Guest sibon Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I'm a socialist at heart but isn't socialism about fairness? I feel as if I'm paying my taxes for others to retire early. And as far as I know, younger people are going to get an even rougher deal when it comes to pensions. But how much have you paid into your pensions? Many public sector workers pay 10% or thereabouts, and that figure is added to by their employer. Do you do the same. Does your employer? Most public sector pension schemes are self financing anyway, especially if they are viewed over a 40 or 50 year time frame. Quantitative easing has eaten plenty of your taxes. That supports those who already have plenty. Aim your fire there, not at nurses' pensions. Edited April 1, 2015 by sibon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJ68 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The left criticise the right for "austerity", for reducing the budget deficit with the intention of working towards budget surplus and bringing down the national debt. Will Hutton in The Observer comments that [reducing the national debt] "is an obsession motivated by ideological animus against public services and public provision." He also says "Britain's national debt is comfortably affordable today - even moderate by historical standards. To present it as economic enemy number one is just wrong." I'm on the left politically, but isn't this short term thinking? The more we spend, the more it gives us the illusion we are rich in the short run. However, the act of spending more than we earn will impoverish and therefore disempower us. Surely socialists want a powerful state that doesn't answer to the capitalists? Who wants the state to be in debt to the money lenders? I doubt you are, your just playing devils advocate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick1 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The poor and the lower- to middle- classes are paying for it in terms of cuts to services and / or increased costs such higher fees for a University education and a higher retirement age. Do you want to work until you're seventy? No, me neither. Agree with your first part Joker - it's always the poorer off that pay! Work till 70? Well I worked till 75 but that was my choice as I enjoyed what I did. :) ---------- Post added 01-04-2015 at 09:51 ---------- Things start to go wrong as you get older, and there's nothing you can do about it. Too true Anna! I had to stop work at 75 due to ill health! Things start to malfunction/drop off/go wrong etc!!! Oh and NO lovely private pension at the end of it, or final salary pension! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 NO lovely private pension at the end of it That was your choice though. You could have saved for your own lovely private pension, out of your earnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 My understanding is that both Labour and the Tories want to reduce the national debt. It's just how they plan on doing that that differs. Tories - reduce state spending by cutting certain benefits and departmental budgets Labour - increase tax receipts by spending on infrastructure projects that generate work and reduce unemployment I'd say the longer term option would be somewhere between those 2. Spend in certain areas that can quickly generate employment and support businesses who pay tax, whilst at the same time look to reduce certain budgets in government on less required areas...don't ask me to say what those are as without looking through the figures deeply I couldn't answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick1 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 That was your choice though. You could have saved for your own lovely private pension, out of your earnings. Not my choice Chris! When I started work in the 1950s there was no such thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 When I started work in the 1950s there was no such thing! Private pensions have existed for a long time. They were modernised during the late 70s, and really took off mid 80s. You've had plenty of opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrNorm Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share Posted April 1, 2015 I doubt you are, your just playing devils advocate? Nope, definitely left wing. Paid up Labour party member. Maybe I raise this issue because it's one area I have difficulty accepting the party line - it seems to undermine the idea of a strong state that is not constrained by debt. Of course we don't want to achieve a strong state by disempowering or impoverishing the people, it's like most things, there's a balance to be struck. Nobody would advocate draining their own resources to give their children everything they want. That won't empower them but it will make it harder to help in future. You can't carry on like that. ---------- Post added 01-04-2015 at 18:15 ---------- Most public sector pension schemes are self financing anyway From where I'm sitting public sector pensions seem (much) more generous than most. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3005730/Third-council-tax-spent-staff-pensions-warns-leading-council-finance-chief.html Aim your fire there [QE], not at nurses' pensions. Well, in retirement I may be dependent upon my partner's pension from nursing, so the issue is definitely not black and white for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now