Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by Morninglover, May 29, 2020.
Growth on pensions isn't.
Triple lock will go. I think twice over, 2.5% at worst will go as will average earnings increase beyond CPI.
Maybe an increase in VAT could work.
What's "growth on pensions"?
Not in London they won't be. What planet are you on?
Some pensions are investments (not TPS). The money in them increases because of increases in share prices and from dividends. You invest £1000 in an investment pension today, in a few years time it is worth more than £1,000 because the share prices of the fund have gone up and there have been dividends paid. You still only paid in £1,000 but it's now worth more.
Money would not be "taken" from individuals it would not be paid in the first place. If the interest rate on your bank account drops from 3% to 2% has money been taken from you?
What's your suggestion for how this money should be paid back? Who should pay it, how should it be taken?
Of course, your pension goes up as prices go up so that (you hope) you can have an income that stays constant in real terms, not just money terms. An annual pension increase is just as much earned income as a salary increase.
When DfE increased Main Scale by 2% did you argue that for teachers whose job hadn't changed that part of their salary wasn't earned income?
Your proposition appears to be, at its core, that to get the economy going after CV money should be taken from old people and given to young people because they are more important for the future. That's not first time that argument has been made - even pre-CV thee were pressure groups for millennials advocating that to government. But put that as a straightforward policy argument instead of hiding it behind something that sounds fairer like 'confiscating shareholders' dividends.
Because it's easier to get people to agree to something that sounds like 'let's make wealthy capitalists pay' than if you phrase it as 'we want to reduce your grannie's pension'.
The best suggestion I've heard are government-run drug stores, selling decriminalised drugs. Several birds killed with one stone: huge income, guarantee that drugs are pure and not contaminated, puts drug dealers out of business, gets rid of the knife crime and homicides associated with illegal drug dealing, provides better access to addicts for professional help.
Is there the political will for such an obvious solution? Of course not.
I'm not convinced @Rott Weiler appreciates how pensions work properly and seems to be conflating the pay-as-you-go TPS final salary scheme without investment with invested defined contributions schemes.
I'm not talking about pensions in payment, but pensions before retirement when invested.
Share dividends have no impact whatsoever on investment pensions in payment which usually pay out through an annuity which continues regardless of what the stock market does.
That's because you misunderstand the effect of not paying such large share dividends. No-one is suggesting "taking" money away.
You still haven't said how you think the money should be raised.
I don't think the burden should be loaded onto still working private sector employees.
They are part of the people the burden should be put onto, not the only ones which I thought you might understand. Do you think they should not contribute in any way? Any suggestions or just looking to **** on other people's unguarded chips as usual?
Public sector employees will no doubt contribute via wage stagnation.
Oh OK then. You hadn't put that as part of your proposal before.
Based on track record @Rott Weiler has a better appreciation of finance than the great majority around here.
Planet senior teacher with responsibility or higher up the pay scale... Leadership?... Still teachers are they not and doing alright thanks.
It's a burden now but was a collective health emergency a few weeks ago where spending was required and had it not been forthcoming the consequences far worse in the short term, pay it off in the long term, its what austerity prepared us for not unnessary expenses for political or PC frivolity.
I'm not entirely sure why you're saying this to me.
Austerity was all about preparation for a crisis? Pull the other one.
Even if it had been, austerity was paid for by those who could least afford it, so target achieved I guess, the rich got richer and the less well off paid for the crisis.
The whole point of us going is that the EU has plans to gather all the VAT from its various countries and central EU decides where it is spent. Also to standardise all taxes. At one stage they did put forward proposals to collect part of all txed raised and redistrbute them a needed.
Not a good move me thinks! Particularly as they have not balanced thier bools for years.
They were insisting we close all those tax havens too, so leaving must be a good thing ... for the non-taxpaying rich!
Not everyone is a single parent. Teachers have husbands who work in the city or in other well-paid jobs and who can afford those sort of house prices. Others inherit property from their parents. Were that not the case, there would be nobody to staff London schools.
You called the debt incurred from increased public sector borrowing to cover cost associated with the national health emergency a burden, in my view it was a necessary cost the very collective cost the government is there to deal with through a variety of fiscal measures.
*Does the other one have bells on? There is no doubt that austerity facilitated the borrowing capacity, had we been borrowing up to the max the economic crisis to follow would be greater still, surely that is obvious.
The divides being drawn up in society on this thread about who should pay (as long as it isn't us) are currently hypothetical, unless someone here knows how the public purse will cope.
I've said it before but the extrapolation from what we know to the maybe is huge and really can cause unexpected anxiety, why do we do it? If our intention is good and interest great why haven't any of us here stood for election?
Not everyone with shares is a tycoon. Shares can be bought by anyone who could benefit from the dividend payouts, It could be used as just another way of saving.
It would be very unfair to penalise people for trying to prepare for a rainy day.