Election period

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I've just tried to reply to a post that has completely vanished.

Or perhaps I'm just losing it. :yikes:

But to reply to what I remember of it,

1. I acknowledge that all political parties tend to make it up as they go along.
2. An "expert" opinion loses a great deal of credibility when he/she remains anonymous (like a "spokesperson").
3. If any government uses pension contributions for general spending, they cannot then complain that they can't afford the cost of the pensions.

[french frank]

Well, I don't know, Alps (I deleted the post because I thought I might have got the wrong end of the stick :-) ). Three of my best friends are retired secondary teachers, and so is my sister-in-law. I've never heard any of them complaining about any aspect of their pensions. Two of them (husband and wife, where the husband moved into primary teaching for the last 15 or so years of his career) seem pretty well off. They may not have been union activists and not know the facts, I suppose (Where ignorance is bliss ...).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well, I don't know, Alps (I deleted the post because I thought I might have got the wrong end of the stick :-) ). Three of my best friends are retired secondary teachers, and so is my sister-in-law. I've never heard any of them complaining about any aspect of their pensions. Two of them (husband and wife, where the husband moved into primary teaching for the last 15 or so years of his career) seem pretty well off. They may not have been union activists and not know the facts, I suppose (Where ignorance is bliss ...).

I'm in a similar position to your friends and sister-in-law. Those of us who are late in our careers or already retired are not significantly affected by the imposed changes, but those who were under 50 will not be so lucky' and the younger ones will be expected to work until 68. I wonder what their life expectancy will be then.

[ahinton]

I'm in a similar position to your friends and sister-in-law. Those of us who are late in our careers or already retired are not significantly affected by the imposed changes, but those who were under 50 will not be so lucky' and the younger ones will be expected to work until 68. I wonder what their life expectancy will be then.

68? And the rest! Well past death, I'd have thought...

[french frank]

I'm in a similar position to your friends and sister-in-law. Those of us who are late in our careers or already retired are not significantly affected by the imposed changes, but those who were under 50 will not be so lucky' and the younger ones will be expected to work until 68. I wonder what their life expectancy will be then.

That isn't just teachers, though, is it?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-1679780/New-state-pension-age-retire.html

This was planned by the last Labour government too.

"But huge jumps in life expectancy have seen costs shoot up for the Treasury, which is paying some pensioners for more years in retirement than they spent paying National Insurance as workers."

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That isn't just teachers, though, is it?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-1679780/New-state-pension-age-retire.html

This was planned by the last Labour government too.

"But huge jumps in life expectancy have seen costs shoot up for the Treasury, which is paying some pensioners for more years in retirement than they spent paying National Insurance as workers."

Of course, but some die within months of retirement. Or even before retirement.

I'm alright, Jack. But I think the imposition on younger generations will have repercussions.

[ahinton]

I think the imposition on younger generations will have repercussions.

Of course; indeed, it almost certainly already is having them.

[french frank]

I'm alright, Jack. But I think the imposition on younger generations will have repercussions.

At least in terms of the retirement/pensionable age there is equality between the poorer and the more comfortably off (and between men and women, when that's introduced - planned for 2018, I think). And there have always been those who have had to/chosen to carry on working after they reached the current pensionable age.

Don't capitalism and a consumerist society go hand in hand? Could a non-capitalist society guarantee continual improvements in the standards of living (and quality of life) without restricting people's freedoms of choice?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

At least in terms of the retirement/pensionable age there is equality between the poorer and the more comfortably off (and between men and women, when that's introduced - planned for 2018, I think). And there have always been those who have had to/chosen to carry on working after they reached the current pensionable age.

Don't capitalism and a consumerist society go hand in hand? Could a non-capitalist society guarantee continual improvements in the standards of living (and quality of life) without restricting people's freedoms of choice?

Quality of life - now that's a very different thing, but it links in with the pension issue. People may well be living longer, as a result of improved healthcare, but the result for many is discomfort, loneliness and dementia. There isn't an easy answer to this, but the situation affects millions in the UK alone.

But back on pensions, I've tracked down a teachers' unions's slant on the so-called "black hole".

The NUT has calculated the total payments into and from the TPS over the period 1923 to date, using its official valuation reports and accounts. Adjusting these figures in line with GDP growth shows that at least £46.4bn more in current prices has been paid into the TPS in contributions over the years than has been paid out in pensions.

This follows earlier reports by the National Audit Office and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee which show that the long term costs of the TPS are already declining following earlier reforms. The long term picture contrasts sharply with the Government's arguments that the current imbalance between contributions and payments makes teachers' pensions unsustainable.

Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers’ union, said:

"The NUT's research proves two points. First, funding public sector pensions is a complex area – we won't allow our opponents simply to ignore those parts of the story that don't suit them. Second, it is a long term issue – policies shouldn't be driven by short term considerations.

"There is no £46.4 billion to hand. The fact is, however, that the Government has accepted a long series of cheap loans from teachers’ pension contributions before complaining about paying the pensions promised in return."

[MrGongGong]

Could a non-capitalist society guarantee continual improvements in the standards of living (and quality of life) without restricting people's freedoms of choice?

Of course having lots of money doesn't automatically mean you have a higher quality of life
though being very poor can guarantee that you have a lower one !

Surely there is a problem with basing everything on more and more consumption and the idea that "wealth" can constantly increase ?
The basic physical resources of the planet are finite.

[Flosshilde]

Quality of life - now that's a very different thing, but it links in with the pension issue. People may well be living longer, as a result of improved healthcare, but the result for many is discomfort, loneliness and dementia. There isn't an easy answer to this, but the situation affects millions in the UK alone.

But back on pensions, I've tracked down a teachers' unions's slant on the so-called "black hole".

The NUT has calculated the total payments into and from the TPS over the period 1923 to date, using its official valuation reports and accounts. Adjusting these figures in line with GDP growth shows that at least £46.4bn more in current prices has been paid into the TPS in contributions over the years than has been paid out in pensions.

This follows earlier reports by the National Audit Office and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee which show that the long term costs of the TPS are already declining following earlier reforms. The long term picture contrasts sharply with the Government's arguments that the current imbalance between contributions and payments makes teachers' pensions unsustainable.

Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers’ union, said:

"The NUT's research proves two points. First, funding public sector pensions is a complex area – we won't allow our opponents simply to ignore those parts of the story that don't suit them. Second, it is a long term issue – policies shouldn't be driven by short term considerations.

"There is no £46.4 billion to hand. The fact is, however, that the Government has accepted a long series of cheap loans from teachers’ pension contributions before complaining about paying the pensions promised in return."

I'm sure that the same points can be made about other public sector pension schemes.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm sure that the same points can be made about other public sector pension schemes.

Almost certainly.

[Serial_Apologist]

Don't capitalism and a consumerist society go hand in hand? Could a non-capitalist society guarantee continual improvements in the standards of living (and quality of life) without restricting people's freedoms of choice?

Yes to the first question, I'm afraid I've never understood this "freedom of choice" cliche, to the second.

Coincidentally, in an interesting discussion on this morning's The Wright Stuff on CH4, on what we mean by attributing "normality" to the personality, no one claimed ever to have met a "normal person". It was indeed doubtful if such a person existed, and the disabled comedienne Francisca Martinez rightly, IMV, opined that the consumer society probably couldn't exist without the normality idea being promulgated.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The normal person is what the Natinal Curriculum is designed to create. So far, it hasn't worked.

[Serial_Apologist]

Of course having lots of money doesn't automatically mean you have a higher quality of life
though being very poor can guarantee that you have a lower one !

Surely there is a problem with basing everything on more and more consumption and the idea that "wealth" can constantly increase ?
The basic physical resources of the planet are finite.

I agree, however, perpetual expansion based on ideas of incentive and principles based on competitiveness are endemic to capitalism. Controlling capitalism by taxing profits to fund its welfare raised peoples expectations higher than capitalism could sustain in the 1970s, following what some still regard as the happiest 30-year period in Western history for the majority, (so long as it was white, male and straight), because it made capitalism in this country uncompetitive, allegedly, and capitalism couldn't wait for a time when either trade union militancy could be stifled by law, third world anti-imperialist militancy strangled by CIA-MI5-backed military-fascist dictatorships, and the ending of "communism" offering an opening for exploitation.