Jump to content

The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

Recommended Posts

How? At the moment it is triple locked and if it reduces to a double lock then its hardly going to make a difference. But that is provided this economy crashes to the extent that the remainers think.
'Locks' are creations of law, and so fully removable by Parliament.

 

Any economical readjustment just provides the context, it does not dictate the political course of action (with income to No.11 falling, rather than removing locks and trimming pensions, the UK would always be at liberty to borrow more from the magic money tree markets instead...you know, like Greece did for a while).

 

EDIT: actually, just found this on a cursory browse. Triple lock to go a year after Brexit (what a coincidence! :D)

 

Now then, in 2020 will you vote for the Tories -who want to bin them- or for Labour -who promised to keep them-?

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you seem to now have a problem with people who take time out to study and don’t pay tax every year from 16?

 

For gods sake stop jumping on peoples posts and making them out to be different to what they state. Its not about paying tax but NI contributions and retirement. The majority of pensioners retired now probably like me started work at 15 and have retired at 65 giving 50 years in contributions. If someone starts work for instance at 25 after Uni then they should expect to work the same 50 years before retiring. Retiring at 67-68 is being generous as give the above it should be 75, so they should not complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For gods sake stop jumping on peoples posts and making them out to be different to what they state. Its not about paying tax but NI contributions and retirement. The majority of pensioners retired now probably like me started work at 15 and have retired at 65 giving 50 years in contributions. If someone starts work for instance at 25 after Uni then they should expect to work the same 50 years before retiring. Retiring at 67-68 is being generous as give the above it should be 75, so they should not complain.

 

What if during that time they earned above the upper earnings limit for NI and therefore pay higher contributions than someone who left school at 15 and earned minimum wage?

 

Can they (I) draw my state pension earlier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Locks' are creations of law, and so fully removable by Parliament.

 

That I already know.

 

Any economical readjustment just provides the context, it does not dictate the political course of action (with income to No.11 falling, rather than removing locks and trimming pensions, the UK would always be at liberty to borrow more from the magic money tree markets instead...you know, like Greece did for a while).

 

Another one citing a bad example which is Greece. Thankfully the UK is still very rich and will still be despite the calls from the EU to pay up or else. Mind you, with the problems Merkel is facing Germany may politically collapse soon which will badly effect the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone starts work for instance at 25 after Uni then they should expect to work the same 50 years before retiring.

 

Well that's an exciting new way of defining pension age for this brave new world of removed worker protections!

 

A friend of mine has commenced full-time work at age 40 at the Northern General, having been in increasingly specialist education and training. I'll let her know that she should be expected to work until age 90.

 

We're gonna have far fewer people working in medical specialisms!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if during that time they earned above the upper earnings limit for NI and therefore pay higher contributions than someone who left school at 15 and earned minimum wage?

 

Can they (I) draw my state pension earlier?

 

I believe that at the moment it is based on the years contributed and not the amount so until it changes then no.

 

BTW there was no such thing as minimum wage or working time directives back then.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2017 at 13:36 ----------

 

Well that's an exciting new way of defining pension age for this brave new world of removed worker protections!

 

Worker protections has been removed.. when did that happen?

 

A friend of mine has commenced full-time work at age 40 at the Northern General, having been in increasingly specialist education and training. I'll let her know that she should be expected to work until age 90.

 

So it takes 22 years since leaving school to get trained to work?

 

We're gonna have far fewer people working in medical specialisms!

 

If it takes that long to train then I'm not surprised!

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That I already know.
Then why did you asked 'how?', since you already knew it would be through a Commons vote? :confused:

Another one citing a bad example which is Greece.
What's the problem with the example in its context?

 

Are you claiming that Greece did not finance its state pensions from state borrowings? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That I already know.

 

 

 

Another one citing a bad example which is Greece. Thankfully the UK is still very rich and will still be despite the calls from the EU to pay up or else. Mind you, with the problems Merkel is facing Germany may politically collapse soon which will badly effect the EU.

 

Right,Merkel must really be looking across at Theresa May and wishing to be in such a strong position as her.:hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why did you asked 'how?', since you already knew it would be through a Commons vote? :confused:

What's the problem with the example in its context?

 

Because having a lock taken off pensions is not really losing out as pensions will not be reduced. Trimming pensions is another deal altogether.

 

Are you claiming that Greece did not finance its state pensions from state borrowings? :confused:

 

No.

 

Are you claiming the UK borrows money to pay pensions?

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At long last, in black and white from the EU, for all financial business in London:

The legal consequence of Brexit is that the UK financial service providers lose their EU passport. This passport allows them to offer their services to a market of 500 million consumers and 22 million business."

 

The chief negotiator said the EU might judge some UK rules as “equivalent” to EU passporting rights but ruled out the City of London having access to EU financial markets under the same passporting deal as now. Mr Barnier told the audience at the Centre for European Reform: “Those who claim that the UK should pick parts of the single market must stop this contradiction. The single market is a package, with four indivisible freedoms, common rules, institutions, and enforcement structures.

I'd expect Theresa May to 'magic' an extra €30 to €40bn onto the UK's exit bill before the end of week 49 ;)

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2017 at 13:58 ----------

 

Because having a lock taken off pensions is not really losing out as pensions will not be reduced. Trimming pensions is another deal altogether.
At the current pace of inflation and in view of the current quasi full-employment in the UK? :huh:

 

I don't think you even looked at my link, tbh.

 

Unless, that is, you understand the effect of the other 2 locks besides inflation perfectly well, whereby what you really expect is massive unemployment to follow Brexit? (what else could curb wage growth?)

 

But -and of course- you wouldn't dare voice that expectation, for very obvious reasons ;)

No
So why did you call Greece a "bad example" in the context of my post?

 

EDIT (after your own, apelike)

Are you claiming the UK borrows money to pay pensions?
Read my earlier post again?

'Locks' are creations of law, and so fully removable by Parliament.

 

Any economical readjustment just provides the context, it does not dictate the political course of action (with income to No.11 falling, rather than removing locks and trimming pensions, the UK would always be at liberty to borrow more from the magic money tree markets instead...you know, like Greece did for a while).<...>

Clearly, I presented it as an alternative to reducing pension liabilities (removing locks, trimming pensions), in the context of falling government income.

 

No problem if you misread my post first time round.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why did you call Greece a "bad example" in the context of my post?

 

Because the UK will not have to trim pensions or borrow money to pay for them. Greece had to because they were basically bankrupt and had cooked the book for a long time which is what got them into the mess in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the UK will not have to trim pensions or borrow money to pay for them.
If that belief is borne from the unicorn-for-all variety of Brexit, fair enough.

 

Meanwhile, as I posted above, Barnier just told the UK it shall have a £20bn hole in its annual budget after Brexit (that's how much financial passporting rights weigh annually, on No.11's balance sheet).

Greece had to because they were basically bankrupt and had cooked the book for a long time which is what got them into the mess in the first place.
Greece didn't trim pensions or borrow money to pay for them before it cooked its books and joined the €zone; nor a while after that, either. Promises were made by successive governments for getting elected, were delivered on the back of borrowings, and now the Greek population (including the electorate, and whether of these earlier governments or not) is paying the accumulated tab. The pattern is fully repeating with Brexit. But well.

 

I'm not convinced that the UK would let itself get in hock, to the extent that Greece did before the markets eventually caught up with it in 2014.

 

All things being equal (public service funding commitments), you can't sustain pension payments (moreover, of a fast-aging and longer-living population) when your tax receipts fall: either your curb the pension liabilities -one way or the other- or you borrow money to make up the shortfall. The further -and last- alternative is to axe still more public services funding. Nothing we haven't already seen here since 2008 either, really.

 

It's not rocket science. I don't think it's even accounting. Just common sense.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.