# Oh Dear, another year



## gus-lopez (Jan 4, 2010)

I've got to wait. The wifes not happy  either as she's already had 5 years added & now it looks like 2 more. 

://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322152/SPENDING-REVIEW-2010-George-Osborne-slashes-490K-jobs-cuts-welfare-7bn.html?ITO=1490


----------



## gus-lopez (Jan 4, 2010)

deleted.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

What do you mean gus? You and your wife have got to wait for what??
BTW here's the link again
://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322152/SPENDING-REVIEW-2010-George-Osborne-slashes-490K-jobs-cuts-welfare-7bn.html?ITO=1490


----------



## gus-lopez (Jan 4, 2010)

Pesky Wesky said:


> What do you mean gus? You and your wife have got to wait for what??
> BTW here's the link again
> ://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322152/SPENDING-REVIEW-2010-George-Osborne-slashes-490K-jobs-cuts-welfare-7bn.html?ITO=1490


Pensions.If ever they arrive.
Thanks for that PW, I couldn't get that link to work at all.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

gus-lopez said:


> Pensions.If ever they arrive.
> Thanks for that PW, I couldn't get that link to work at all.


Right, got you. Well I'm expected to keep going until I'm 67!! Can't see it happening somehow. I'll either be tele teaching all my classes by then or I'll have invested in a tele transporter to zip around the town to give the classes!!


----------



## 90199 (Mar 21, 2010)

It's not a lot when you eventually receive it £433 per month, if you are fully paid up.

Hepa


----------



## Jaxx (Apr 21, 2010)

gus-lopez said:


> I've got to wait. The wifes not happy  either as she's already had 5 years added & now it looks like 2 more.
> 
> ://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322152/SPENDING-REVIEW-2010-George-Osborne-slashes-490K-jobs-cuts-welfare-7bn.html?ITO=1490


Commiserations,at this rate our kids will be working till they are 70! Problem is with folk having to work longer it does not free up the jobs for younger people. At least i have to be thankful to have been born when i was although i have to wait an extra 6 months.
Hope you are both well. :ranger:


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Jaxx said:


> Commiserations,at this rate our kids will be working till they are 70! Problem is with folk having to work longer it does not free up the jobs for younger people. At least i have to be thankful to have been born when i was although i have to wait an extra 6 months.
> Hope you are both well. :ranger:



Mind you, we're in general a lot healthier, younger minded and will go on for longer than when the "65" retirement age was introduced??????? And I know of lots of over "65s" who are still working simply because they dont want to be thrown on the scrap heap?????

But, who knows where this is all going to end????

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Jaxx said:


> Commiserations,at this rate our kids will be working till they are 70! Problem is with folk having to work longer it does not free up the jobs for younger people. At least i have to be thankful to have been born when i was although i have to wait an extra 6 months.
> Hope you are both well. :ranger:


You miss one very important point, though..
The wealthy western nations are all experiencing population declines - hence the need for pension reform in every single EU state as well as Japan and North America.
The 'younger people' you speak of taking up jobs simply aren't there.
Insufficient revenue is being generated from the working population to pay for the pensions of the increasing numbers of retirees who are enjoying a much longer period of retirement before dying than twenty, thirty or fifty years ago.
There are various solutions: increase retirement age; decrease state-provided pensions (most working people simply don't earn enopugh to fund their retirement privately, though);encourage people to have more children (not likely in wealthy countries); encourage immigration ( not a popular policy option).
This is not and should not be a party political issue.
I'd make one point, though: the last retirement age increase was given with twenty-two years notice, enabling people to plan options for retirement.
This change gives a mere six years notice.
Extremely unfair to people in their mid to late fifties who have worked all their lives and planned for retirement.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> Mind you, we're in general a lot healthier, younger minded and will go on for longer than when the "65" retirement age was introduced??????? And I know of lots of over "65s" who are still working simply because they dont want to be thrown on the scrap heap?????
> 
> But, who knows where this is all going to end????
> 
> Jo xxx


All that is true. Therefore the retirement age will need to be increased in line with life expectancy.
And also for other reasons...see previous post.


----------



## fourgotospain (May 4, 2009)

Good thing I'm not french - they're facing a raise in retirement age to - OMG - 62!!! 
Oh, hang on a minute.....


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> You miss one very important point, though..
> *The wealthy western nations are all experiencing population declines - hence the need for pension reform in every single EU state as well as Japan and North America.*
> The 'younger people' you speak of taking up jobs simply aren't there.
> Insufficient revenue is being generated from the working population to pay for the pensions of the increasing numbers of retirees who are enjoying a much longer period of retirement before dying than twenty, thirty or fifty years ago.
> ...


Sorry Mary - not so. The populations of most rich western nations are increasing. Only Japan and Germany have decreasing populations and them only marginally. 

From 2005 to 2010 the population of the UK rose by nearly 1/2% and the USA by nearly 1% - quite alarming increases in only 5 years. The last thing we need is more people. Pension requirements will have to be fulfilled some other way - not by increasing the population even more. 

List of countries by population growth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

fourgotospain said:


> Good thing I'm not french - they're facing a raise in retirement age to - OMG - 62!!!
> Oh, hang on a minute.....


exactly

I got a prediction a while ago which said I would about 50p a week when I'm 67!!!



(OK so that's a bit of a - what's the opposite of an exaggeration))



I decided I didn't really want to know after that!


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Given the chronic high unemployment rates it seems crazy to ask people to work longer. Everbody who retires will free up a job for somebody else. Is it any more expensive paying a pension to somebody over 65 than benefits to an unemployed person under 65?

I think you should be able to retire whenever you like provided you have made the contributions - 30 years´worth at the moment, I believe. Many people will carry on till they drop, but I retired at 55 and although I work hard I am doing what I want to do, not making a profit for somebody else.

Then


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> Given the chronic high unemployment rates it seems crazy to ask people to work longer. Everbody who retires will free up a job for somebody else. Is it any more expensive paying a pension to somebody over 65 than benefits to an unemployed person under 65?
> 
> I think you should be able to retire whenever you like provided you have made the contributions - 30 years´worth at the moment, I believe. Many people will carry on till they drop, but I retired at 55 and although I work hard I am doing what I want to do, not making a profit for somebody else.
> 
> Then


Yes, but to make older folk feel unwanted just to give employment to youngsters who wont have the same wisdom or experience isnt necessarily a good idea either!? We can all retire when we want to, its just we wont get a state pension until we're 66 now. 

I personally have never lived my life banking on getting a state one anyway - just as well as this extra 6 years will affect me! I've paid into the system because thats the way it is and that money has gone towards my surrounding, my health care, potential need of benefits and the country - I havent counted it up with the view that I should be entitled to it back when I hit retirement age!? 

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

More here:
New state pension age: retirement dates and calculator | This is Money

If you were born after 6 April 1954 you will have to wait till you are 66, for both men and women. It hits women in their mid-50s hardest, because the latter end of the phased transition from 60 to 65 gets overwritten by these new proposals.

I manage to hang on to mine by a whisker, but my OH has effectively just had £5000 stolen from him. 

Pensions aren't charity, they are DEFERRED INCOME. I wonder if they will go out on the streets like the French are doing?


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> More here:
> New state pension age: retirement dates and calculator | This is Money
> 
> If you were born after 6 April 1954 you will have to wait till you are 66, for both men and women. It hits women in their mid-50s hardest, because the latter end of the phased transition from 60 to 65 gets overwritten by these new proposals.
> ...



I'm sorry, but I really dont see a problem - its tough and we've had it too good for too long!! I certainly wouldnt be going out on the streets - I dont like that sort of behaviour!

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jojo said:


> I'm sorry, but I really dont see a problem - its tough and we've had it too good for too long!! I certainly wouldnt be going out on the streets - I dont like that sort of behaviour!
> 
> Jo xxx


You sound like you think middle-aged people should be punished for daring to expect to get their pension when they were originally promised it! 

We didn't cause the crisis; we worked hard, paid our contributions and saved our money for a comfortable old age, and now we are told we have to make sacrifices because the government had to borrow money to bail out the banks to the tune of £450 billion? 

The only people who have had it too good for too long are the bankers, and they are still getting their bonuses.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

jojo said:


> I'm sorry, but I really dont see a problem - its tough and we've had it too good for too long!! I certainly wouldnt be going out on the streets - I dont like that sort of behaviour!
> 
> Jo xxx


With you on that one. We weren't expecting anything anyway.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

jimenato said:


> With you on that one. We weren't expecting anything anyway.


.......... are you following me ???????  You can be nice to me on here

Jo xxx


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Alcalaina said:


> You sound like you think middle-aged people should be punished for daring to *expect to get their pension* when they were originally promised it!
> 
> We didn't cause the crisis; we worked hard, paid our contributions and saved our money for a comfortable old age, and now we are told we have to make sacrifices because the government had to borrow money to bail out the banks to the tune of £450 billion?
> 
> The only people who have had it too good for too long are the bankers, and they are still getting their bonuses.


We have been warned about pensions for decades now. I've not been expecting to get anything since I was about 20. This crisis may have hurried things up a bit but it was coming anyway.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

jojo said:


> .......... are you following me ???????  You can be nice to me on here
> 
> Jo xxx


:grouphug::kiss:


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> You sound like you think middle-aged people should be punished for daring to expect to get their pension when they were originally promised it!
> 
> We didn't cause the crisis; we worked hard, paid our contributions and saved our money for a comfortable old age, and now we are told we have to make sacrifices because the government had to borrow money to bail out the banks to the tune of £450 billion?
> 
> The only people who have had it too good for too long are the bankers, and they are still getting their bonuses.


I havent a clue what you mean, middle age??? All I know is that I care about the future of the country, I admire those who make it in life and I dont expect those who have earned more than me to pay for me! I paid into the system most of my life because I was lucky enough to live in a country that was safe, gave me free health care and civilised. I'm not someone who has ever expected handouts or demand that I'm looked after by the state!

The government did what it felt it had to do (rightly or wrongly, altho I wonder what mess the country would be in if it hadnt bailed them out - I doubt we'd be sitting back laughing), 


Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jimenato said:


> Sorry Mary - not so. The populations of most rich western nations are increasing. Only Japan and Germany have decreasing populations and them only marginally.
> 
> From 2005 to 2010 the population of the UK rose by nearly 1/2% and the USA by nearly 1% - quite alarming increases in only 5 years. The last thing we need is more people. Pension requirements will have to be fulfilled some other way - not by increasing the population even more.
> 
> List of countries by population growth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sorry....it's the proportion of over-fifties which is increasing at a non-replacement rate.

We'll have insufficient people of working age to support those retired, even taking into account that small increase.

From an OECD Report:


*If nothing is done quickly to extend working lives, living standards will fall in the course of the coming decades. We know, because of the ageing of our populations, that there will be fewer and fewer persons of working age to support more and more older people. For the OECD as a whole, the dependence ratio of older people (i.e. those aged 65 and over as a proportion of those aged 20-64) will rise from the current figure of 22%, to 46% in 2050. In these circumstances, it is essential to have as many people working as possible - young people, women and especially older workers.*


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> I havent a clue what you mean, middle age??? All I know is that I care about the future of the country, I admire those who make it in life and I dont expect those who have earned more than me to pay for me! I paid into the system most of my life because I was lucky enough to live in a country that was safe, gave me free health care and civilised. I'm not someone who has ever expected handouts or demand that I'm looked after by the state!
> 
> The government did what it felt it had to do (rightly or wrongly, altho I wonder what mess the country would be in if it hadnt bailed them out - I doubt we'd be sitting back laughing),
> 
> ...


If the banks hadn't been bailed out, wages wouldn't have been paid, ATMs would have stopped functioning, shop tills would have been empty.....it had to be done.
An interesting point in the Parliamentary debate yesterday came when Alan Johnson reminded Osborne and his cronies that right up to the time of the banking crisis they had supported Labour's spending plans...in fact they had promised more spending.....He quoted Hansard to remind them of what they had said.
The crisis was caused by the actions of greedy bankers....no argument. But finance brings in 20% of our tax take and the plain fact is that punishing bankers by restricting bonuses will merely cause them to relocate to other financial centres where they will be welcomed with open arms. 
As long as London has aspirations to be the world's Number One financial centre we have to tread very carefully. 
It should also be remembered that 'banking' encompasses many activities. Retail banking is quite different -or should be -from the investment arms of banks. People who work in banking include lowly paid cashiers, managers, cleaners etc.etc.
Jo, you are painting with a very broad brush. I too admire those who 'make it in life' if it has been done honestly and through entrepreneurialism and hard work.
But I don't admire the Lord Ashcrofts and Philip Greens of this world who dodge tax liability through various loopholes whilst we lesser and not so greedy or devious mortals pay our fair share.
Your 'free' health care isn't free and it was partly financed by people who earn more than you! The NHS is financed from general taxation. Higher earners pay more in taxes.
One of the reasons we can call our country civilised is that we do not allow life's unfortunates to fall by the wayside. It is no shame to have to be 'looked after by the state' - it could happen to you or me if we were unfortunate enough to encounter some dreadful accident. Most people, even the better-off, simply don't have the resources to finance long-term care. I read somewhere that the average pension pot is £30000......
There are far too many people who take out without putting in and I'm glad that IDS is getting to grips with the welfare dependency culture but I don't think it fair to castigate everyone who might need the state to assist them at some point in their lives.
There but for the grace of God.....


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> Yes, but to make older folk feel unwanted just to give employment to youngsters who wont have the same wisdom or experience isnt necessarily a good idea either!? We can all retire when we want to, its just we wont get a state pension until we're 66 now.
> 
> I personally have never lived my life banking on getting a state one anyway - just as well as this extra 6 years will affect me! I've paid into the system because thats the way it is and that money has gone towards my surrounding, my health care, potential need of benefits and the country - I havent counted it up with the view that I should be entitled to it back when I hit retirement age!?
> 
> Jo xxx



Many employers will still operate a default retirement age though and I agree that's unfair. Sixty is the new forty, after all..
And yes, you should expect your pension contributions to be returned to you when you retire. That's the whole point of the scheme. Pensions are deferred pay.
It isn't generally recognised that the majority of the working population not currently enjoying Final Salary Schemes will not be able to afford a liveable pension on retirement. I'm not sure what the average pension income is per retired person in the UK but it isn't megabucks by any standard.
A pension pot of £100000 which few people have will earn you a miserable return at today's interest rates.
Most people simply do not know or care -as yet -about their living standards on retirement. I had a hell of a job persuading younger colleagues to supplement their final salary pension schemes with additional contributions of some kind. The whole system, state and private, is in urgent need of reform in view of the ageing of our population.


----------



## gus-lopez (Jan 4, 2010)

Alcalaina said:


> More here:
> New state pension age: retirement dates and calculator | This is Money
> 
> If you were born after 6 April 1954 you will have to wait till you are 66, for both men and women. It hits women in their mid-50s hardest, because the latter end of the phased transition from 60 to 65 gets overwritten by these new proposals.
> ...


My wifes looking at being 30k down. The problem is Jo that when you invest in something at the outset ( National insurance & something at the outset you coluld opt out of ! ) that is specifically sold to pay for pensions & health you don't expect it at a later stage to suddenly be put into the general taxation pot ! It's like a private company telling you that they are now funding albanian tree monkeys & you' ll have to wait longer as there's not enough left in the pot, If they did that they be prosecuted for fraud. 
The governments should never have been allowed to merge all the different incomes into one general taxation pot, it gives them money to waste on things they wouldn't be able to do if it was ring -fenced. They've wasted all the north sea oil money ( the Norwegians ring- fenced theirs for pensions & healthcare to stop themselves from squandering it ! & to prevent future politicians from plundering it !) fuel tax & road tax is all in the general pot. You can't allow these people to have a bottomless pit of money when they haven't got the ability to walk & talk. The only money they look after is their own & spend governmental income like theirs no tomorrow ! 
The banks caused the problem & should have been dealt with differently , if they want the deficit reduced cut all benefits except pensions from next monday morning, that'll reduce the black hole to 30% in one year & the remainder to be paid by the banks , that had to be bailed out, in the same time period. Problem solved !! Why should you expect the people who are paying all their taxes ,etc; to tighten their belts, pay more tax, work longer ,have cuts in all the services they pay for, to support the lazy, idle & feckless, the half-wits in the banking & financial sectors & politicians that have no morals & no ability to plan for the future . 
I have long held the belief ( as I've posted before ) that this is all going to end in a Mad Max scenario & am surprised that it hasn't already.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

gus-lopez said:


> My wifes looking at being 30k down. The problem is Jo that when you invest in something at the outset ( National insurance & something at the outset you coluld opt out of ! ) that is specifically sold to pay for pensions & health you don't expect it at a later stage to suddenly be put into the general taxation pot ! It's like a private company telling you that they are now funding albanian tree monkeys & you' ll have to wait longer as there's not enough left in the pot, If they did that they be prosecuted for fraud.
> The governments should never have been allowed to merge all the different incomes into one general taxation pot, it gives them money to waste on things they wouldn't be able to do if it was ring -fenced. They've wasted all the north sea oil money ( the Norwegians ring- fenced theirs for pensions & healthcare to stop themselves from squandering it ! & to prevent future politicians from plundering it !) fuel tax & road tax is all in the general pot. You can't allow these people to have a bottomless pit of money when they haven't got the ability to walk & talk. The only money they look after is their own & spend governmental income like theirs no tomorrow !
> The banks caused the problem & should have been dealt with differently , if they want the deficit reduced cut all benefits except pensions from next monday morning, that'll reduce the black hole to 30% in one year & the remainder to be paid by the banks , that had to be bailed out, in the same time period. Problem solved !! Why should you expect the people who are paying all their taxes ,etc; to tighten their belts, pay more tax, work longer ,have cuts in all the services they pay for, to support the lazy, idle & feckless, the half-wits in the banking & financial sectors & politicians that have no morals & no ability to plan for the future .
> I have long held the belief ( as I've posted before ) that this is all going to end in a Mad Max scenario & am surprised that it hasn't already.


I agree with you Gus, and actually my OH and I are two of those who will miss out, but all the "if only s" dont change the fact that if the money isnt there, it cant be paid out! People are living longer and are fitter and for men its only a year anyway! The whole welfare system (and the banking system) is in need of change and its happening. 

For my and my OH, well, we have savings, a business and a house and they will be what we'll live on when we decide to stop working!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> I agree with you Gus, and actually my OH and I are two of those who will miss out, but all the "if only s" dont change the fact that if the money isnt there, it cant be paid out! People are living longer and are fitter and for men its only a year anyway! The whole welfare system (and the banking system) is in need of change and its happening.
> 
> For my and my OH, well, we have savings, a business and a house and they will be what we'll live on when we decide to stop working!
> 
> Jo xxx


That's what we hoped for.
Problem was, because of the decline in property values both private and commercial we got less when we sold business and residential properties than expected.
Then the rate of return on our savings plummeted from an anticipated 10% or so to less than a quarter of that.
We are better off than a hell of a lot of people but not as much as we hoped and worked for.
Nothing will be gained by moaning about what you haven't got, true, but you can still feel disgruntled that in spite of doing all the 'right' things we are getting the crap end of the stick and those ultimately responsible are still getting huge salaries and bonuses and chucking champagne at each other....


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> If the banks hadn't been bailed out, wages wouldn't have been paid, ATMs would have stopped functioning, shop tills would have been empty.....it had to be done.


I didn't suggest they shouldn't have been bailed out, but this mad round of cuts is IMO just an excuse for the Tories to do what they've been dying to do for years.

We are being told that we have to get rid of this deficit at all costs. Why? When you take out a mortgage to buy a new house you don't suddenly panic because you have a huge debt and start selling off the furniture.

In the period after the 2nd World War there was a deficit of *200%* of GDP (compared to a measly 8% today, of which 7% is due to the financial sector bail-out). Yet we still managed to found the NHS, provide free education for all and build decent council houses. And the USA's deficit has rarely dropped below 30% of GDP since the 1940s!

Half a million public sector workers will join the ranks of the unemployed as a result of these cuts over the next five years. Double-dip here we come !!!!


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

gus-lopez said:


> The governments should never have been allowed to merge all the different incomes into one general taxation pot, it gives them money to waste on things they wouldn't be able to do if it was ring -fenced. They've wasted all the north sea oil money ( the Norwegians ring- fenced theirs for pensions & healthcare to stop themselves from squandering it ! & to prevent future politicians from plundering it !) fuel tax & road tax is all in the general pot. You can't allow these people to have a bottomless pit of money when they haven't got the ability to walk & talk. The only money they look after is their own & spend governmental income like theirs no tomorrow !
> .


Agree 100%.


----------



## gus-lopez (Jan 4, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> If the banks hadn't been bailed out, wages wouldn't have been paid, ATMs would have stopped functioning, shop tills would have been empty.....it had to be done.
> But stringent conditions should have been placed on the banks to prevent them shedding staff who had no part in the gambling & robbery going on.
> 
> An interesting point in the Parliamentary debate yesterday came when Alan Johnson reminded Osborne and his cronies that right up to the time of the banking crisis they had supported Labour's spending plans...in fact they had promised more spending.....He quoted Hansard to remind them of what they had said.
> ...


I cannot see how the cuts they are making can make great inroads in to the deficit & to expect the tax-paying public to put up with it for the 20 years or so it will take, beggars belief.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> I didn't suggest they shouldn't have been bailed out, but this mad round of cuts is IMO just an excuse for the Tories to do what they've been dying to do for years.
> 
> We are being told that we have to get rid of this deficit at all costs. Why? When you take out a mortgage to buy a new house you don't suddenly panic because you have a huge debt and start selling off the furniture.
> 
> ...


I have a friend, who a few months ago lost her job working in a council run nursery in London as the council had to make cut backs and this nursery was running at a loss. She was awarded redundancy. Alot of her colleagues tried to organise petitions, strikes etc, but all went on the dole and continued to whine about how the government had made them jobless. However, my friend saw a gold opportunity and with a little investment and a lot of thinking, she opened a new nursery, a private nursery. she charged the same parents 5 pounds a week more than the previous council run nursery and hired her ex colleagues and paid them the same as they were getting!!! My friend is now able to earn double what she was earning from the council run nursery, she has pride in her work, is able to do far more without the council restrictions and is increases placements and staff as she has a waiting list of children waiting to join!

Theres a moral!



....and as for selling the furniture to pay your mortgage?? well you do if your financial circumstances change and if you dont pay the mortgage you lose the house!

jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jojo said:


> I have a friend, who a few months ago lost her job working in a council run nursery in London as the council had to make cut backs and this nursery was running at a loss. She was awarded redundancy. Alot of her colleagues tried to organise petitions, strikes etc, but all went on the dole and continued to whine about how the government had made them jobless. However, my friend saw a gold opportunity and with a little investment and a lot of thinking, she opened a new nursery, a private nursery. *she charged the same parents 5 pounds a week more *than the previous council run nursery and hired her ex colleagues and paid them the same as they were getting!!! My friend is now able to earn double what she was earning from the council run nursery, she has pride in her work, is able to do far more without the council restrictions and is increases placements and staff as she has a waiting list of children waiting to join!
> 
> Theres a moral!


The moral is that when public services are privatised, the price goes up!



jojo said:


> ....and as for selling the furniture to pay your mortgage?? well you do if your financial circumstances change and if you dont pay the mortgage you lose the house!
> 
> jo xxx


I wouldn´t think of selling the furniture until I had called in the debts of all the profligate friends I´d lent money to ...


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> The moral is that when public services are privatised, the price goes up!


The reason she put the price up was simply because initially she worked on the theory that her overheads would be as high as the councils - they werent as it turned out (no layers of bureaucracy) and she runs a much more efficient and popular nursery than the council ever did and has a long waiting list! She and I once discussed what we affectionately called "the light bulb effect". When I worked in the NHS and she in her council run nursery, if a light bulb went you were not allowed to change it. You had to request one in writing from "up above", who would then request one from the stores, who would then take a day or 5 to process that request, before passing it down to the building management dept. A week or two or three later a man (sometimes two) would turn up with the light bulb and fit it! - Hhhhmmm, I guess it at least provided full time employment to all those involved in such a monumental task!?????




Alcalaina said:


> I wouldn´t think of selling the furniture until I had called in the debts of all the profligate friends I´d lent money to ...


 You wouldnt like my response to that!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> I have a friend, who a few months ago lost her job working in a council run nursery in London as the council had to make cut backs and this nursery was running at a loss. She was awarded redundancy. Alot of her colleagues tried to organise petitions, strikes etc, but all went on the dole and continued to whine about how the government had made them jobless. However, my friend saw a gold opportunity and with a little investment and a lot of thinking, she opened a new nursery, a private nursery. she charged the same parents 5 pounds a week more than the previous council run nursery and hired her ex colleagues and paid them the same as they were getting!!! My friend is now able to earn double what she was earning from the council run nursery, she has pride in her work, is able to do far more without the council restrictions and is increases placements and staff as she has a waiting list of children waiting to join!
> 
> Theres a moral.
> jo xxx


Yes, there is. It's that if every one of the redundant workers had had the same idea then no-one would have prospered.
I saw that happen in our town when the Thatcher cuts hit. People started their own businesses competing with each other, mainly on price and 99% of them failed.
Figures for new business failures show that only too clearly.
So one person succeeded....big deal! In a competitive economy there will be few winners and many losers.
Make a hundred workers redundant from a nursery and they can't all start up new businesses or employ each other.
As for 'whining' about losing their jobs....I would do more than 'whine' if I'd lost my job through circumstances I had no control over. People deserve better than to be treated like disposable Kleenexes. We're dealing with real people here with mortgages to pay, children to feed and clothe. Whine???? I'd be out on the streets expressing my disgust at a government that is prepared to put millions on the dole -and drawing unemployment benefits -rather than give them the opportunity to work for their families.
The sooner we realise that real people suffer real hardship at times of economic crises not of their making the better. 
So one person succeeds whilst many more, through no fault of their own, don't? Is that the kind of society we want to live in?
We can't all be successful entrepreneurs, Jo. The whole ethos of capitalism -a system I accept -is ruthless competition.
But I also accept that there will be casualties and the way we treat those people is a mark of our civilisation.
I also wonder why your friend has more pride in her work now than previously. Work is work. I also wonder about the 'restrictions'.
And I wonder whether, in view of the likelihood of mass unemployment, she will have so many customers in future.
I sincerely hope so.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> initially ! She and I once discussed what we affectionately called "the light bulb effect". When I worked in the NHS and she in her council run nursery, if a light bulb went you were not allowed to change it. You had to request one in writing from "up above", who would then request one from the stores, who would then take a day or 5 to process that request, before passing it down to the building management dept. A week or two or three later a man (sometimes two) would turn up with the light bulb and fit it! - Hhhhmmm, I guess it at least provided full time employment to all those involved in such a monumental task!?????
> 
> 
> Jo xxx


That can't be true across all Government -run services, though. We changed our own lightbulbs and did our own maintenance in the school I worked at.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

mrypg9 said:


> That can't be true across all Government -run services, though. We changed our own lightbulbs and did our own maintenance in the school I worked at.


I kid you not!!!! It was like that when I worked in the NHS and for my friend! Health and safety dontcha know!!!!? Even getting new pens could be as painful! - layers of Bureaucracy and that seemed to be the way things in the UK ended up getting done, no one taking responsibility! And it was that the cost the money, altho on the other hand it was that which kept people employed!!???

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

gus-lopez said:


> I cannot see how the cuts they are making can make great inroads in to the deficit & to expect the tax-paying public to put up with it for the 20 years or so it will take, beggars belief.


I agree with that too. Imo the proposed cuts are too deep and too fast. Look at the experience of Ireland to see what could happen. Since the budget the £ has fallen further, surveys show that consumer confidence has dropped sharply and the Office of Budget Control or whatever it's called has downgraded growth prospects.
More QE from the BoE is on the way which will cause the £ to fall further although the Government recovery strategy depends on a weak pound to boost imports so Osborne will be happy with a weak £ and low interest rates.
I do think that the state share of economic activity should be reduced but gradually. After all, you can't just take away an important part of the economy without having a replacement and the private sector isn't ready to create the millions of new jobs needed.
But having for the past thirty years had a strategy which relied so heavily on the financial sector at the expense of manufacturing we are now in a very difficult situation. Punish the banks too severely and we will all suffer as banks and bankers take themselves to countries better disposed towards them....India, China, Singapore, Malaysia all are hoping to build up their financial sectors and would welcome British 'talent'.
I personally feel rage and despair at the way so many hardworking people who did all the right things are going to suffer because of the system set up by the Thatcher Government (remember the 'Big Bang'?) and perpetuated throughout the Blair years.
AS someone posting on Conservative Home pointed out the other day...for decades our economic system has been in the hands of neo-conservative free marketeers who have nothing in common with traditional British Conservatism or Social Democracy and everything in common with the failed economic dogma of Hayek, Friedmann et al.
I think George Bush Senior got it right when he described these theories as 'voodoo economics'.
Pity his son didn't listen to his Daddy....


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

I think we should wait and see what happens. No one really knows yet how much impact these cuts will have on the public or the country. A little economising is never a bad thing in uncertain times, altho I'm not saying its right - I dont know, but I dont think we can condemn it just yet!!????

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> I kid you not!!!! It was like that when I worked in the NHS and for my friend! Health and safety dontcha know!!!!? Even getting new pens could be as painful! - layers of Bureaucracy and that seemed to be the way things in the UK ended up getting done, no one taking responsibility! And it was that the cost the money, altho on the other hand it was that which kept people employed!!???
> 
> Jo xxx


Yes, the NHS has suffered from an excess of business consultants and layers of unnecessary bureaucracy have squandered millions. But not all Government Departments are like that.
Neither should we kid ourselves that business is so efficient. My son is now working on a contract for a leading global financial institution and the waste and inefficiency there is staggering and of course the costs of this are passed on to the customers.
It's a big mistake to assume that the private sector isn't equally wasteful and inefficient. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the quality -or lack of -of management.
And yes, keeping people employed costs money. But then so does putting them on the dole. The workless receive unemployment benefit and the government loses their tax receipts and the market loses their spending power.
Ian Duncan Smith's proposals to end the dependency culture will cost money in the short to medium term. But imo it will be worth it as frankly I would rather subsidise employment than subsidise unemployment. Not only does it have economic advantages, being unemployed has a damaging effect not only opn individuals and their families but on society as a whole.
My big worry is simply this: the Coalition cuts programme will by their own admission put a million extra people on the dole.
How and by whom will a million new jobs for these people be created?
I have yet to see a reasoned answer to that urgent and crucial question.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> I think we should wait and see what happens. No one really knows yet how much impact these cuts will have on the public or the country. A little economising is never a bad thing in uncertain times, altho I'm not saying its right - I dont know, but I dont think we can condemn it just yet!!????
> 
> Jo xxx


But people in Goverrnment should -and do - know. That's why they are taking these measures. They have been carefully worked out and costed. Choices can be made and the Coalition has chosen one option of the not-so-many available.
And we can see the impact already in the UK in terms of falling consumer confidence, the need for more QE, the revised growth figures and the inevitable rise in the numbers of unemployed.
The point of condeming it now is to persuade the Coalition that they have chosen the wrong option. Osborne has stated that the plan will be reviewed and revised if necessary so constructive criticism, of which there has been much from all quarters, is essential.
And that's why we have a Parliamentary Opposition, to present alternatives to those the Government in power is pursuing.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Originally Posted by Alcalaina 
I wouldn´t think of selling the furniture until I had called in the debts of all the profligate friends I´d lent money to ...



jojo said:


> You wouldnt like my response to that!
> 
> Jo xxx


Just as long as you realise I was referring to the £450 billion or whatever that the government spent bailing out the financial sector, I would be glad to have your response, as always! It's always more fun debating with someone who holds opposite views, don't you think?

Instead of reimbursing the taxpayer as soon as they go back into profit, the banks continue to operate just as they did before, paying dividends and bonuses to people who are already wealthy, while small businesses who might actually help the economic recovery struggle to get credit.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Originally Posted by Alcalaina
> 
> Instead of reimbursing the taxpayer as soon as they go back into profit, the banks continue to operate just as they did before, paying dividends and bonuses to people who are already wealthy, while small businesses who might actually help the economic recovery struggle to get credit.


Until we develop our rundown manufacturing sector, hopefully along lean, green lines the financial sector will continue to hold us to ransom.
The plain unpalatable truth is that at this point in time we can't afford to offend it.
We are paying the price for the misguided policies of the last four decades.


----------

