[Dave]

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

Inside job won best documentury at the Oscars so not in the same bracket as LOTR, but i like your style

As for Michael Moore he had nothing to do with the film.

Cheers, my point still stands though. Michael Moore is a tin foil hat wearer and just because it won an oscar, even one for documentary film making doesn't mean it's true.

[Anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by Dave

Cheers, my point still stands though. Michael Moore is a tin foil hat wearer and just because it won an oscar, even one for documentary film making doesn't mean it's true.

Your right it does not mean it's fact, out of interest have you watched the film?

As for M Moore i can see why he would wind some people up but he has tackled some very good subjects in his films and put some very dodgy people on the spot, for that i for one applaud him

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

Your right it does not mean it's fact, out of interest have you watched the film?

As for M Moore i can see why he would wind some people up but he has tackled some very good subjects in his films and put some very dodgy people on the spot, for that i for one applaud him

I haven't watched it no, I may have a look in a bit it's largely irrelevant who caused the crisis anyway. We are in the poo and need to somehow get out of it, none of which will be within my power to influence anyway.

I don't doubt that Michael Moore has made some decent films but he is clearly a rabid Conspiracy theorist which sadly devalues absolutely everything he has to say.

[Anotherlimey]

Seems a trend tough Dave, lets blame the council workers (evil greedy little gits!), blame the health workers and the police, lets reduce thier numbers and thier wage, oh and don't forget thier mega pensions they are going to get

The bankers and thier rich goverment friends are ok though, it's that evil dustman that earns just above the minimum wage, how dare he, and he is going to get £100 a week pension after paying in 6% of his wages for 45 years, bloody **** taking public sector workers

I see a very small part of society having it all, i see the majority be driven into the ground to keep them there, i see thier propaganda causing the devide they want, let the little people battle each other and point fingers at each other while we continue to live it up, do you really belive public sector workers and thier below average pensions are to blame for the financial crises we are in?

If you do then the rich elite are winning, such a shame.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

Seems a trend tough Dave, lets blame the council workers (evil greedy little gits!), blame the health workers and the police, lets reduce thier numbers and thier wage, oh and don't forget thier mega pensions they are going to get

The bankers and thier rich goverment friends are ok though, it's that evil dustman that earns just above the minimum wage, how dare he, and he is going to get £100 a week pension after paying in 6% of his wages for 45 years, bloody **** taking public sector workers

I see a very small part of society having it all, i see the majority be driven into the ground to keep them there, i see thier propaganda causing the devide they want, let the little people battle each other and point fingers at each other while we continue to live it up, do you really belive public sector workers and thier below average pensions are to blame for the financial crises we are in?

If you do then the rich elite are winning, such a shame.

Of course I don't believe that the public sector etc are to blame but neither do I believe that it's exclusively the rich who are to blame either.

Of course the banks played a huge part in this but the last government also has to take some responsibility for it. The whole situation is not exclusive to the UK proving that the government was not wholly to blame but there's no doubt that increasing spending at the rate they did has excacerbated the problem hugely. You can't increase the public sector by 40% while GDP has grown by only 12% unless you borrow a huge wedge of dosh. No problem there in itself but when the bubble burst that borrowing is simply not sustainable.

It's a fact that the better off will suffer less than everyone else and has ever been thus, it's far easier, cheaper and on occasions more politically savvy to reduce the public sector than change tax law, increase levy's etc.

As for the public sector pension deficit, it's only so bad because the public sector was allowed to grow as big as it has. It was a great political move by the Labour party and the Tories before them, create loads of public sector jobs on the back of increased spending and they look great whilst not really appearing to have to pay anything for all those jobs.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

As for M Moore i can see why he would wind some people up but he has tackled some very good subjects in his films and put some very dodgy people on the spot, for that i for one applaud him

Yes, his heroic interview of Charlton Heston who as it transpired was already quite some way into dying of Alzheimer's was a triumph of modern cinema.

[Anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by Dave

As for the public sector pension deficit, it's only so bad because the public sector was allowed to grow as big as it has. It was a great political move by the Labour party and the Tories before them, create loads of public sector jobs on the back of increased spending and they look great whilst not really appearing to have to pay anything for all those jobs.

I pay 6% of my wages to Royal mail who i work for and have for the last 23 years, i belive RM match that, i was told when i joined that i would have to pay a maximum of 40 years pension and at the age of 60 it would pay out, when i joined at 18 that seemed great and i joined up, fully paid up at 58 and a half decent pension at 60 giving me maybe the choice to retire being a pysical job or carry on if i felt i could or needed to.

RM and the goverment in the 90s decided to stop paying in thier side of the bargain for many years as in the mid 90s things were good and the pension fund had a surples, so instead of paying into the pension fund as agreed more RM money was put back into the public purse, Great!

well great until things went tits up and now i and my fellow workers in RM and similar public sector jobs are going to take a massive hit.

So my small 40 year pension which i would have taken at 60 will now be taken at 45 years paid in at 63 years old and reduced in value, i'm told they are not finished with us yet and they are coming back for more soon, i'm resighed to not being able to afford to retire at all, what a great society we live in

[Anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

Yes, his heroic interview of Charlton Heston who as it transpired was already quite some way into dying of Alzheimer's was a triumph of modern cinema. image

Yeah look at the poor old bugger, can hardly remember a word

After the children were killed in the school in Colembine he and his like went to that state to campaign for gun laws to stay the same they had since the civil war, M Moore had good points in his film, strong and valid ones, bullets being sold in Wal-mart (ASDA) and people like this idiot wanting to continue laws that were put into place to protect people in the 1800s.

If he suffered and died of Alzheimer's i'm sorry for him, but he knew what he was doing as part of the american gun club in this video.

[sidicks]

The fact is that your final salary pension 'costs' around 30-35% per annum, so if you and your employer both pay 6% that leaves 20% shortfall every year (compounded over time).

I don't believe that they are proposing to take away any benefits that you have earned to date just reduce future accrual to a more affordable (I mean less unaffordable level).

The surplus / deficit in the fund doesn't really impact you.

Sidicks

[Anotherlimey]

Got so carried away i forgot the video

YouTube - Charlton Heston; From My Cold Dead Hands. Long Version

[Anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by sidicks

The fact is that your final salary pension 'costs' around 30-35% per annum, so if you and your employer both pay 6% that leaves 20% shortfall every year (compounded over time).

I don't believe that they are proposing to take away any benefits that you have earned to date just reduce future accrual to a more affordable (I mean less unaffordable level).

The surplus / deficit in the fund doesn't really impact you.

Sidicks

The surplus if left alone and not plundered in the 90s would have plugged the shortfall we have now

Christ you said in another thread you pay 20 times more tax than other people or something like that, you earn that much money and can't see this simple fact?

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

Yeah look at the poor old bugger, can hardly remember a word

After the children were killed in the school in Colembine he and his like went to that state to campaign for gun laws to stay the same they had since the civil war, M Moore had good points in his film, strong and valid ones, bullets being sold in Wal-mart (ASDA) and people like this idiot wanting to continue laws that were put into place to protect people in the 1800s.

If he suffered and died of Alzheimer's i'm sorry for him, but he knew what he was doing as part of the american gun club in this video.

If you check the very very small print at the end of the film, you'll see the clip you linked to was in fact given a year later on the other side of the country but I'm sure you knew that already.

Moore raises issues, yes. Nothing of his work is worthy of being described as impartial or accurate.

[sidicks]

Paying in 12% contribution for a benefit worth 30%+ means that the shortfall would inevitably grow over time.

Even if the pension scheme was fully funded today it still wouldn't be affordable going forward!

I guess maths isn't your strong point ?!
?!
Sidicks

[Anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

If you check the very very small print at the end of the film, you'll see the clip you linked to was in fact given a year later on the other side of the country but I'm sure you knew that already.

Moore raises issues, yes. Nothing of his work is worthy of being described as impartial or accurate.

I'll take your word on that, Still does not back up your fact about Mr Heston be some poor bed ridden memory suffer, he knew what he was doing and what he had stood for years on end, GUNS!

guns that killed children in the US and will do in the future, but he still decided to quote laws from the 1800s to protect the money guns make in the US and around the world, what would you think if your child was shot at school and this idiot turned up out of the blue and organized a rally in your town supporting guns?

[Anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Paying in 12% contribution for a benefit worth 30%+ means that the shortfall would inevitably grow over time.

Even if the pension scheme was fully funded today it still wouldn't be affordable going forward!

I guess maths isn't your strong point ?!
?!
Sidicks

If i'm honest no maths is not my strong point, truth and honesty is and the british average worker is being lied to and taken for a fool.

Try and attack me, call me stupid and question my education, it seems obvious now Sidicks you are a high earner and while i have no problem whatsoever with people earning a good living you have revealed youself as someone that thinks they should in your own words earn enough to be taxed more than 20 times than the average wage.

Your agenda is plain to see, blame everyone lower down the ladder rather than look at the real problem, drive those lower people into the ground, take away thier pensions, take away thier right to retire at a decent age, young enough to enjoy a little freedom before they die.

You really need to look at yourself and really look into whom has caused the problems the country/world has, have all the rich caused this no, but some have, have the poor no, none!

[IronGiant]

I think this thread is beginning to outlive its usefulness as it's getting personal.

[Anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by sidicks

The fact is that your final salary pension 'costs' around 30-35% per annum, so if you and your employer both pay 6% that leaves 20% shortfall every year (compounded over time).

I don't believe that they are proposing to take away any benefits that you have earned to date just reduce future accrual to a more affordable (I mean less unaffordable level).

The surplus / deficit in the fund doesn't really impact you.

Sidicks

It's not a final salary pension anymore, we have had that taken away and i'm told they are coming back for more, hence the reason i said what with the state pension being now at 67 and proberbly 70 time i get to retirement age it looks like i will be worked into the grave, great eh?

[gazbarber]

I don't think sidicks is blaming people 'lower down the ladder' for the problems we've got.

To put the case for the numbers, I've used £100 as 100% of the current budget, although the exact numbers are pretty scary they look almost farcical.

We have say £100 a year coming in as a country, we are spending £113(£3 is interest) a year and we have a debt of £58 at the moment.

It doesn't take many years for the over spend to make even the interest alone unaffordable (can't afford to pay teachers because we have to pay debt interest instead). In a few years at this rate our debt would equal our income, and the £3 interest would be much higher (as people worry if we can pay our debts).

The difference between income (£100) and outgoings (£113) is called the deficit, it is how much extra debt is being added every year.

The option most travelled is borrowing more money to get you out of a hole, but when your in the hole because of too much borrowing it can't be seen as the solution. Its like like trying to gamble your way out of gambling debts.

That leaves either increasing income or reducing outgoing a.k.a increase the £100 or decrease the £113. The government is doing both, so by the end of the parliament (another 4 + years) the income and the outgoings will equal, or in other words the deficit removed.

By the end of the parliament the debt is expected to be nearer £75+, with the interest paid every year increasing in line. We currently pay more in debt interest than we do on the military (the 4th biggest department) and its closing on what we spend on education.

Not controlling the budget and just spending money while not bringing in extra money is not going to solve the problem. I think the government is on the right track with what its planning to do, but as always with governments the key is in the implementation, or how they bugger it up.

The real problem is not so much the debt as we can work around that (even if the interest is costing shed loads at its current cheap rate) rather the deficit if not controlled could get out of hand, meaning we're paying more in interest, relying on borrowing to pay the bills and all the while the interest rate on the borrowing is rising and rising.

From nothing that Sidicks has said, is he blaming 'poor' people for the problem, he's all about the facts.

I agree with you on pensions though, I think its pretty much a scam, I'm looking to invest money for myself rather than rely on someone else and their promises, but if I had a generous employer willing to match my contribution it would be hard not to join such a scheme.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

I'll take your word on that, Still does not back up your fact about Mr Heston be some poor bed ridden memory suffer, he knew what he was doing and what he had stood for years on end, GUNS!

As I am not privy to the exact degredation of Heston but given the date he died, and knowing the approximate date of the interview would suggest that he was already on the decline.

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

guns that killed children in the US and will do in the future, but he still decided to quote laws from the 1800s to protect the money guns make in the US and around the world, what would you think if your child was shot at school and this idiot turned up out of the blue and organized a rally in your town supporting guns?

Again, checking up on some tedious non Moore supplied information suggests that the rally in question had been organised many months prior to Columbine and essentially Heston turned up, gave a short address that was not the one in the video and closed the event down. The official reason given was that the rally could not be cancelled at ten days notice which does seem weak but by the same token is a little different from the portrayal of the event being organised at short notice and Heston rocking up making some Civil War references and yelling "COLD DEAD HANDS" a couple of times. (The Civil War references probably have more to do with the date of the video address and the location in North Carolina having something to do with a Civil War battle but I'm guessing on this).

As to the my child being blown away? I think you have me at cross purposes. I am glad of this country's gun laws and have no desire to live where people have the wherewithal to buy wildly unsuitable firearms. I would, like any parent be distraught under the circumstances. My criticism of Moore is that he plays fast and loose with the truth for emotive gain. This is great when the jist of the argument is something you support but without any actual integrity to the "facts" on display, there is every chance that a group on the other side of the divide will use the same tricks to undermine something that you might feel differently about.

The sad reality of firearms in America is that it isn't a left/right political divide and as such defies either party reforming the current situation. I've met and worked with Americans far to the left of my beliefs who still believe the right to bear arms is absolute. Bowling for Columbine seems to suggest some tiny minority of people have prevented gun laws from being changed. This is simply not born out by recent political history.

I despair on this and other forums when someone will describe a link or post as "right/left wing rubbish" and then go on to post something that is equally useless but merely tallies better with their own personal bias. Based on my beliefs, The Economist is the single most accurate publication in circulation. It isn't- it merely appears to have no bias because it fits my own bias. To gain an accurate view of an event I need to read other things and form an opinion from multiple sources. It is something of a tragedy that given a wider availability of news and information than ever before, people seem to use it only to re-enforce their own beliefs.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

You really need to look at yourself and really look into whom has caused the problems the country/world has, have all the rich caused this no, but some have, have the poor no, none!

I can't agree with you here though.

The current problem and the need for cuts is caused by the government hiring too many people, for jobs which aren't wholly necessary, or at the very least have not had an improvement in services to match the 'investment' (aka government spending).

If the poor (as a paper like the guardian like to see things) are these public sector workers, then they are part of the problem ...

An extra 1million workers in the public sector over the last 10 years, while also outsourcing a lot of public sector work = a huge increase in costs.

This gives us both debt and our current deficit.

If you mean poor people like those on benefits then although numbered in the millions the debt caused isn't huge on an individual level.
We do pay £20billion a year on housing benefit (mainly to private landlords too), which welfare recipients don't even see.
The government effectively being the countries biggest paying tenant could reduce this bill. This could be used to either keep more people employed by the government, reduce the amount of spending or increase the amount of money given directly to those on welfare.

The 'rich' people who pay the 50% or so of tax income every year have not caused the deficit though, they give more in than take out (with the exception of some of the bankers on our payroll and highly paid civil service/council chiefs).

Playing the blame game isn't gonna get us out of the problem, but there is plenty of reason to talk about what the best way to get us out of it.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

If i'm honest no maths is not my strong point, truth and honesty is and the british average worker is being lied to and taken for a fool.

Try and attack me, call me stupid and question my education, it seems obvious now Sidicks you are a high earner and while i have no problem whatsoever with people earning a good living you have revealed youself as someone that thinks they should in your own words earn enough to be taxed more than 20 times than the average wage.

Your agenda is plain to see, blame everyone lower down the ladder rather than look at the real problem, drive those lower people into the ground, take away thier pensions, take away thier right to retire at a decent age, young enough to enjoy a little freedom before they die.

You really need to look at yourself and really look into whom has caused the problems the country/world has, have all the rich caused this no, but some have, have the poor no, none!

Look I didn't call you anything - you started it. I just questioned whether you were good at Maths...

look at Home: UK National Statistics Publication Hub to see that current (published) debt is £900bn and growing by £150bn every year.

Additionally there are £2-3,000 trillion of other liabilties 'hidden' off balance sheet.

The figures also discuss £1.3trillion of debt in relation to banks bailouts, but you also need to read the note that explains that:
Particular care should be taken when interpreting the revised figures for PSND. This series is calculated as financial liabilities less liquid assets; it includes most liabilities but excludes illiquid assets for instance, in the form of lending to businesses; for mortgages and holdings of corporate bonds. The latter exclusion is important because the public sector banking groups have considerable amounts of illiquid assets.

Hope this helps?

Sidicks

[Anotherlimey]

I don't question those figures at all sidicks and never have, it's how we got into this state and how we deal with it we disagree on.

we will have to agree to disagree and move on

[sidicks]

How can you accept that £600bn of debt and a £100bn annual deficit was in place before the credit crunch yet still be of the opinion that the austerity measures are due to bank bailouts rather than the decade of overspending by the previous government?!!

It makes no sense...

Sidicks

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

How can you accept that £600bn of debt and a £100bn annual deficit was in place before the credit crunch yet still be of the opinion that the austerity measures are due to bank bailouts rather than the decade of overspending by the previous government?!!

It makes no sense...

Sidicks

i think people would stomach austerity measures if they were more of a shared experience as in war periods but all the time multi-millionaires shove their millions in tax havens and bankers keep getting huge bonuses, the rank and file will be very reluctant to accept them, particularly when they are not the cause of them

[Anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

i think people would stomach austerity measures if they were more of a shared experience as in war periods but all the time multi-millionaires shove their millions in tax havens and bankers keep getting huge bonuses, the rank and file will be very reluctant to accept them, particularly when they are not the cause of them

Don't bother LGS, i tried to draw a line in the sand so to speak but he just continues to spout out figures and others nonesense, he will not listen to reason or an alternative view, i guess it's hard to see the real problem when you are raking in a massive wage, easier to try and blame the little people.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

Don't bother LGS, i tried to draw a line in the sand so to speak but he just continues to spout out figures and others nonesense, he will not listen to reason or an alternative view, i guess it's hard to see the real problem when you are raking in a massive wage, easier to try and blame the little people.

You have an alternative view but what definitively makes you right (or at the very least you the voice of "reason") and him wrong? I don't agree with everything sidicks says but given the choice between the material he posts and your contributions, his is harsh but broadly based on checkable information while you cite no sources.

[Anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by Ed Selley

You have an alternative view but what definitively makes you right (or at the very least you the voice of "reason") and him wrong? I don't agree with everything sidicks says but given the choice between the material he posts and your contributions, his is harsh but broadly based on checkable information while you cite no sources.

No suprise there then

[kav]

Originally Posted by Decadence

I work in electronics...generate large profits for the company (over £1.3 million this year), manage 4 people and am generally very successful, reliable and good at what I do. I wish I had a bit of capital to do it for myself.

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

Ok fair do, you may well be worth the atleast 100k wage you state

Just curious AL - I lifted this from another thread but I think it's relevant to this topic. In the above post you mention you think 100k could be a fair wage for someone who makes their company £1.3m profit. Yet at the same time you are aggressively against bankers who get six and seven figure bonuses, when proportionally the bonuses they get would be more or less in line with the profit they make for their employer (the profits some bankers generate can run into the hundreds of millions). The two situations are more or less the same, but one you don't seem to have an issue with, and the other you do.

As I mentioned on the Welfare thread a few minutes ago, it seems to be a question of the scale of the monies involved, rather than any specific attempts at being fair to everyone, that drive these arguments.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Anotherlimey

No suprise there then

A magnificent riposte- bravo.

Sort of sets the scene really. You reserve the right to say we're wrong and stick sarky little adjunts on the end of your posts but act like a kicked puppy if someone asks you to back something up or provides information that runs counter to your view of events. As I said yesterday, we have access to more information than ever before. You could use this to find some information that goes some way to countering what sidicks says.

But I suspect you won't.

[Anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by kav

Just curious AL - I lifted this from another thread but I think it's relevant to this topic. In the above post you mention you think 100k could be a fair wage for someone who makes their company £1.3m profit. Yet at the same time you are aggressively against bankers who get six and seven figure bonuses, when proportionally the bonuses they get would be more or less in line with the profit they make for their employer (the profits some bankers generate can run into the hundreds of millions). The two situations are more or less the same, but one you don't seem to have an issue with, and the other you do.

As I mentioned on the Welfare thread a few minutes ago, it seems to be a question of the scale of the monies involved, rather than any specific attempts at being fair to everyone, that drive these arguments.

But have we seen bankers making profits? No we have seen bankers taking risks with other peoples money and as a result when things went wrong bringing the country to it's knee, said bankers are not suffering, the normal Joe is though, higher VAT, higher tax, worse public services (sold off to the higherst bidder)

We have a society where the rich have had it good for years living it up for decades now, recently things went wrong and what happens, blame the poorer side of society and keep the rich, well rich!