| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically 20:56 - Sep 16 with 2122 views | J2BLUE |
Some might enjoy this. Also says where the country stands based on broad political groupings.
https://refnation.uk/
|  | | |  |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:34 - Sep 17 with 575 views | jonny1964 |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 21:18 - Sep 16 by NthQldITFC |
I'm only Centre Left today. |
ditto |  | | |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:40 - Sep 17 with 563 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:20 - Sep 17 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“To address another point raised on the thread, it doesn't matter if those contributions have already been spent historically either. All government's with a central bank create money when they spend. They're not saving up our taxes in money boxes before they spend.”
That’s missing the point though - if it were fully funded, that pensaion fund could compound over time as per a SWF or private pension. I agree there is a social contract in place, it’s not the fault of pensioners that they are outliving the projections when the state pension was created. But it needs to be tapered away over time (not sure why people always assume an immediate cutoff) and shifted to the private sector, it doesn’t have to penalise those who rely on it. It’s not that controversial, Denmark have largely done this and have a much healthier level of debt, and beat the UK in just about every standard of living metric.
Also disagree the talk of ‘fairness’ the young are funding the retired with much better (state) pensions than we will ever see, whilst other public services crumble.
Printing more money has been disastrous (QE) to people’s spending power, and weakens Sterling. If that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be borrowing at all. Both the BoE and ECB have spoken around the inflationary effect of creating money. I’m amazed that people argue for more of the same, the state pension is not sustainable in its current form, even the more socialist Scandi’s have realised this. The young are still penalised if more money is printed, because additional taxes will be needed to prop up sterling and manage inflation. [Post edited 17 Sep 9:26]
|
Ah, you’re talking about topping up the care state pension with things like compulsory work-based pensions? I have no problem with that. That was the advice to me over 30 years ago and is what I I‘ve done. You’d still need some form of social contract so people had some certainty. I don’t know how you’d deal with non-workers either. Housewife’s/husbands are atill a thing, plus all those who’ve been declared unfit to work. So we’d still need a State scheme.
I don’t understand a lot of it; it was just that element of social contract that stands out to me. As long as people roughly get what they are expecting, they can obviously plan for retirement. I’d hate for us to go down the route of the US where many people have to work well into retirement age. |  |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:40 - Sep 17 with 561 views | Ryorry |
According to that, I’m hard left! 😂
Found the dark mode pages hard on the eye though, so may not continue. |  |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:47 - Sep 17 with 544 views | giant_stow |
Reassuringly 'centre left'
Edit: oh hang on - below is it says 'early day leftist'
BAN THIS STUPID SITE [Post edited 17 Sep 9:50]
|  |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:50 - Sep 17 with 534 views | DanTheMan |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:40 - Sep 17 by Swansea_Blue |
Ah, you’re talking about topping up the care state pension with things like compulsory work-based pensions? I have no problem with that. That was the advice to me over 30 years ago and is what I I‘ve done. You’d still need some form of social contract so people had some certainty. I don’t know how you’d deal with non-workers either. Housewife’s/husbands are atill a thing, plus all those who’ve been declared unfit to work. So we’d still need a State scheme.
I don’t understand a lot of it; it was just that element of social contract that stands out to me. As long as people roughly get what they are expecting, they can obviously plan for retirement. I’d hate for us to go down the route of the US where many people have to work well into retirement age. |
I think the social contract point is important, but for me the reasons there is such anger around this is that we've had the triple lock costing more and more money over time and meanwhile young people will look at:
- ever rising house prices and rent prices
- a very poor job market, especially for graduates
- effectively increased tax rates from student loans which they are unlikely to pay off
- very little child care support
And wonder what the social contract is for them? |  |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:51 - Sep 17 with 531 views | balcombeblue |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:40 - Sep 17 by Ryorry |
According to that, I’m hard left! 😂
Found the dark mode pages hard on the eye though, so may not continue. |
There wasn't a scale to measure me...... |  | | |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:52 - Sep 17 with 524 views | giant_stow |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:50 - Sep 17 by DanTheMan |
I think the social contract point is important, but for me the reasons there is such anger around this is that we've had the triple lock costing more and more money over time and meanwhile young people will look at:
- ever rising house prices and rent prices
- a very poor job market, especially for graduates
- effectively increased tax rates from student loans which they are unlikely to pay off
- very little child care support
And wonder what the social contract is for them? |
There's nothing for younguns - they face a life of impoverishment, with what money they do have paying for other people's pensions (edit and care) [Post edited 17 Sep 9:54]
| |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:02 - Sep 17 with 506 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:26 - Sep 17 by balcombeblue |
Lots there to agree with. I don't know how we solve the issue of the rising cost of funding retirement though. Means testing is one way, as is drastically raising the age of retirement.
But this would be very difficult to do without significant long term planning (yes, long term planning + government don't mix). You need to give people decades to be able to prep for retirement.
Take a look at the projection of how the cost of the state pension will rise by 2050! from 12% of all government spending to around 20%!
As we've discussed on other threads, you can't tax your way out of this.
Carnage? totally. The Waspi women being a good recent example. |
I think SuperKM hits on a valid way forward by formalising private/company pensions into a integrated whole alongside the state system, as per the Denmark example.
I’m clueless so have just asked Google. Compulsory work-placed private contributions alongside smaller state schemes seem to provide much better pensions (Denmark, Iceland). The pay-as-you-go schemes like ours are all struggling because they lack the large investment funds to back them up.
Yet you’ve got countries like Luxembourg, Spain and Malta with generous state schemes who sit near the top of the charts (as it were lol - https://www.almondfinancial.co But they all have challenges. Spain is like us with severe pressures from aging demographic. Luxembourg relies on high salary taxation and contributions and aggressively increasing workforce (no chance of either of those going down well here!).
Sweden & Norway are hybrid systems that seem to be held as an ideal model. Future-proofed hybrid schemes with a smaller state component and then mandatory employee and employer top ups. Norway backs there’s up with their Sovereign Wealth Fund - that’s their fund they put a lot of their oil revenues into isn’t it? It seems a better use than blowing it on short term profits like we did.
Agreed, you you need long-term planning. The google search result reinforced that “2. Why Sweden and Norway are "Future-Proofed". Sweden and Norway recognized the demographic risks decades ago. By carving out a chunk of the state pension tax and legally forcing it into real market investments (the stock market), they reduced the burden on future taxpayers.” Which is what SKM was saying.
Does anyone think we have the capability/will within any administration to implement something like this? I’m skeptical. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:10 - Sep 17 with 485 views | Whos_blue |
Lefty bumfester and happy clapper.
Nailed me. |  |
| "Look, I don't wanna be the same as everybody else. That's why I'm a Mod, see?" |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:12 - Sep 17 with 481 views | leitrimblue |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:10 - Sep 17 by Whos_blue |
Lefty bumfester and happy clapper.
Nailed me. |
Yer, I got Lefty bumfester with the chiseled features and body of a Greek god
Absolutely nailed me  |  | | |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:21 - Sep 17 with 472 views | ronnyd |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 06:13 - Sep 17 by mellowblue |
early days centre right. What is this early days thing about ? |
Same here, whatever that means. | | | |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:31 - Sep 17 with 457 views | balcombeblue |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:02 - Sep 17 by Swansea_Blue |
I think SuperKM hits on a valid way forward by formalising private/company pensions into a integrated whole alongside the state system, as per the Denmark example.
I’m clueless so have just asked Google. Compulsory work-placed private contributions alongside smaller state schemes seem to provide much better pensions (Denmark, Iceland). The pay-as-you-go schemes like ours are all struggling because they lack the large investment funds to back them up.
Yet you’ve got countries like Luxembourg, Spain and Malta with generous state schemes who sit near the top of the charts (as it were lol - https://www.almondfinancial.co But they all have challenges. Spain is like us with severe pressures from aging demographic. Luxembourg relies on high salary taxation and contributions and aggressively increasing workforce (no chance of either of those going down well here!).
Sweden & Norway are hybrid systems that seem to be held as an ideal model. Future-proofed hybrid schemes with a smaller state component and then mandatory employee and employer top ups. Norway backs there’s up with their Sovereign Wealth Fund - that’s their fund they put a lot of their oil revenues into isn’t it? It seems a better use than blowing it on short term profits like we did.
Agreed, you you need long-term planning. The google search result reinforced that “2. Why Sweden and Norway are "Future-Proofed". Sweden and Norway recognized the demographic risks decades ago. By carving out a chunk of the state pension tax and legally forcing it into real market investments (the stock market), they reduced the burden on future taxpayers.” Which is what SKM was saying.
Does anyone think we have the capability/will within any administration to implement something like this? I’m skeptical. |
Does anyone think we have the capability/will within any administration to implement something like this? I’m skeptical.
Skeptical? I've just got up off the floor from rolling around laughing.
The bigger states like UK, France and Germany are in a hell of a bad place on this. It's a ticking time bomb. If people think we can 'tax the rich' to get out of it then it's a terrible populist trap.
Mixed funding of the state pension is the only way forward I can see, much like with the NHS. The issue I would have over that is whether or not suitable financial protections are in place. If they are not then you totally trash investor confidence and the whole thing falls apart. I am not sure why I am even considering this though, it will never happen! | | | |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:39 - Sep 17 with 449 views | DanTheMan |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:02 - Sep 17 by Swansea_Blue |
I think SuperKM hits on a valid way forward by formalising private/company pensions into a integrated whole alongside the state system, as per the Denmark example.
I’m clueless so have just asked Google. Compulsory work-placed private contributions alongside smaller state schemes seem to provide much better pensions (Denmark, Iceland). The pay-as-you-go schemes like ours are all struggling because they lack the large investment funds to back them up.
Yet you’ve got countries like Luxembourg, Spain and Malta with generous state schemes who sit near the top of the charts (as it were lol - https://www.almondfinancial.co But they all have challenges. Spain is like us with severe pressures from aging demographic. Luxembourg relies on high salary taxation and contributions and aggressively increasing workforce (no chance of either of those going down well here!).
Sweden & Norway are hybrid systems that seem to be held as an ideal model. Future-proofed hybrid schemes with a smaller state component and then mandatory employee and employer top ups. Norway backs there’s up with their Sovereign Wealth Fund - that’s their fund they put a lot of their oil revenues into isn’t it? It seems a better use than blowing it on short term profits like we did.
Agreed, you you need long-term planning. The google search result reinforced that “2. Why Sweden and Norway are "Future-Proofed". Sweden and Norway recognized the demographic risks decades ago. By carving out a chunk of the state pension tax and legally forcing it into real market investments (the stock market), they reduced the burden on future taxpayers.” Which is what SKM was saying.
Does anyone think we have the capability/will within any administration to implement something like this? I’m skeptical. |
" Does anyone think we have the capability/will within any administration to implement something like this? I’m skeptical. "
No. Every party actively avoids trying to take long term decisions as they usually involve short term pain and our systems reward short term thinking. | |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:56 - Sep 17 with 429 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 09:50 - Sep 17 by DanTheMan |
I think the social contract point is important, but for me the reasons there is such anger around this is that we've had the triple lock costing more and more money over time and meanwhile young people will look at:
- ever rising house prices and rent prices
- a very poor job market, especially for graduates
- effectively increased tax rates from student loans which they are unlikely to pay off
- very little child care support
And wonder what the social contract is for them? |
They get the following generations to look after them. And round we go
Agreed on all of that, it's not looking great for the younger generations. It was never easy for most of us a bit older, but it was never this bad either. Our eldst is just setting off to university and it's quite depressing looking at some of the financials and opportunities he may (not) have down the line. People talk about things like we need vocational qualifications, but try getting a degree apprenticeship - they're rarer than rocking horse crap.
There's only four systems you've mentioned that are effectively broken. I'm sure there are more! | |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 11:16 - Sep 17 with 404 views | IndependentlyBlue |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 23:00 - Sep 16 by IndependentlyBlue |
Early Days Leftist apparently
Not what the white van driver called me earlier but ho-hum |
Still an Early Days Leftist
Still not what that white van driver called me earlier |  |
| Better to stay silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 11:19 - Sep 17 with 395 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:39 - Sep 17 by DanTheMan |
" Does anyone think we have the capability/will within any administration to implement something like this? I’m skeptical. "
No. Every party actively avoids trying to take long term decisions as they usually involve short term pain and our systems reward short term thinking. |
And pensioners form a huge voting demographic now so politicians of both colours tend to avoid any tough decisions.
Even if reform doesn’t impact current pensioners, the media will stoke up fear - in the same way they do around taxing the ultra wealthy (so that the moderately wealthy/comfortably off all freak out). | | | |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 14:45 - Sep 17 with 321 views | mellowblue |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 10:02 - Sep 17 by Swansea_Blue |
I think SuperKM hits on a valid way forward by formalising private/company pensions into a integrated whole alongside the state system, as per the Denmark example.
I’m clueless so have just asked Google. Compulsory work-placed private contributions alongside smaller state schemes seem to provide much better pensions (Denmark, Iceland). The pay-as-you-go schemes like ours are all struggling because they lack the large investment funds to back them up.
Yet you’ve got countries like Luxembourg, Spain and Malta with generous state schemes who sit near the top of the charts (as it were lol - https://www.almondfinancial.co But they all have challenges. Spain is like us with severe pressures from aging demographic. Luxembourg relies on high salary taxation and contributions and aggressively increasing workforce (no chance of either of those going down well here!).
Sweden & Norway are hybrid systems that seem to be held as an ideal model. Future-proofed hybrid schemes with a smaller state component and then mandatory employee and employer top ups. Norway backs there’s up with their Sovereign Wealth Fund - that’s their fund they put a lot of their oil revenues into isn’t it? It seems a better use than blowing it on short term profits like we did.
Agreed, you you need long-term planning. The google search result reinforced that “2. Why Sweden and Norway are "Future-Proofed". Sweden and Norway recognized the demographic risks decades ago. By carving out a chunk of the state pension tax and legally forcing it into real market investments (the stock market), they reduced the burden on future taxpayers.” Which is what SKM was saying.
Does anyone think we have the capability/will within any administration to implement something like this? I’m skeptical. |
surely a lot of this happens. Employees are encouraged to enter into pension schemes with employers making reciprocal payments. Where it goes wrong probably is that the contributions are not big enough to make a sizable enough pot too generate a decent pension. So there is still reliance on the state. And living and lifestyle costs being what they are wages not being high enough for employees to pay extra salary-sacrifice to make that difference. I paid 10% extra of my salary into my pension as I was lucky enough to be able to afford to. So over time that has built up a decent pot that eventually an actuary might convert into a pension or I keep the pot and make withdrawals. The last increase to employer N.I went down like a lead balloon, I can't see employers wanting or being able to contribute more than they currently do. | | | |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 14:53 - Sep 17 with 311 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 14:45 - Sep 17 by mellowblue |
surely a lot of this happens. Employees are encouraged to enter into pension schemes with employers making reciprocal payments. Where it goes wrong probably is that the contributions are not big enough to make a sizable enough pot too generate a decent pension. So there is still reliance on the state. And living and lifestyle costs being what they are wages not being high enough for employees to pay extra salary-sacrifice to make that difference. I paid 10% extra of my salary into my pension as I was lucky enough to be able to afford to. So over time that has built up a decent pot that eventually an actuary might convert into a pension or I keep the pot and make withdrawals. The last increase to employer N.I went down like a lead balloon, I can't see employers wanting or being able to contribute more than they currently do. |
Yeah, I suspect it is happening a lot already. The jump would be to mandate minimum contribution levels and have strict state overview of the system. I’m not sure we’d do either. Our governments would either be afraid to mandate higher contributions as it would be seen as some sort of extra tax or go the other way and give free rein to the markets with minimum controls. Maybe, but I’m just guessing. | |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 15:27 - Sep 17 with 291 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 14:45 - Sep 17 by mellowblue |
surely a lot of this happens. Employees are encouraged to enter into pension schemes with employers making reciprocal payments. Where it goes wrong probably is that the contributions are not big enough to make a sizable enough pot too generate a decent pension. So there is still reliance on the state. And living and lifestyle costs being what they are wages not being high enough for employees to pay extra salary-sacrifice to make that difference. I paid 10% extra of my salary into my pension as I was lucky enough to be able to afford to. So over time that has built up a decent pot that eventually an actuary might convert into a pension or I keep the pot and make withdrawals. The last increase to employer N.I went down like a lead balloon, I can't see employers wanting or being able to contribute more than they currently do. |
In theory you could give firms some kind of NI break in return since you are lowering the burden on the state. As I said other countries have been able to do so, in markets which are materially more expensive to operate than the UK.
Everything is short termist by our govts, going after ISA interest and tax changes to personal pensions simply means more reliance on the state in retirement. However, that’s a future govt problem, not a sitting govt problem - so on we go kicking the can down the road… | | | |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 16:13 - Sep 17 with 270 views | J2BLUE |
69% of the left voted yes on this question:
Has Israel committed human rights abuses that would justify UK military action? | | | |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 16:24 - Sep 17 with 259 views | DanTheMan |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 16:13 - Sep 17 by J2BLUE |
69% of the left voted yes on this question:
Has Israel committed human rights abuses that would justify UK military action? |
Funnily enough, one of the ones I voted no on.
Condemning, sanctioning and isolating is a world away from direct military intervention. | |
| |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 16:29 - Sep 17 with 253 views | J2BLUE |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 16:24 - Sep 17 by DanTheMan |
Funnily enough, one of the ones I voted no on.
Condemning, sanctioning and isolating is a world away from direct military intervention. |
Trump would probably bomb us. | | | |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 18:51 - Sep 17 with 202 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Refnation - 8 questions per day to see where you stand politically on 16:24 - Sep 17 by DanTheMan |
Funnily enough, one of the ones I voted no on.
Condemning, sanctioning and isolating is a world away from direct military intervention. |
There are about 7000 people answering the questions on there so it is a very poor sample size. Many probably aren't reading the question thoroughly and simply reading it as for or against the main thrust of the topic.
I tried looking up to see who is running this and the only information I can find is from the site itself.
The site claims that it is an official representation of the views of over 16s in the UK. I wonder what they have done to prove that those voting are in the UK, over 16, and entitled to vote (implied). |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
