| Vive la France on 15:52 - Jan 14 with 1335 views | kensalriser |
Yess and one way of paying for them is to make very rich corporations and individuals pay more. In the UK we could start by ending all the tax dodge and money laundering havens in British overseas territories, for instance. |  |
|  |
| Vive la France on 15:57 - Jan 14 with 1329 views | stevec |
Economics should be a compulsory subject in secondary schools from the start of year 7.
Unbelievable so many adults seem to genuinely think there’s some kind of money tree for their benefit.
They’ll be a reckoning in the western world when economies collapse. |  | | |
| Vive la France on 16:01 - Jan 14 with 1324 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Vive la France on 15:12 - Jan 14 by ericgen34 |
Yes, but that is a societal choice, and it is ours. It is based on solidarity between generations.
A lot of people reaching retirement age are unemployed (I think it is around 1 in 3), extending the retirement age is not going to increase revenue for the pensioners, it will just reduce the pensions of those that do not manage to reach retirement age thereby making them poorer. If unemployment was tackled and those worked till the end there would be no need to increase retirement age. Add to that the huge tax fraud (estimated up to 100b€ here, a third of the annual pensions bill), the obscene widening gap between rich and poor, and the increasing poverty, even among some working people, it is not surprising people are up in arms against this. Why not tackling these issues first?
Also the rate of life expectancy increase is decreasing, whereas the life in good health expectancy is decreasing. Add to that the effects of global warming and the pesticide food based diet we had in the last 30 years, I dont see life expectancy rising much further.
I know I'm going to be shot down for this but it seems to me England lately has become an each for oneself and sod everyone else society lately, so I am not surprised at the general scoffing at the idea of defending some existing rights - you have after all voted for getting rid of some rights you had |
Firstly, from all the young people I meet I think the opposite. The youngsters seem to care more about issues we didn't give a f*** about when we were their age. So I think your last paragraph is wrong.
Also, the rate of increase of life expectancy might be falling but it is still going up and it was already a problem. And of course extending retirement age will increase revenue. There will be more paid in. I agree that tackling fraud and unemployment would alleviate the issue but there is no sign of that happening is there. |  | | |
| Vive la France on 17:42 - Jan 14 with 1271 views | derbyhoop |
France has 42 different pension schemes, some of which only apply to special interest groups, e.g. railway workers. Most of the French know that pensions need to be reformed. Provided that it doesn't affect their particular group.
In some cases, the retirement age is still in the 50s. UK has already raised the State Pension Age to 66, and it is going up again. The French systems, as currently constituted, are unsustainable but whether Macron can get any sort of reform through is open to doubt. If he doesn't the next President will have to bite the bullet. |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| Vive la France on 18:19 - Jan 14 with 1254 views | stowmarketrange |
I won’t be able to retire until the Grand age of 66 1/2,which I’m not happy about,but to get the maximum benefits you have to have paid contributions for 41 years I think.
My total years of contributing will be 48 1/2 years.I’m not suggesting that I shouldn’t have to pay NI for the last few years,but surely they should give you extra pension because of the extra years that a lot of us will have to pay.
They give you a reduced sum if you haven’t contributed for long enough,so it should work the other way too.
I don’t expect a fortune but an extra few quid a week should be paid out in our pensions for every extra year of contributions. |  | | |
| Vive la France on 19:24 - Jan 14 with 1219 views | BucksRanger |
You probably will Stowmarket. I think I got an extra 55p a week for 43 years contributions. Enjoy. |  | | |
| Vive la France on 19:27 - Jan 14 with 1213 views | stowmarketrange |
| Vive la France on 19:24 - Jan 14 by BucksRanger |
You probably will Stowmarket. I think I got an extra 55p a week for 43 years contributions. Enjoy. |
I can’t wait. | | | |
| Vive la France on 01:18 - Jan 16 with 1075 views | Boston |
In the US your social security payments differ depending when you take them. I believe 62 yrs of age is the earliest you can apply, but (if you're from a family with a history of long life), hang on, the money goes up substantially if you wait until 65 and again jumps up if you're 70. Fortunately I created my own pension...so will not be bothering my fellow citizens. [Post edited 16 Jan 2020 1:23]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Vive la France on 06:48 - Jan 16 with 1029 views | distortR |
what Ericgen and the French don't understand, and we do, is that the lumpen proletariat are here to ensure that our betters have nice things, and not to have nice things ourselves.
Ragged trousered philanthropists indeed. | | | |
| Vive la France on 07:51 - Jan 16 with 980 views | danehoop |
Part of this is driven by demographics, part by increasing costs, part by under-taxation.
Effectively state pensions are technically unfunded instruments that rely on sufficient tax income to maintain the payments. To be sustainable requires a stable or increasing workforce, a steady low inflationary uplift and stable tax income which increases in line with the inflationary effects of increasing pensions.
In most west European countries there is actually a declining birth rate and aging population. Meaning an increase in demand on pensions, whilst a reduced tax take as older workers retire and pay less income tax as they tend to have lower incomes. With a reduced workforce less income is also coming from the remaining workforce.
We have also seen a reduction in overall tax take from reduction in corporation taxes further reducing the available income to fund pension schemes. Add to that the Triple Lock on pensions increases and the cost of state pensions is also always likely to increase more rapidly.
The only ways to balance things are all very difficult to achieve.
Increase working population -
increased migration, increased birth rates or extending working life before pension eligibility.
Increased taxation to boots available resources. So higher income tax, VAT, corporation taxes or other indirect taxation.
Increase pension contribution levels through private sector schemes through tax inducements (thereby reducing tax take) or compulsion.
Reduce the value of state pension provision in real terms or removing unsustainable rate of increase through removal of the triple lock.
None of those options are particularly attractive for governments. There has been some tinkering around the margins, but as it currently stands many governments long term economic position is increasingly looking like an unfunded pyramid scheme.
One interesting comparison is countries in Scandinavia the issue is fundamentally very different in that there is a high welfare burden, but taxation rates are high compared to the UK - around 35-40% basic rate. The view is that benefits from higher rates of taxation exceed the disbenefits. Whilst there are of course problems there, overall most of these countries have highly educated workforces, good infrastructure, a strong social safety net and more sustainable pension systems. [Post edited 16 Jan 2020 7:52]
|  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Vive la France on 09:28 - Jan 16 with 942 views | stowmarketrange |
| Vive la France on 07:51 - Jan 16 by danehoop |
Part of this is driven by demographics, part by increasing costs, part by under-taxation.
Effectively state pensions are technically unfunded instruments that rely on sufficient tax income to maintain the payments. To be sustainable requires a stable or increasing workforce, a steady low inflationary uplift and stable tax income which increases in line with the inflationary effects of increasing pensions.
In most west European countries there is actually a declining birth rate and aging population. Meaning an increase in demand on pensions, whilst a reduced tax take as older workers retire and pay less income tax as they tend to have lower incomes. With a reduced workforce less income is also coming from the remaining workforce.
We have also seen a reduction in overall tax take from reduction in corporation taxes further reducing the available income to fund pension schemes. Add to that the Triple Lock on pensions increases and the cost of state pensions is also always likely to increase more rapidly.
The only ways to balance things are all very difficult to achieve.
Increase working population -
increased migration, increased birth rates or extending working life before pension eligibility.
Increased taxation to boots available resources. So higher income tax, VAT, corporation taxes or other indirect taxation.
Increase pension contribution levels through private sector schemes through tax inducements (thereby reducing tax take) or compulsion.
Reduce the value of state pension provision in real terms or removing unsustainable rate of increase through removal of the triple lock.
None of those options are particularly attractive for governments. There has been some tinkering around the margins, but as it currently stands many governments long term economic position is increasingly looking like an unfunded pyramid scheme.
One interesting comparison is countries in Scandinavia the issue is fundamentally very different in that there is a high welfare burden, but taxation rates are high compared to the UK - around 35-40% basic rate. The view is that benefits from higher rates of taxation exceed the disbenefits. Whilst there are of course problems there, overall most of these countries have highly educated workforces, good infrastructure, a strong social safety net and more sustainable pension systems. [Post edited 16 Jan 2020 7:52]
|
When I first started working in 1978 the basic rate of income tax was 33%,if I remember rightly.Now it is 20% and people probably still have too much week/month left at the end of their wages.And there’s not enough money being generated to pay for the things we need to pay for.
I’m not suggesting a hike back up to those levels,but maybe a compromise of 26/27% might be a better answer to working until you drop. | | | |
| Vive la France on 09:44 - Jan 16 with 929 views | CamberleyR |
| Vive la France on 15:12 - Jan 14 by ericgen34 |
Yes, but that is a societal choice, and it is ours. It is based on solidarity between generations.
A lot of people reaching retirement age are unemployed (I think it is around 1 in 3), extending the retirement age is not going to increase revenue for the pensioners, it will just reduce the pensions of those that do not manage to reach retirement age thereby making them poorer. If unemployment was tackled and those worked till the end there would be no need to increase retirement age. Add to that the huge tax fraud (estimated up to 100b€ here, a third of the annual pensions bill), the obscene widening gap between rich and poor, and the increasing poverty, even among some working people, it is not surprising people are up in arms against this. Why not tackling these issues first?
Also the rate of life expectancy increase is decreasing, whereas the life in good health expectancy is decreasing. Add to that the effects of global warming and the pesticide food based diet we had in the last 30 years, I dont see life expectancy rising much further.
I know I'm going to be shot down for this but it seems to me England lately has become an each for oneself and sod everyone else society lately, so I am not surprised at the general scoffing at the idea of defending some existing rights - you have after all voted for getting rid of some rights you had |
"I know I'm going to be shot down for this but it seems to me England lately has become an each for oneself and sod everyone else society lately"
Not by me you won't, I agree with you. It's been steadily going that way the last 30 odd years, it started with the Thatcher's children 'loadsamoney' generation which I am sorry to say is people my sort of age (mid 50s) and older. We certainly used to be a lot less selfish society when I was growing up. |  |
| |
| Vive la France on 09:52 - Jan 16 with 913 views | stowmarketrange |
| Vive la France on 09:44 - Jan 16 by CamberleyR |
"I know I'm going to be shot down for this but it seems to me England lately has become an each for oneself and sod everyone else society lately"
Not by me you won't, I agree with you. It's been steadily going that way the last 30 odd years, it started with the Thatcher's children 'loadsamoney' generation which I am sorry to say is people my sort of age (mid 50s) and older. We certainly used to be a lot less selfish society when I was growing up. |
 | | | |
| Vive la France on 13:25 - Jan 16 with 840 views | DiggertheMole |
Because we live in an age of institutionalised selfishness where the rungs on the ladder are kicked away at every opportunity by those ascending it is no surprise that some contributors on here laud the 19th century mantra of "self-help". Dont forget that Samuel Smiles the author of myriad treatises and pamphlets on how to raise oneself in society actually died in poverty. Thatcher's denial of "society" is coming to roost now where the have-nots are conned - as in recent elections into the belief that the beer will arrive tomorrow, solely for them, disassociating themselves at every opportunity from their neighbours and their community. The notion that the old need punishing for improvidence in their youth is obscene but would be less ill-conceived if a degree of proportion was evident in taxation and wage control across the board.
The all too frequent plaint of "they'll leave the country" in the face of a) fairer taxation b) reduced period of pension entitlement c) lowering of pension age d) minimum wage increases is, frankly, not just tiresome but ridiculous. The very rich know when they are onto a good thing . No philanthropic spirit motivates the pursuit of raw profit but throwing baby out with the bathwater is clearly nonsensical. (Sorry about collection of mixed metaphors).
A lot of cracker-barrel economics experts on here so far so in love with their own assumed prosperity that they scoff at any other interpretation. Please bear in mind that economics is NOT an absolute but a comparative science. There are many readings of an economic situation. So far no country has had to deal over a considerable period with the numbers of its citizens living for so long beyond pension age. The theories will emerge but they, at least currently, will not be based on extensive data but on numerical projections. To everyone who is sure of the ruinous state of pension contributions in relation to payout, your maths forecast must be remarkable so could you please inform me as to Friday's winning Eurolottery numbers and the Rangers'score v Leeds. | | | |
| Vive la France on 13:33 - Jan 16 with 823 views | stowmarketrange |
| Vive la France on 13:25 - Jan 16 by DiggertheMole |
Because we live in an age of institutionalised selfishness where the rungs on the ladder are kicked away at every opportunity by those ascending it is no surprise that some contributors on here laud the 19th century mantra of "self-help". Dont forget that Samuel Smiles the author of myriad treatises and pamphlets on how to raise oneself in society actually died in poverty. Thatcher's denial of "society" is coming to roost now where the have-nots are conned - as in recent elections into the belief that the beer will arrive tomorrow, solely for them, disassociating themselves at every opportunity from their neighbours and their community. The notion that the old need punishing for improvidence in their youth is obscene but would be less ill-conceived if a degree of proportion was evident in taxation and wage control across the board.
The all too frequent plaint of "they'll leave the country" in the face of a) fairer taxation b) reduced period of pension entitlement c) lowering of pension age d) minimum wage increases is, frankly, not just tiresome but ridiculous. The very rich know when they are onto a good thing . No philanthropic spirit motivates the pursuit of raw profit but throwing baby out with the bathwater is clearly nonsensical. (Sorry about collection of mixed metaphors).
A lot of cracker-barrel economics experts on here so far so in love with their own assumed prosperity that they scoff at any other interpretation. Please bear in mind that economics is NOT an absolute but a comparative science. There are many readings of an economic situation. So far no country has had to deal over a considerable period with the numbers of its citizens living for so long beyond pension age. The theories will emerge but they, at least currently, will not be based on extensive data but on numerical projections. To everyone who is sure of the ruinous state of pension contributions in relation to payout, your maths forecast must be remarkable so could you please inform me as to Friday's winning Eurolottery numbers and the Rangers'score v Leeds. |
That’s rather a long answer to a clapping smiley.
My forecast for the euro lottery is that 6 random numbers will be drawn.Qpr v Leeds is rather more difficult to predict.Leave it with me and i’ll get back to you around 2.30pm on Saturday. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.