Public sector strikes on Wednesday

[Scougar]

Tax the rich? A union point was that you could do just that as there is hell of a lot of unclaimed tax at present (I forget the figure), a little money spent to chase that up would bring a lot.

The problem with doing this is that any political party doing such a thing will quickly lose favour with those that support them (I.e. the rich, that help fund political campaigns). That's why it will not happen.

Also.. personally, I've never been a massive fan of the militant attitude of socialists (often who represent the unions), and I wouldn't like to see this style really being carried into the government. It's not balanced.

I love how this mystical £500m figure was pulled out from thin air as well? How did they arrive at this figure? No mention of the savings from not paying those in strike action, or the money saved on not going in pension contributions. Just another pop at the unions.

The bottom line is that a lot of people with this pension will be below the poverty line when they retire on a crap pension like this, going on the gov's own figures, and the will be worse off right now if we accept this proposal.

Frankly, I'm not gonna be that badly hit by the pension change, because hopefully I'll be out of the country (cross fingers) when this all comes to pass.. but it doesn't mean I think it's right they screw people over.

 

[marky2484]

Still , at least the Chancellors heading in the right direction.......

"proceed with the extension of Air Passenger Duty to flights taken aboard business jets, effective from 1 April 2013;"

What, didn't you know passengers on Lear Jets didn't pay before.....

 

[We_are_Stevo]

Not that it will affect those that can afford it most because they fly into private airfields anyway...

 

[Scougar]

I just lol'd at some of the comments in the article on Osborne's report today on the BBC. One guy was literally saying the 'private sector' pays for the 'public sector' pensions, and why should he have to pay for 'them'.

That's a key point really because he is missing the whole distributed cost model that taxes employ. If everyone didn't pay money in taxes, just because you didn't get sick, doesn't mean you don't pay for health care. and it's the same with public services.

IMO... the RIGHT thing to do would be to make ALL pensions private and then kick up sh*t as to why they are so bad.

The other thing was a comment about "the deafening silence from the public sector and the unions" when the private lot lost their pensions. Once again.. that's because the unions CANNOT represent someone they are not paid to represent, and as it had nothing to do with the public sector, why should they "say" anything. The government and media have pitted public against private (Gov because they have an agenda, and the media because it makes 'good' news or have a political agenda themselves), because it suits there needs... if they have pitted pub against pri in the 90's it would have ended the public sector supporting the private.

 

[technodup]

Of course his wife's money has something to do with! The average family has both parents out working their arses off just trying to make ends meet while they're being oppressed by a distant Cousin to the Queen who will never have to worry about anything!

No PM is ever going to short of a bob or two whatever way you look at it. Where do you draw the line? What's an acceptable level of wealth? What's he supposed to do? Divorce her? AFAIK his family's not exactly skint either. I'd much rather have a PM close to or experienced in business success (preferably directly) than some ex-worker struggling to feed himself.

Complete red herring.

and if you think that the 'well off' pay a fraction of the tax they should then you are, at best, naive

Is that the tax they are obliged to pay or the tax you think they should pay? If it's the latter it is you who is naive. Who wouldn't take any and every measure possible to reduce their tax bill? I bet you do it without even realising it.

The more money people have the less tax they pay - fact...

...it's always the same; those that can most afford it don't - those that can't have no choice!

OK, I'll accept that as fact because you helpfully stated it at the end of your post. :roll:

The top 1% pay 25% of the tax already. Where do you want to draw that line? I have no issue whatsoever with tax avoidance, I have and will continue to practise it in any way that I can. It's absolute nonsense the hysteria created by people acting in a perfectly legal and responsible manner. And you're calling people naive?

 

[Scougar]

Interesting point about the PM.. but totally off topic

Tax avoidance is why accountants get paid so much lol. It's also why the headline 40% tax figure isn't really 40% at all. I'm not whinging about it incidently, it's just a shame that the 'average' worker person is not able to do the same.

 

[technodup]

Tax avoidance is why accountants get paid so much lol. It's also why the headline 40% tax figure isn't really 40% at all. I'm not whinging about it incidently, it's just a shame that the 'average' worker person is not able to do the same.

The average worker pays bugger all though so it's not really an issue. The accountant would cost more than any savings.

 

[Scougar]

So if the average worker pays bugger all as you put it, why bother cutting pensions?

EDIT: And yes... it's very true, and account WOULD cost more lol. My magazine subscriptions wouldn't be that much if I had some lol.

EDIT 2: ROFL.. link removed.. totaly sh*te asking you to pay for a report... apologies.

 

[technodup]

So if the average worker pays bugger all as you put it, why bother cutting pensions?

I did say about 4 pages back that the pensions carry on wasn't actually going to save much.

They need to be seen to tighten the reins, even if spending is rising and 'the cuts' are negligible. Smoke and mirrors.

Need a proper right minded party in there imo.

 

[Scougar]

I think the majority are on board with you on a 'right minded' party.

No party is gonna come out good from the crap the economy is in now.