Cycling UK Forum

Even the humblest clerk at a job centre gets the full, index-linked, final salary package with early retirement at 60.

The retirement age in Local Government is 65 for both men and women. You could go at 60, but only on the benefits accrued that far. So if you started at 20 , have worked full-time all your life (so you're probably not a woman) you'll get the full entitlement( ie on the pre-2008 terms 40/80ths of your salary). About £9k per annum.

The Job-Centre clerk on £18 per annum is hardly going to be living a "superb" or "gold-plated" life on those figures. Yes, £18k is a realistic figure. That's what the clerical staff I work with earn.

Jan

Trigger wrote:So if Labour inherited an amazing Tory economy in '97 when spending was 41% of GDP, and that remained the same until '08 (bail-out money) why is 41% all of a sudden too much?

Perhaps because it wasn't 41% then and it isn't now?

Source = The Guardian

1997-98 38.2%
.
2007-08 41.1%
2008-09 43.9%
2009-10 47.5%
2010-11 47.3%

andrewk wrote:The UK tax burden is already massively too high.

that's just an opinion isn't it? maybe if the top quartile paid a bit more, we could all have a decent standard of living whether we're working or retired, public or private sector. there's people on this island buying sunseeker boats, chartering private jets for shopping in new york and buying £0.5+m motor cars.

it's not going to happen with this government.

philg wrote:

Trigger wrote:So if Labour inherited an amazing Tory economy in '97 when spending was 41% of GDP, and that remained the same until '08 (bail-out money) why is 41% all of a sudden too much?

Perhaps because it wasn't 41% then and it isn't now?

Source = The Guardian

1997-98 38.2%
.
2007-08 41.1%
2008-09 43.9%
2009-10 47.5%
2010-11 47.3%

According to this graph it had been pretty steady for a while until '08. In fact it even dropped under the first years of Bliar.

thirdcrank wrote:andrewk

I understand the US, which is generally seen as the embodiment of everything you are prescribing, has gone from bank rolling the world to being one of its biggest debtors. How did that come about?

The US is far from an example of good economics. In fact an example of how not to run an economy. Starting from the Reagan years with the "Twin Deficit" (structural deficit and balance of payments deficit) matters have gone from bad to worse (admittedely with improvement during the Clinton era). The current President is actively trying and suceeding to outdo "the Shrub" (Bush junior) in terminally wrecking the economy.

Trigger wrote:So if Labour inherited an amazing Tory economy in '97 when spending was 41% of GDP, and that remained the same until '08 (bail-out money) why is 41% all of a sudden too much?

Or is it a case of 41% is OK so long as it goes into the correct pockets?

The economy inherited by Labour was basically sound although public expenditure was a little high, public debt was low. Labour started by pretending to follow the previous government's spending plans for two years. In fact they spent massively more but fudged the figures by excluding public private partnership expenditure and debt. Then they simply let rip with the consequences we face today.

andrewk wrote: ... The US is far from an example of good economics. ....

But it's a good example of the practice rather than the theory of what you seem to be suggesting - and I suspect that the effect of the public sector, especially public sector pensions was small.

Trigger wrote:According to this graph it had been pretty steady for a while until '08. In fact it even dropped under the first years of Bliar.

If you care to zoom in on your graph. I would suggest it shows a massive peak from the Callaghan years, borught gradually under control by Thatcher to let rip once again under Bliar/Brown
1980-2010

thirdcrank wrote:

andrewk wrote: ... The US is far from an example of good economics. ....

But it's a good example of the practice rather than the theory of what you seem to be suggesting - and I suspect that the effect of the public sector, especially public sector pensions was small.

No. In fact this very same debate is raging in most US states, now.

philg wrote:

Trigger wrote:According to this graph it had been pretty steady for a while until '08. In fact it even dropped under the first years of Bliar.

If you care to zoom in on your graph. I would suggest it shows a massive peak from the Callaghan years, borught gradually under control by Thatcher to let rip once again under Bliar/Brown
1980-2010

So what happened between 1987 and 1995 and who was in charge then? and judging from the zoomed in graph it was approx 39.5% in 1997 and 39.5% again in 2008 before the bail-out.

I'm not a Labour apologist, far from it. But this whole "inherited mess" drivel does my head in, yes they inherited a mess, a mess that they themselves would have had no option to create whilst dishing out the same bail-out money.

I think Labour also inherited the massive PFI commitments kicked off by the Tories, talk about pot/kettle/black.

Vorpal wrote: ... No. In fact this very same debate is raging in most US states, now.

I rather think that supports what I'm saying.

hubgearfreak wrote:that's just an opinion isn't it? maybe if the top quartile paid a bit more, we could all have a decent standard of living whether we're working or retired, public or private sector. there's people on this island buying sunseeker boats, chartering private jets for shopping in new york and buying £0.5+m motor cars.

it's not going to happen with this government.

I see the politcs of envy are alive and well.

More seriously high taxes discourage business, entrepreneurs and hard work. Why bother going the extra mile if the fruits of your labour are to confiscated through tax and redistributed to the feckless. Its not just income tax but also: NI, CGT, IHT, PRT, VAT, stamp duty, excise duty, council tax, car tax and many more stealth taxes

thirdcrank wrote:

andrewk wrote: ... The US is far from an example of good economics. ....

But it's a good example of the practice rather than the theory of what you seem to be suggesting - and I suspect that the effect of the public sector, especially public sector pensions was small.

The problem in the US has been excessive Govt. spending, the defence budget in particular. Public sector pensions are not the cause of economic malaise in the US nor in the UK but do contribute to it. When budgets have to be tightened there can be no sacred cows, quite aside from the inequity of pension provision between the public and private sectors.

andrewk wrote: When budgets have to be tightened there can be no sacred cows,

At the moment there are. The lying expense cheating lot that were and are supposed to represent us. They are still enjoying their full rip the state off pensions.

If any polywatsits want people to not get upset about pension reform. Then the wrong way to go about it is telling hard working people they must work longer for less, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing about their realy nice back handers.

How about means testing MPs pensions, I am sure some of those millionaires do not need to rip us off even more.

The other bad news is that the extensive use of PFI and PPP was often kept off the accounts by fiddling the way it was reported.

Not only do we have the massive repayments that many NHS Trusts and others are saddled with, but also there is still a massive undisclosed debt waiting to bite us