Re:He who pays the pension calls the tune?

[srb7677]

If in 10 or 15 years time, someone were to turn around to SRB and tell him "they" were paying for his pension, and the many 14 hour shifts he'd worked meant Jack, you can bet he'd be the first to have a hissy fit and throw his teddy in the air

Actually you can bet I wouldn't. I might well say I am entitled to it based on earlier contributions - as Barry would be when he claims it - but I am not going to be dishonest enough to say I paid for it. My NI was spent - as soon as I paid it - on other things. My pension will be being paid by the working people of the day.

[DeppityDawg]

However, the angle he was coming from was that in working 14 hour days to pay the NI contributions that go into the NI fund, which pays out benefits and pensions to currently retired pensioners, it might be nice if he was able to use his constitutional and democratic right to vote as well, by having a postal vote.  i.e. he should not be disenfranchised if he is working a 14 hour shift on election day.

We've been through it umpteen times. An economists "point of view" is not really relevent, since SRB wasn't speaking as an economist, he was speaking as an ordinary poster. If you want to be absolutely pragmatic, then you might be able to argue that SRB is actually helping to "repay" a debt and a commitment owed to Barry or any other paid up pensioner, but my point has always been about the entitlement, not the money itself. Yes, it may all be in the terminology, but claiming to be "paying" for something that has already been earned is dishonest, and thats maybe why Barry reacted the way he did. If in 10 or 15 years time, someone were to turn around to SRB and tell him "they" were paying for his pension, and the many 14 hour shifts he'd worked meant Jack, you can bet he'd be the first to have a hissy fit and throw his teddy in the air

However, it would not be paid because there would be no money to pay it, so I win.  Robert Maxwell's famous pensioners from the 1980s were legally and contractually entitled to their pensions, but they didn't get them because he had stolen the money.

None of this is in doubt, Javert. Leaving aside the State Pension, there are many different civil service and government pension schemes that are only partially or even totally unfunded, so there is always a risk these commitments may not be honoured. It doesn't alter the fact that these are a commitment owed, regardless as to how we might individually feel as to their net value. My Forces pension is due to commence soon - SRB could argue more accurately that he is "paying" for that, but it still won't diminish the debt

In the end Javert, we have to accept that is the way the NI system works, and while the risk (however small) that society/the taxpayer may one day be unable to meet its commitments, a State Pension is a type of debt owed by virtue of having been earned, not by the expedient of who pays it. If you can't or won't recognise that, then perhaps the whole concept of a National Insurance pension is flawed

[Sheepy]

an economists point of view and from reality

As though they are one and the same, amusing Javert.

[Javert]

Your argument removes Barrys entitlement by insisting that his pension is actually paid for by someone else,

The point being made was that from an economists point of view and from reality, if money was no longer paid into the system anymore, there would be no money in the fund to pay Barry's pension, so it would not be paid.

Yes he would still have a legal entitlement to it, so you win.  However, it would not be paid because there would be no money to pay it, so I win.  Robert Maxwell's famous pensioners from the 1980s were legally and contractually entitled to their pensions, but they didn't get them because he had stolen the money. 

So, it all depends on your perspective - if you see it from the perspective of where the cash is actually coming from that went into your bank account under your pension entitlement, it is coming from working people, unlike a private named account pension scheme, where the pension company is actually holding that actual amount of funds specifically in your name.

If the government passed a law tomorrow cutting Barry's pension by 10%, there would be nothing he could do about it other than vote them out at the next election in 4 years from now, so also on that perspective, it's not an entitlement in the same way that named individual account pension scheme is an entitlement.

Your issue appears to be the claim that it's SRB implied that he could, if he wanted, decide to stop paying Barry's pension and that Barry should be grateful to him personally for funding it as it was his own personal kindness.  Obviously that's not correct as SRB doesn't have a choice whether to pay NI contributions or not.  So again, from that perspective, you are right.  However, the angle he was coming from was that in working 14 hour days to pay the NI contributions that go into the NI fund, which pays out benefits and pensions to currently retired pensioners, it might be nice if he was able to use his constitutional and democratic right to vote as well, by having a postal vote.  i.e. he should not be disenfranchised if he is working a 14 hour shift on election day.

[DeppityDawg]

So you say but it's east to say someone is wrong if you agree with their argument on one paragraph, then two paragraphs later tell them that the same thing you've just admitted is true is now false, and then conclude that you have won the argument and are a working class hero sticking it to the middle class elitists.

Javert, you've been told repeatedly what the argument is, but you either cannot or will not engage it, and simply default to reiterating something that no one is arguing about. I am not "agreeing with your argument" because there is no argument about where the State Pension is paid from. For the purposes of definition, "paid for" means "entitlement to a pension", something we must ALL plan for before we retire

The argument is about the ethics of someone claiming they are paying for something which has already been paid for - Barry (he's the over used example but he will do) has ALREADY PAID for his state pension, long before SRB paid the NI contributions from which it is currently being paid. Those contributions paid for Barrys pension, and no one elses. Your argument removes Barrys entitlement by insisting that his pension is actually paid for by someone else, wheras in reality we ALL pay in NI to be entitled to its benefits, not to entitle someone else. Its not rocket science for feck sake

If you won't see this, then sure, carry on with a mechanical argument about £ signs, but stop trying to pretend I am agreeing with an argument that has never been made.

All without never providing your definition of what is middle class and what is an elitist.

We had a long thread about it on the old forum - its was a source of endless laughs. Maybe I should start a new one.

Anyway, in the end you have redefined the argument to claim that SRB said he was specifically paying Barry's pension personally.   That's clearly not what he meant, as evidenced apart from anything else by the plural use of pensions in the OP, but it's also the exact kind of twisting of the argument that you always accuse me of doing ..... hypocrisy.... not a bit of it.

See above...although I very much doubt this latest post will change anything

So based on your redefining that srb said he was specifically and personally paying Barry's pension, you win.   Congratulations well done.

We can all win any argument with that approach.

It doesn't matter who or how many peoples pension SRB claims to be "paying", it still won't be true. He is paying to be entitled to his own pension. Like I said, I paid some fuel duty this morning which has helped pay for the road you used yesterday. Can I have it back please?

[Javert]

...ok....you're naive, a hypocrite and just plain wrong.

So you say but it's east to say someone is wrong if you agree with their argument on one paragraph, then two paragraphs later tell them that the same thing you've just admitted is true is now false, and then conclude that you have won the argument and are a working class hero sticking it to the middle class elitists.

All without never providing your definition of what is middle class and what is an elitist. 

Anyway, in the end you have redefined the argument to claim that SRB said he was specifically paying Barry's pension personally.   That's clearly not what he meant, as evidenced apart from anything else by the plural use of pensions in the OP, but it's also the exact kind of twisting of the argument that you always accuse me of doing ..... hypocrisy.... not a bit of it.

So based on your redefining that srb said he was specifically and personally paying Barry's pension, you win.   Congratulations well done.

We can all win any argument with that approach.

[Borchester]

...ok....you're naive, a hypocrite and just plain wrong.

Damn it Dog, you are a smooth talking bugger

[DeppityDawg]

I could be accused of being naïve, or a hypocrite, or just plain wrong

...ok....you're naive, a hypocrite and just plain wrong.

[DeppityDawg]

s this still going?

Have I now become a "right wing individualist". Crikey!

What do you mean "now"...?

Anyway, I paid some VAT yesterday, so obviously I've paid for your hip replacement....oh, and SRB wants reimbursing for your free bus pass  that he paid for?

.....do you actually pay for anything, Barry 

[Javert]

I am also often puzzled by the way words from the dictionary are hijacked for political purposes, and then used as some kind of insult, which bizarrely turns them into the opposite term.

@DeppityDawg keeps calling me an Elitist. 

Elitist seems like a strange word considering I have nearly always voted for parties that wanted to redistribute wealth to less advantaged people more than the tories normally do, and advocated the removal of societal barriers which prevent people who are not already advantaged by birth from succeeding.  I've even flirted with radical ideas like whether there is a way to remove the ability of parents to give their particular kids an unfair advantage in life generally, as theoretically this would be the biggest leveller you could ever do in society, although of course everyone who already has those advantages would fight tooth and nail against it.  In doing this I've often supported policies that would harm me personally and economically if ever implemented.

To me, the word Elitist as defined in the dictionary would be more used to define someone who thinks they were born better than everybody else, will remain better than everybody else, and that's just exactly the way it should stay.  I don't think that and I've never thought it, so Elitist seems like a strange word to use, especially when the accusation calling people like me elitists is often coming from millionaires who made their money working on the finance markets or who inherited fortunes from ancestors.

I could be accused of being naïve, or a hypocrite, or just plain wrong in my approach, but the word Elitist just doesn't seem to me to fit that type of person.  It's always puzzled me this term Metropolitan Elite.  I don't even live in a city either.

I do like to play the computer game Elite Dangerous sometims though, so I guess I'll take the label on that basis.

[cromwell]

Is this still going?

Have I now become a "right wing individualist". Crikey!

It's all your fault for telling Srb off

[Javert]

the essential logic that the National Insurance Fund pays out money today that was paid in by todays NI contributors.....

someone's statement claiming to be "paying someone else's pension" being (both) false ....

[Barry]

Is this still going?

Have I now become a "right wing individualist". Crikey!

[DeppityDawg]

I understand that it makes you very angry and upset to accept that your future pension will be funded by those who are still working when you are retired, but it's an economic fact of life.

If you prefer to think of it that it's the money you have paid in and will be paid back to you, you are of course entirely free to maintain this fantasy if it makes you happy.

It's not surprising that right wing individualists get riled up when discussing the topic of national insurance.

I wondered when the elitist Javert would pop his head up from under the stone. Having spent the entire discussion addressing a point that isn't being contested, while studiously ignoring everyone elses belief in the essential fairness of systems like National Insurance, you've now come out and said what you've been suggesting throughout.

That right wing Mail reading "individualists" who are not really clever enough to understand basic arithmetic, are getting upset at the thought that they aren't getting their "actual money" back. Further, they'd rather believe in the fantasy of getting their actual tenners back with the felt tip numbers they put on them back in 1983, than in the essential logic that the National Insurance Fund pays out money today that was paid in by todays NI contributors. All this, despite the fact that no one is disputing this reality.

Realities of course, like there being people who have paid in little to nothing (which I've mentioned already, stating that they get NI Credits, but you carefully ignored it), just as very many people will have contributed very close to the amount needed to fund similar paying annuity at 67 years old in a life time of National Insurance contributions. Just having a quick look at my own, up to month 8, I have contributed £3883.84 in NI myself so far this year, and my employer a further £3253.28 - or the combined equivilent of about £10,000 annually - which is about £1000 more than the current Full State Pension. And I still have another full 7 years to go. And for every person who contributes little to nothing, there will be even more who contribute much more than the average. But that is common sense, for unless the vast majority actually contribute significant numbers, the system wouldn't work at all

All that aside, you've ignored the point throughout Javert, no matter how its been put to you, and now elected to double down on your superior attitude with a lengthy political piece to underline your liberal credentials, as if this somehow means something to the actual point being made. But rather than address that point, which is about someone's statement claiming to be "paying someone else's pension" being both false and insulting, what we are left with is "right wing individualists" who can barely add up getting riled. Which is in reality what you're whole argument has really been intimating all along. You really can't help being a middle class elitist Javert, because when all is said and done, thats exactly what you are.

[Borg Refinery]

I'll reach the big 60 next year, along with my 45th full year of NI contributions

And for SRBs benefit, had that £150,000 been invested over that period in a typical pension fund returning 4-5%pa on average, about 75% of the current full state pension (about 9kpa) would now be funded to at least the age of average life expectancy for a male in this country

Perhaps this post is worth reiterating for the hard of...err.. understanding, cromwell nudged me to not be nasty by editing a post etc...

Edited:

(I realized the rest of the stuff posted was completely wrong and scrubbed it  )