An independent pensions expert was reported in Dec 2010 as saying:Local Government Pensions Healthy
Tuesday 12th July 2011
LATEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION SCHEME ACTUARIAL VALUATIONS SHOW OVERALL THE SCHEME IS SUSTAINABLE WITH £145BN IN ASSETS
Providing participation levels do not fall the overall picture of the LGPS from the 2010 actuarial valuations shows there is enough funds to pay all pensions for the next twenty years GMB study shows
The latest valuation results for the Local Government Pension Funds (LGPS) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for 2010 show that overall the funds have £145bn in assets and a funding level above 80%. The actuarial deficit is estimated at £38 billion. The average ongoing employer contribution is 13.9% while the average employee contribution is 6.5%.
LaterJohn Ralfe wrote:to fill the £80bn hold over 25 years "would require an increase in council contributions of £4bn a year, increased in line with inflation, a 70% increase in current contributions of £5.8bn".
In other words, some slightly dodgy accounting (which the private sector cannot get away with), based on assuming that over long periods of time stock markets do indeed provide very good returns. So, anyone who claims that the LGPS is well funded should at least be doing everything they can to increase returns to stock market investors, both in the UK and worldwide.Mr Ralfe says that the Local Government Pension Scheme will show a much smaller official deficit when it publishes an actuarial valuation in the spring, because it will not be using the FRS17 valuation method imposed on the private sector.
Under this actuarial valuation, local authorities will be discounting their future pension payments using a much higher rate than the FRS17 AA corporate bond yield, because they will argue that the value of the shares held by the scheme is likely to rise faster than is implied by that corporate bond yield.
This kind of discretion in the assessment of liabilities is not allowed to private-sector pension schemes. Mr Ralfe argues that the government is in effect taking a massive gamble with the public finances in allowing local authorities to employ a less conservative approach than the private sector.
In fact cockneyrebel is right to wonder whether these very good returns have ended, as a glance on the business pages will reveal. The numbers to look for are the real yields on long index linked gilts. These tell you the long run returns that investors who want to factor out the risk of inflation are prepared to settle for. Astonishingly, these are negative. In other words, the balance of views among investors is that the economy will stagnate for decades. Of course, it might not be so bad, but is it fair for LGPS beneficiaries to bet on it with the money of other taxpayers? Not so different, when you think about it, as bankers betting on markets, and having the tax payer bail them out when it all goes wrong.
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 16 Nov 2007 15:01
- Location: Sydenham
Re: Busses
Again I would say that if the LGPS scheme needed assistance in the future, then what would be the problem. The rich are wealthier than they ever were, tax them more. But as it happens everything you have said is speculation, the LGPS isn't forecast to need any.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 16 Nov 2007 15:01
- Location: Sydenham
Re: Busses
And the difference is this is a scheme that benefits millions of largely low paid workers, and isnt about fat cat bankers, not really the same at all, is it.
The average LGPS pension is 4000 a year!
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
The average LGPS pension is 4000 a year!
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Busses
It's true that inequalities are increasing, but economies overall, in our part of the world are not growing - and that matters more. You may call what I write speculation, but it is well founded speculation, with a good evidence base.cockneyrebel wrote:Again I would say that if the LGPS scheme needed assistance in the future, then what would be the problem. The rich are wealthier than they ever were, tax them more. But as it happens everything you have said is speculation, the LGPS isn't forecast to need any.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Busses
I think this is a slightly dodgy figure as well, since I believe many members have more than one LGPS pension, I guess because they move between different Councils in the course of their careers.cockneyrebel wrote:The average LGPS pension is 4000 a year!
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 16 Nov 2007 15:01
- Location: Sydenham
Re: Busses
Tim that's not true. LGPS pensions are combined if you go to one employer to another.
While the economy is clearly in a bad state but the rich are richer than ever and France has just reduced the pension age. There is the mobey for decent pensions.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
While the economy is clearly in a bad state but the rich are richer than ever and France has just reduced the pension age. There is the mobey for decent pensions.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Busses
I'll check my sources on the first point. As to there being plenty of money for traditional final salary / defined benefit pensions, if that's what you mean by 'decent', all I can say is that that is just an assertion, based on the idea that there's an unlimited amount to be raised from higher taxes on the rich. It would be nice if this was true, but the combination of people living longer and reduced prospects for long term returns on investments mean that the costs of such pensions must be going up. How much they go up can be estimated, and is, and those who do these calculations say 'whoa!'.cockneyrebel wrote:Tim that's not true. LGPS pensions are combined if you go to one employer to another.
While the economy is clearly in a bad state but the rich are richer than ever and France has just reduced the pension age. There is the mobey for decent pensions.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Busses
Thanks Tim for trying to explain to CR the facts of life. Employer contributions 6.5% , that would not get you a pension that you hope to receive. The balance of 25% odd % or more funded by council tax payers and tax payers.
Not all LGW are badly paid . Many get very good salaries, although one would question why in most cases.
Not all LGW are badly paid . Many get very good salaries, although one would question why in most cases.
-
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: 8 Oct 2011 23:22
- Location: Somewhere over the rainbow..
Re: Busses
"Not all LGW are badly paid"; but some actually ARE!Eagle wrote: Not all LGW are badly paid . Many get very good salaries, although one would question why in most cases.
"Many get very good salaries"; but many more DO NOT!
"although one would question why in most cases" : More like in the MINORITY of cases
Eagle as it is only a minority of LGW that are particularly well paid!
I believe that you are quoting for a minority to get your case across..
We could of course put a similar point against the 'Private sector' by quoting the pre
selected minority!
Re: Busses
Brafford thanks for your comment
Private sector does not happy so many PC non jobs.
Private sector does not happy so many PC non jobs.
Re: Busses
Sorry for typing error
Should be have not happy.
Cockney Rebel proved to be totally wrong has not apologised. What a surprise.
Should be have not happy.
Cockney Rebel proved to be totally wrong has not apologised. What a surprise.
-
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: 8 Oct 2011 23:22
- Location: Somewhere over the rainbow..
Re: Busses
We all indirectly pay towards pension or benefit funds when we pay for services or goods
from both the public and private sectors. When you purchase a loaf of bread or bottle of
milk you may well be paying towards the vendors retirement fund..
Many private companies have funds which are backed with company monies that obviously
only originally come from the customer or end user. Private companies often profit from
the public sector too (no problem with that). Our economic system is a machine that needs
both public and private sectors to feed each other. Fairness and unfairness will always exist
on both sides. This can sometimes be low wages / decent benefits or in contrast High wages
/ no other benefits. It's all speculative in this sense.
from both the public and private sectors. When you purchase a loaf of bread or bottle of
milk you may well be paying towards the vendors retirement fund..
Many private companies have funds which are backed with company monies that obviously
only originally come from the customer or end user. Private companies often profit from
the public sector too (no problem with that). Our economic system is a machine that needs
both public and private sectors to feed each other. Fairness and unfairness will always exist
on both sides. This can sometimes be low wages / decent benefits or in contrast High wages
/ no other benefits. It's all speculative in this sense.
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 16 Nov 2007 15:01
- Location: Sydenham
Re: Busses
Eagle what are you talking about. You are totally wrong not me. Council tax or any other kind of tax does not fund the LGPS scheme however much you repeat it. You are the one who should apologise!
And now you are spouting more nonsense about highly paid local government workers. In 2007 57% of local government workers were earning less than 16k a year, 8k less than the average wage.
Tim the rich are richer than they have EVER been. The richest 1000 people alone could easily pay off the entire national debt and fund pensions. There is more than enough money as France has shown.
Eagle likes to do down low paid workers and laud the scrounging rich. Its sorry to see.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
And now you are spouting more nonsense about highly paid local government workers. In 2007 57% of local government workers were earning less than 16k a year, 8k less than the average wage.
Tim the rich are richer than they have EVER been. The richest 1000 people alone could easily pay off the entire national debt and fund pensions. There is more than enough money as France has shown.
Eagle likes to do down low paid workers and laud the scrounging rich. Its sorry to see.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
-
- Posts: 2852
- Joined: 23 Jun 2009 20:04
- Location: Even further than before
Re: Busses
Poor old Eagle he voted Tory in 1979, bought his council house and saved for a rainy day. He started work in 1966, the year England won the world cup. He's never been on holiday, he retired early but doesn't draw his state pension so resents anyone who does. He's been moaning about scroungers for so long he forgot how to have a good time. I suspect his tax contribution was spent during the miners strike.cockneyrebel wrote: Eagle likes to do down low paid workers and laud the scrounging rich. Its sorry to see.
He'd whine if opportunity knocked