strike

[Loz]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Those that have to pay bill" - what, you mean the

> taxpayer?

>

> Let's not forget, the taxpayer subsidises private

> sector pensions far, far more than is paid to

> public sector pensions.

I'd like a link to that one, too. Or I'm missing out on a subsidy somewhere.

[Pugwash]

Yes I have worked for private companies as sessional worker - some people were getting very good hourly wages and could more or less dictate their rates as they had the necessary experience the company wanted. My work was during uni vacations so as long as I was getting money to help me with my studies, I did not care too much if others were getting more than me. Found in some private companies it was who you knew, rather than ability to do the job was the way of getting up the ladder - for these individuals - it was being able to have a company pension with option of retiring at 55.

I am happy to work till I am 70 as I enjoy my work - yes I am a rare individual who despite the hours and all the downsides, wish to continue working.

Some private companies pay a crap pension - my Mum was in a pension scheme for 10 years and got ?80 per month. She did not complain as the low rate made her eligible for benefits including housing benefit. She worked with the exception of 2 years from 18 - 60 years of age but doing less than 36 hours a week was ineleigible to join a pension scheme. Obvioulsy the law has changed since then.

I deal with some retired private sector workers - the guy worked with a few weeks ago, aged 74 was getting ?800 pm from

a shipping firm he retired from aged 65. That is more than some public sector workers.

[Huguenot]

UDT, insulting me is not a discussion. You haven't made a comment on this thread that hasn't involved insulting me.

Conversely all I've done to you is disagreed with you and asked you to stop telling porkies.

You'd be the first one to start complaining if I turned my guns on you, so stop ruining other people's contributions with your rather witless attacks.

Chippy, as with Loz, what's the taxpayer subsidy for private sector pensions? I must have missed it.

[taper]

Chippy's referring to tax exemptions for private pensions. 37bn according to this.

http://www.financeforthefuture.com/MakingPensionsWork.pdf

[Chippy Minton]

In 2007-08 = the most recent year for which figures are available - private-sector pension relief cost the taxpayer ?37.6 billion. During the same period, the net cost of public sector pensions was ?4 billion.

[Marmora Man]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In 2007-08 = the most recent year for which

> figures are available - private-sector pension

> relief cost the taxpayer ?37.6 billion. During the

> same period, the net cost of public sector

> pensions was ?4 billion.

Chippy, the report you quote contradicts your statement. The report has public sector pensions costing ?25bn, which you assert cost ?4bn. If one's not true - then how can I rely upon the other?

Additionally, taxes not levied cannot be described as a subsidy, except by the economically illiterate. If your argument were to stand up this would mean any tax rate at less than 100% would represent a subsidy from government. That way lies madness.

Of course tax relief on pension payments is simply tax deferred. If I put ?1,000 into a pension fund and obtain tax relief on that sum NOW, I will nevertheless eventually pay tax on the pension it produces. If the money I put away into my pension fund is taxed NOW then this has a number of consequences:

1. I cannot afford to put aside as much for my future

2. I will obtain a lower pension in the future

3. With a lower pension I may be more dependent upon future taxpayers to subsidise pension benefits

4. As my future pension will taxed my money will have been taxed twice.

[Loz]

I'm sorry, but ANY document by Richard Murphy is just not acceptable. The bloke just make numbers up.

Any credible source for these numbers?

[DaveR]

I found the Murphy paper quite interesting. Characterising pension tax relief as a subsidy is pretty stupid, but his criticism of pension fund investment strategies has some force. I don't think the answer is to legislate, but it is undoubtedly the case that pension fund managers need to take some responsibility for the governance and strategy of the huge swathes of British business that they effectively own.

[Chippy Minton]

MM - please re-read this page.

I haven't quoted any report.

I got the figures from last week's lefty spouting, deficit denying Evening Standard - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-24015553-myth-of-public-pension-sir-humphreys.do

[Loz]

At least that is a credible source, Chippy.

I would like to get to the bottom of his wording, though. Though I would not call it a subsidy, ?37bn in tax relief on pension contributions sounds about right - given a workforce of 30mn of which 80% are private sector that works out at about an average of ?1500 tax relief per person in the workforce. (And he notes this has come down markedly in following years with caps on pension relief.)

But he changes his wording for the comparison. "... the net cost of public sector pensions was ?4 billion". Why *net* cost? What is the gross cost and what has he deducted? I'm not sure he is comparing like with like.

Does he take public sector relief into account? Even with the PS smaller contributions, I'd expect there to be significant relief costs there as well. Where did they go?

[Undisputedtruth]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sorry, but ANY document by Richard Murphy is

> just not acceptable. The bloke just make numbers

> up.

>

> Any credible source for these numbers?

I don't think Richard Murphy made up the numbers as he gave reference to where the numbers come from. Unlike you, with your number for Sweden's personal allowance. ;-)

@Hugo,

Talking about the pot calling the kettle black.

Pointing out your inability to read properly was not intended as an insult.

Hugo, you've contributed very little to this debate in terms of facts, messed up the flow of discussions due to your literacy problem and engage in slinging mud at various people on this thread. What a ridiculous statement for suggesting I've added little to debate. Let me remind you it was me who first mentioned the Public Accounts Commission. It was me who first mentioned the National Audition Office's report on Public Sector pensions.

[Huguenot]

Seriously UDT, you're starting to behave like a stalker now, pack it in.

I didn't say you've added little to the debate (so fuck knows why you claimed that I did, it's written down right?), I simply asked you to stop insulting me, which you have continued to do.

I'm putting you on ignore.

[Undisputedtruth]

I'm happy to move on as long as you retract your claim that I've been bullshitting.

[Loz]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm sorry, but ANY document by Richard Murphy is just not acceptable. The bloke just make numbers up.

> >

> > Any credible source for these numbers?

>

> I don't think Richard Murphy made up the numbers as he gave reference to where the numbers come

> from. Unlike you, with your number for Sweden's

> personal allowance. ;-)

Let me clarify. Murphy seems to have two ways of making an argument:

1) Referencing his own work as a 'credible' source (which, to be fair, he didn't do this time)

2) Ignoring numbers that don't fit his premise.

Take this little gem. Murphy managed to put together an argument to increase the public sector spending by calculating that a ?25K public sector job was a net gain of ?9140 to the government. How did he do this? By ignoring the ?25K salary!

And he's done something similar here. (It looks like this document is the source of Chippy's article's ?37bn, so sorry Chippy, UDT has just undermined your source.)

From Murphy's document, P17...

[pre]

Relief for ? billions (2007/08)

Occupational Scheme Contributions

By Employees 4.4

By Employers 13.2

Personal Pension Scheme Contributions

By Employees 2.1

By Employers 2.0

PP and RAC Contributions by self employed 1.3

National Insurance rebates to PPs 0.1

Tax free investment income of funds 5.9

Lump sum payments from unfunded schemes 0.4

National Insurance relief on employer contributions 8.2

Total 37.6

[/pre]

But lets have a look at the source referenced in the document...

[pre]

Relief for Occupational Scheme Contributions (2007-08)

By Employees 4,400

By Employers 12,900

Personal Pension Scheme Contributions

By Employees 1,950

By Employers 2,460

PP and RACs Contributions by self employed 1,400

National Insurance rebates to PPs 140

Investment income of funds 5,900

Lump sum payments from unfunded schemes 450

Less tax liable on

Pension payments 10,200

Refunds by funds to employers 1

Total (rounded to nearest ?100 million) 19,500

Memorandum item

National Insurance relief on employer contributions 8,500

[/pre]

Hang on! Where did the bit about 'less tax liable' go from Murphy's figures? It disappeared! How convenient! You can bet it won't be the only place this has happened in the document.

So yes, he does reference his numbers, but that just makes it a bit easier to work out what he's left out.

[Loz]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> I don't think Richard Murphy made up the numbers as he gave reference to where the numbers come

> from. Unlike you, with your number for Sweden's personal allowance. ;-)

*Still* trying to win this one, UDT? You are the master of the lost cause, aren't you? But, in this case, you may have a small win. Followed by a bigger loss...

I can't find that figure again, but I have found some others here which say personal allowances range between SEK12,500 (?1180) and 32,700 (?3088). So I'm happy to go with that.

But, as you've kindly pointed out, my figures also forgot to include the 7% Basic Pension Contribution, the equivalent to our NI.

So, new figures (in which I have, rather kindly, given you the full Swedish personal allowance)...

[pre]

Sweden: someone on ?25K = (?25000-?3088)*38.560% = ?8480.11

UK: someone on ?25K = (?25000-7475)*32% = ?5608.00[/pre]

So someone on ?25K in Sweden would pay 51.2% more tax than their UK counterpart. And again, don't forget the huge 25% VAT in Sweden.

Game. Set. Match.

[Undisputedtruth]

Dear Loz,

The only thing you have proven is how wrong you were on previous calculations and data used. It seems you're bumbling along with your simpleton's calculations and understanding of Sweden's tax policies. :))

Let me point a few errors in your thinking:

1) The Swedish government recognised in 1989 that they had to plan for their future pension crisis unlike the UK. So their 7% state pension scheme gives a far more generous pension payments than the UK's pension scheme based on NI contributions. To get the same level of pension payments, the UK worker would have to take out an occupational or private pension scheme then contribute a lot more money since the pension provider is likely to fleece money from the pension pot. Then run a casino style risk to see if there's a return on their money. Our financially institutions are shockingly bad. Today, HSBC, one of the world's biggest banks, have been lately making headlines for ripping off pension aged women in this country. Shame on them.

2) You have compared this year's UK personal tax allowance to Sweden's personal allowance from two years ago. :-$

3) The Swedish tax laws are far more complex since they take into account tax relief for travelling costs, accommodations, pension payments, etc.

4) You've conveniently missed out the council tax so your comparison of Sweden taxes isn't really a fair comparison at all. :'(

You are making yourself looking silly by trying to prove me wrong, Loz! ;-)

[Undisputedtruth]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Hang on! Where did the bit about 'less tax

> liable' go from Murphy's figures? It disappeared!

> How convenient! You can bet it won't be the only

> place this has happened in the document.

>

> So yes, he does reference his numbers, but that

> just makes it a bit easier to work out what he's

> left out.

Loz, your 'less tax liable' argument is pretty much irrelevant to debate. Richard Murphy was quite right to exclude the tax liability because he was discussing how the taxpayer is funding pension schemes where ultimately only the well off private sector workers are benefitting. Bearing in mind that the least well off private sector workers are least likely to participate in a pension scheme.

[Senor Chevalier]

UDT, but the first point in your latest instalment of the Swedish saga you are basically saying that the increased tax in Sweden isn't really extra tax as the government spends it on good stuff rather than frittering it on shite.

Oh I see, so when someone asks you which country has the highest tax rate, you don't respond with the country in which the largest quantity of your hard earned sequestered by the government. Instead your response is based on a complex and multi variate analysis of quality of life. People who have the best quality of life / joy per pound spent by your definition have the lowest tax rate.

You are quite the philosopher. What is the meaning of tax anyway?

[maxxi]

Senor Chevalier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> UDT, but the first point in your latest instalment

> of the Swedish saga you are...

Ooooh I LOVE a Swedish Aga! http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01532/Aga_1532423c.jpg

This one was in The Needles lighthouse...

Hey mister, I'll have you know the aga is a truly English creation which has been warming British hearths for three centuries!

Yours,

A Fan.

SIR ? The Aga is not a "truly English creation which has been warming British hearths for three centuries" (Life, November 22). It was invented only 80 years ago by a Swedish Nobel Prize winner, Gustaf Dal?n.

Born in 1865, Dal?n was a gifted inventor who obtained nearly a hundred patents. When he was 13 years old he invented an alarm clock which switched on the light and boiled the coffee before the alarm went off?. The Aga company was founded in 1904, mainly to market the lighthouse invented by Dal?n.

I have an electric, extremely economical Aga myself, which I love. I may concede, however, that I have seen more Agas in England than in Sweden.

Professor Ingrid Detter Frankopan (sic)

London WC1

[Loz]

I'll give you credit, UDT. In the face of absolute proof you are still trying to bluster your way through. Hugo calls it bullshitting, but it's somehow more earnest and naive than that.

Anyway, to answer your latest tries:

1) SC has you nailed here. The debate is 'does Sweden have higher income tax', not does it spend it differently.

2) Ha! Even though I let you have the maximum possible allowance (which almost certainly would not apply to a ?25K salary) you are still arguing this one? If you'd like to send a link to the correct figure for such a salary I'd be happy to recalculate - but you will almost certainly make the figures worse for Sweden and your argument even more wrong.

3) Hiding behind 'it's too complex to compare' now? Yet, you were the one that wanted to compare! Cute.

4) Council tax isn't an income based tax. If you want to start doing a total tax burden comparison, then you will really lose out as that nasty little VAT rate will bite you. Hard.

Anyway, here's a little graph. It shows quite clearly that Sweden has a much higher mean personal income tax than the UK. What is actually surprising (given the supposed socialist leanings of the Nordics) is that mean corporate taxation in Sweden is slightly lower than in the UK.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/450px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png

It is from 2005, but if you can find a more recent version then post it up.

Anyway, game, set and match... and the championship. Taa-daah!

[Loz]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Hang on! Where did the bit about 'less tax liable' go from Murphy's figures? It disappeared!

> > How convenient! You can bet it won't be the only place this has happened in the document.

>

> Loz, your 'less tax liable' argument is pretty much irrelevant to debate. Richard Murphy was

> quite right to exclude the tax liability because he was discussing how the taxpayer is funding

> pension schemes where ultimately only the well off private sector workers are benefitting. Bearing in

> mind that the least well off private sector workers are least likely to participate in a

> pension scheme.

So in the good old Murphy tradition you are going to count all the outgoings, yet not the incomings? Convenient, UDT, but utterly dishonest.

[taper]

Heh, frig off this thread with your comparitive tax irrelevance. This is about public sector pensions and your spite war is extending a tedious thread unnecessarily.

[Undisputedtruth]

Loz Wrote:

------------------------------------------------------->

> So in the good old Murphy tradition you are going

> to count all the outgoings, yet not the incomings?

> Convenient, UDT, but utterly dishonest.

You're accusing Richard Murphy of being dishonest because you failed to understand the pension tax figures and the point he was making.

[Moos]

I'm putting udt on "hide" too. Enough.

[Townleygreen]

Well said, taper.

Enough of this irrelevant Sweden cr*p