- Messages
- 9,247
- Edit My Images
- No
The process of confusing fact with theory and theory with fantasy has been building for a long time. Too much current "science" is just theology wearing a lab coat instead of a cassock.
and the site receives a small commission
UK Government theft.
- Thread starter soupdragon
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 2,301
- Name
- Tony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As a side issue, man made climate change is a religion.
Any belief that cannot be argued with or substantiated is, by definition, a religious sect.
I have not decided where I stand on man made climate change (& have no desire to engage in debate here) but I do think there is merit in trying to reduce general pollution & waste, whether it be chemicals in our rivers, airborn gases or plastic particles in the sea.
- Messages
- 9,247
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes. Just like keeping the oil in your car's engine fresh is a good idea, so is keeping the environment as clean of man made pollution an obviously good idea.
- Messages
- 17,354
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 2,767
- Name
- Barry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I voted for Brexit and I am certainly not a racists, it is ignorant and ill-informed comments like that by many 'remoaners' why we are in this current mess, together with a crap negotiating team.
Lets just keep having referendums until we get the result the remoaners want, that's real democracy, just like the the 'Liberal Undemocratic Party'
- Messages
- 20,396
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When I first saw the money figures paid to the Top Footballers two things sprang to mind "you may be paid the money but what have you really earned it....*~*" and as I have sometimes heard folk complain (over the years) about how the cost of a match ticket has gone up! Er, now I wonder why or do they not see the connection between ticket price and the footballers pay
re: *~* this was said to me by a department head in the path lab where I was a junior technician in the early 70's, when following the levelling (almost) of salaries with the Scientific Civil Service I remarked to him that my increase was nice to get as it went (wracks brains for exact figures???) from £987 per year to £1150 per year..............ah those were the days
Premier league clubs make, in relative terms, not a great deal of money from ticket sales when compared with other revenue. Man City who pay the highest wages actually have one of the lowest ticket prices in the division iirc.
- Messages
- 25,320
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Indeed - last season IIRC all but 2 premier league clubs would have turned a profit without any gate revenue.
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We're in this mess because a majority voted to leave and the Government has mixed views on how to do that that. Parliament is generally against, but is still trying to honour the will of the people while minimising the damage the majority of "experts" are predicting. Parliament is doing exactly what it should be doing while at the same time pleasing nobody.
As far as a crap negotiating team is concerned the blue eyed boy is now finding that Theresa May actually didn't do that bad a job under the circumstances. He's certainly done no better up to this stage. Whether or not he will, given that he appears to now be pro no-deal, remains to be seen.
- Messages
- 9,247
- Edit My Images
- No
We now know far more about the consequences of leaving the EU than we did 3 years ago and many of the lies from both sides of the debate have been exposed.
It's that last which is at the heart of the issue. Instead of Parliament voting to get an agreement from the EU and then putting the full text of that agreement to a referendum, Cameron initiated a non binding vote to advise parliament on whether the general view of the public was to leave or stay. If Cameron had said at the time "this referendum will be a binding decision" the outcome may have been quite different.
The point of democracy should not be to achieve our ends regardless of how much harm we do. It should be to do the least harm to the fewest of our citizens while achieving the desires of the most citizens.
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 25,320
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Course you're not - but your equally ill informed response doesn't exactly help your cause either.
A serious but related point would be that there are already anti EU meme's out there informing the slow thinking that 'we' have the highest retirement age in the EU whilst 'we' are paying millions directly to Poland so that they can increase their very generous pensions.
If I was to suggest that those unrelated facts would only be linked or sucked up by 'idiots' then that'd make me a 'remoaner' despite it being absolutely true
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's a lad joke.We have Godwin's law, now we have Bump's law
Personally I prefer coles law
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Nurse!!.... He's out of bed again!
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
I've not had time to read through the whole thread so forgive me if this has already been mentioned.
Raise the retirement age to 70? Presumably this proposal is suggested across the board, regardless of how many years have actually been worked? So how is that fair?
Take two people; one leaves school and starts work at 16, trains as an apprentice for a trade and qualifies as say a landscape gardener or a central heating engineer, and after 5 years starts his own business, earns around £35,000 a year, and works every year through to their retirement.
The second person leaves school at 18 after studying for A levels, takes a gap year to travel round the world, then goes to University for 3 years to get an honours degree, has another gap year to travel and relax after all that studying, then decides to return to Uni to do a Masters degree for another year. They finally start work at the age of 25, earn around £35,000 a year and work through to retirement.
One of these people has worked 9 years longer and yet is still expected to retire at the same age as the person who decided to go into higher education and not start gainful employment and paying into the system until they are 25.
I am convinced that the age you retire should be determined by the number of years you have actually worked and paid into the system. For those who start work at 16, the state retirement age is 65 (if they wish to retire then). For those who start work at 25, the state retirement age would be 74 - however, there would be a proportional option to make additional payments into the system to bring this retirement age down. In my view that would be a fair system, and would take account of those who are more likely to do a hard, physical job and perhaps not be in a fit physical condition to work beyond 65.
Raise the retirement age to 70? Presumably this proposal is suggested across the board, regardless of how many years have actually been worked? So how is that fair?
Take two people; one leaves school and starts work at 16, trains as an apprentice for a trade and qualifies as say a landscape gardener or a central heating engineer, and after 5 years starts his own business, earns around £35,000 a year, and works every year through to their retirement.
The second person leaves school at 18 after studying for A levels, takes a gap year to travel round the world, then goes to University for 3 years to get an honours degree, has another gap year to travel and relax after all that studying, then decides to return to Uni to do a Masters degree for another year. They finally start work at the age of 25, earn around £35,000 a year and work through to retirement.
One of these people has worked 9 years longer and yet is still expected to retire at the same age as the person who decided to go into higher education and not start gainful employment and paying into the system until they are 25.
I am convinced that the age you retire should be determined by the number of years you have actually worked and paid into the system. For those who start work at 16, the state retirement age is 65 (if they wish to retire then). For those who start work at 25, the state retirement age would be 74 - however, there would be a proportional option to make additional payments into the system to bring this retirement age down. In my view that would be a fair system, and would take account of those who are more likely to do a hard, physical job and perhaps not be in a fit physical condition to work beyond 65.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,247
- Edit My Images
- No
That is more or less how it works at the moment. You may wish to start with this page: https://www.gov.uk/browse/working/state-pension
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you're speaking about access to the state pension probably fair enough.
If you're not dependent on that then it should purely be based on your ability to look after yourself financially after stopping work. In other words if you've saved a million by the time you're 25 and want to retire go for it.
- Messages
- 104,481
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
On average graduates earn around £10,000 per year more than non-graduates so they pay more tax and make a bigger contribution towards the pension pot. Anyone earning £35000 would not surely be expecting to retire on just the state pension of about £6700? Most would have a private pension or work place pension which they might be able to take at 55 or 60 if they want.
What constitiutes work? my undergradate daughter works part time to suppliment her student loan as well as doing a full time degree, she is not alone many students work as well as studying.
What about mothers raising children? Despite the tabloid histrionics, that vast vast vast majority of those children will be economically active and will be the workers who are paying taxes to pay your pension.
What about carers caring for elderly relatives, disabled, etc and hence reducing the burnden on the state?
Who would do 7 years training to become a doctor if that meant they had to work until they were 74? Who would want to be treated by an 74 year old doctor?
Last edited:
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Under the current system a person has to make at least 35 years of contributions to qualify for a full state pension. A person starting work at 16 can achieve that by the time they are 51. A person starting work at 25 can currently achieve that at 60.
So both would currently be on target for a full state pension at retirement age. However, the person who started work at 16 could have worked and paid in to the system for a full 9 years longer than someone starting work at 25.
However, it seems there's a predicted shortfall, so they're talking of putting up the pension age, but regardless of when a person actually started work. That doesn't seem fair to me.
If they need to tackle a predicted shortfall then they should raise the number or qualifying years, and after they've achieved that then a person can retire at a minimum age of 67, but make it an option to pay more and retire earlier for those starting work in their 20s, who may otherwise need to work longer to qualify. The choice would then be theirs. Can you see what I mean now?
Raising the retirement age across the board does not take into account those who have done a hard, physical (but necessary) job all their working life and are in no fit state to work until they are 70 or beyond.
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
With what I suggested, the person would have the option to make additional payments and reduce their state pension 'retirement' age (down to 68 if they've paid in enough), this could also be linked to any additional NIC payments they've made above a certain threshold. As for graduates earing on average £10,000 more than those without a degree, I'd check the latest figures, which indicate those with a skilled apprenticeship can earn just as much, but don't start their working life saddled with thousands of pounds worth of debt!
Going to Uni these days seems to be regarded more or less as a right of passage for many school leavers, along with a gap year (or two). Fine, start full-time work at 25 if you want to, but don't expect others to pay for those years of missed pension contributions and subsidise that lifestyle choice. Why should a construction worker, waste collection operative or farm labourer who started their working life at 16 have to work another three or four years longer to subsidise those that haven't started work until they're in their mid 20s?
As for students doing part time jobs, do most students pay tax and NIC on what they earn, or are most of them below the threshold... eg occupying a job but not paying anything at all into the system?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,863
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Your view is too simplified and is making a lot of assumptions.
In your view above, the person starting work at 16 would indeed be working for more years than a graduate (earliest work age of 21 for example). But, and it's a big but, the number of years in work does not equate to a greater contribution by default. This is where your view appears simplified.
The chances of the 16 year old starting work on a living wage are remote, more likely on minimum wage paying no tax and minimum NI contributions. They may have risen to a living wage by the time they are 21, they may not, they may be a very hard worker and risen to a higher salary but the average would not.
The person who graduates at 21 will most likely be paying tax on their first job and higher NI contributions. The stats show that graduates earn considerably more than non graduates.
Throughout their working lives, the 21 year old graduate will contribute more than the 16 year old worker on average, there are obviously exceptions.
My son is just about to start university and all the stats from previous students doing the same course he is where earning £25k+ within 6 months of graduation, i.e. their first proper job in an entry role for the industry. Within 5-10 years the graduate will have caught up and passed the contributions of the 16 year old work starter.
- Messages
- 104,481
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Carers? Mothers?
https://assets.publishing.service.g...14.2007172860.1566911236-554001844.1499326267
https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/ne...n-more-than-non-graduates-new-statistics.aspx
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46345527
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13732
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...es/articles/graduatesintheuklabourmarket/2017
https://assets.publishing.service.g...14.2007172860.1566911236-554001844.1499326267
https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/ne...n-more-than-non-graduates-new-statistics.aspx
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46345527
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13732
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...es/articles/graduatesintheuklabourmarket/2017
But it's the other way around. It's nothing to do with when you start work and everything to do with how much you contribute to the economy. Those earning more money already pay more into the system, why should they then have to pay extra top-ups so they can retire at the same time as someone who over their life time paid less in taxation?
- Messages
- 9,247
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree with you entirely on that point.
I think otherwise. Perhaps the fairest system is that you work "x" years to qualify for your state pension. Hence the girl or boy starting work at 16 would gain their pension 8 years earlier than the young adult starting work after a 3 year degree course. I agree with our friend Mr Badger that those who go on to further education should not expect an advantage over other contributors to the scheme.
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
You'd better tell your son to study very hard indeed and get a particularly well-paid job, as he'll need to pay huge amounts of tax and NIC to pay the unemployment benefit and disability allowance payments for those manual workers who have got to their late-60s and been 'made redundant' (or laid off on their zero hours contract) as they aren't physically fit enough to work productively and their employer can't afford (or isn't willing to) subsidise another 5 or 10 years of reduced productivity when they can simply replace the poor old person with someone younger and fitte... because that's what's going to happen if they raise the retirement age to 70+ across the board!
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Because they want their food harvesting and processing, their bins emptying, their houses building, their roads maintaining, fatbergs dug out of sewers, etc.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Average UK salary for full time employment, is just short of £29k.
Average graduate salary is £30k.
There are plenty of non graduate jobs out there paying more than £30k. It's a good few years since my salary was that low.
- Messages
- 104,481
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And they want doctors, medicines and treatments created by graduate scientists, machinery designed by graduate mechanical engineers, roads and bridges designed by graduate civil and structural engineers.Because they want their food harvesting and processing, their bins emptying, their houses building, their roads maintaining, fatbergs dug out of sewers, etc.
Now what about mothers and carers, you seem to be avoiding that one?
- Messages
- 9,247
- Edit My Images
- No
There has to be a middle path between the communist "everyone paid the same" (which they never are, anywhere at anytime) and "all the market will bear" (which creates inequality and unfairness). The question becomes whether we'd prefer to live in Sweden or the USA.
That seems entirely obvious to me: they're doing vital work and should be treated as such. They should have their pension contributions paid as if they were in any other form of employment.
- Messages
- 15,484
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Can't say for carers, but non working mothers claiming child benefit counts as a pension contribution and rightly so
- Messages
- 104,481
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Or actually may be we would prefer to live in the UK, the grass is always greener
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some companies pay 16yr old apprentices fairly well. A 16yr old apprentice can be earning as much if not more than 18-20yr old minimum wage and their salary will increase each year. Our apprentices attend a local engineering college for 18 months before being placed in the working environment. Our 4th year apprentice salary is higher than the college lecturers earn. Once they finish their apprenticeship they will be on quite a bit more than £25k straight away.
- Messages
- 1,863
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Agreed, and these days that is known as an apprentiship degree and classes as further education. The difference to a more traditional degree is its cheaper for the student as the employer funds it and the student gets real work experience.
The apprenticeship degrees are aimed more to engineering/manual industry, by which I mean physical production.
My sons chosen career path doesn't have that type of apprenticeship degree available.
Mr Badger is referring to a school leaver if I have understood correctly and bases the retirement age on years, worked only.
The apprenticeship degrees are aimed more to engineering/manual industry, by which I mean physical production.
My sons chosen career path doesn't have that type of apprenticeship degree available.
Mr Badger is referring to a school leaver if I have understood correctly and bases the retirement age on years, worked only.
- Messages
- 3,175
- Edit My Images
- Yes
University degree is fast track to starting work with good knowledge and being useful to your employer from day 1. A degree is also often required to hold higher positions in the company. Thus as pointed out, it doesn't make sense to calculate retirement age simply based on number of year worked.
I started work at 22 yo with MEng. Achieved chartered engineer recognition at 30 years old.
In contrast, a young apprentice under my management is 22 yo, finishing his 4 years HND apprentiship this year, becoming a technician. He plans to do degree apprentiship for 3 years to gain Bachelor's degree, and thus qualified to be an engineer. Then may be another 2 years part time Master's degree. That puts him at 27 yo.
While a good uni friend of mine who received doctorate from Cambridge back around 2015, and then moved to a lesser known university as lecturer started almost 50% more than said technician, slightly more than what I was on back then.
The downside of higher education is not on society, if anything, on average, the higher the education, the more contribution to society.
The downside is personal, where instead of 20% tax, you'd be paying 29% tax + student loan repayment, up to higher tax band. But that's all known upfront so it's no big deal compared to this thread.
I started work at 22 yo with MEng. Achieved chartered engineer recognition at 30 years old.
In contrast, a young apprentice under my management is 22 yo, finishing his 4 years HND apprentiship this year, becoming a technician. He plans to do degree apprentiship for 3 years to gain Bachelor's degree, and thus qualified to be an engineer. Then may be another 2 years part time Master's degree. That puts him at 27 yo.
The young man's salary as technician is similar to when I started as graduate engineer, 9 years ago.
While a good uni friend of mine who received doctorate from Cambridge back around 2015, and then moved to a lesser known university as lecturer started almost 50% more than said technician, slightly more than what I was on back then.
The downside of higher education is not on society, if anything, on average, the higher the education, the more contribution to society.
The downside is personal, where instead of 20% tax, you'd be paying 29% tax + student loan repayment, up to higher tax band. But that's all known upfront so it's no big deal compared to this thread.
- Messages
- 5,335
- Name
- matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bare (or is it bear?) in mind once you (or I) have paid in for 35 years you continue to work and pay Tax/NI until you reach the State retirement age, so if you started paying in at say 18 (lets allow the youngsters no NI contribution requirements on their "low" pay for a couple of years, as is likely already happening) work for 35 years, so you're 53 you can continue to pay NI for another 17 or so years with no extra benefit, is that fair?
Happening right now, my wife has paid in more than 35 years (I havent as I was contracted out) is now not entitled to a State Pension (the one she was promised she'd receive at age 60 but now wont get until she's 66) and continues to pay NI contributions towards a pension that wont be increased and she wont get for a delayed 6 years.
You expect fairness out of a Govt - dream on.
Happening right now, my wife has paid in more than 35 years (I havent as I was contracted out) is now not entitled to a State Pension (the one she was promised she'd receive at age 60 but now wont get until she's 66) and continues to pay NI contributions towards a pension that wont be increased and she wont get for a delayed 6 years.
You expect fairness out of a Govt - dream on.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No it's a standard apprenticeship with the modern equivalent of a City and Guilds qualification at the end. The degree apprenticeship is a separate programme which my employer started around 6yrs ago although I believe has the same pay structure. The latter is a lot stricter, failure of any exams whilst studying for the degree results in a termination of employment.
Up until 5yrs ago standard apprentices could also study for a degree which the company paid for. More recently, standard apprentices have had to pay for their own degree education although the company does allow paid time off each week to go to college, revision days and exams.
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not avoiding anything - Carers, etc. currently get proportional contributions towards their state pension and I believe that should remain the same. Now can you answer my question as to whether or not most students actually pay tax and NIC (pay anything into the pensions system) if they do a part time job?
Professionals such as Doctors usually have a substantial NHS and/or private pension, which they can contribute more towards as a tax free benefit from their significant salary (up to a certain level), so would probably regard a state pension as spending money or a holiday fund, rather than rely upon it pretty much as their only source of income in retirement, as many manual workers who have been on minimum working wage over the last 30 or 40 years will probably have to.
We know Medical Drs are an important profession, but put it this way, I've relied on the services of the local bin men a lot more times than I've been to see my Dr! And I know who, on average, will probably be in better physical condition when they reach 65! Your original question was would I like to see a 72 year old Dr? Well, probably as much as I'd like to see some poor old 70 year-old hobbling down the street pulling two heavy wheelie bins!
Can you imagine what it would be like for business too? You've got to keep your workforce until they're 70. "Nah, sorry mate, you're car's not ready... You see, Bert our gearbox technician put your car on the ramp, removed the gearbox and stripped it down to repair the fault, but that set his lumbago off and he won't be back in to work to finish the job until at least a week on Wednesday". Or, "Yes, your car's ready, but we've had to up our labour rate by a third because we've had to employ an extra mechanic to do the heavy work when it gets too much for our two elderly employees."
Statistically, UK residents may be living longer on average (although in some regions that trend has started to reverse), but are they still able bodied and fit for full time manual work into their late 60s and early 70s? Can you see my point now? Not everyone has worked a 40 hour week in a climate controlled office environment, and only started work in their mid 20s. As we've discussed, many manual workers have been out in all weathers keeping the country running. I believe it is inherently unfair to expect people who have started work at an earlier age and done a hard, physical job all or most of their working life to keep on working until they are 70.
Anyway, you've read my suggestion; so what's yours, Chris; bearing in mind we are talking about the situation now, not with the benefit of 20 or 30 years lead-in time?
Last edited:
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
These workplace schemes (if properly run) sound a sensible way to go, with practical workplace learning being the cornerstone, combined with an academic qualification at the end of it, with the option to build on this to degree level with mutual commitment, investment and input from employer and employee, whilst the person is in gainful employment and paying towards their retirement, NHS health care, etc.
Compare that to those not starting work and paying anything into the system (including for their NHS health care from leaving school onwards) until they are in their early to mid 20s and probably starting work £10K to £20K in debt, you can probably see where I'm coming from. I think it's probably time this country had a root and branch review of the way we do things?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,335
- Name
- matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The odd thing about NI contributions is that there at 2 base levels, one where a certain salary gives you a flag to say you have earnt enough for you to credited with a state pension qualifying year, a second level that requires you to actually pay NI contributions. Level 1 is lower than Level 2, so you can in certain circumstances have a qualifying year without having paid any NI contributions.
I find that a bit odd, but I think it was to ensure low paid workers received a State Pension upon retirement as some part-time workers (primary carers as they are now know, or Mums in my day) qualified for a pension in the belief the work they did (at home) also counted as "work", not least in creating a better society by staying at home and bringing up baby.
Upshot is that possibly some students work year counts for a pension but they don't pay any contributions, or very little.
I find that a bit odd, but I think it was to ensure low paid workers received a State Pension upon retirement as some part-time workers (primary carers as they are now know, or Mums in my day) qualified for a pension in the belief the work they did (at home) also counted as "work", not least in creating a better society by staying at home and bringing up baby.
Upshot is that possibly some students work year counts for a pension but they don't pay any contributions, or very little.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In 40yrs of working in engineering I have yet to meet a single graduate capable of doing a job on day 1 straight out of university unless it is a very junior position. They will always have to shadow someone to learn the job because their degree education doesn't cover the work they will be required to do.
Why would your apprentice need to serve a degree apprenticeship? All he needs to do is just study his Bachelors Degree at college or OU.