Burnsy

Quoted from arryarryarry

You probably don't watch much BBC but there are plenty of quiz shows on there.

If you took off the repeats then the screen would be empty.

Quoted from Maringer

You appear to have missed my post (number 32 in this thread) which pointed out that NIC is actually just a second income tax by another name. One which benefits the wealthy more than a higher rate of tax would, oddly enough. Strange that, isn't it. It's almost as though it is planned that way! NIC DOESN'T fund the state pension.

The government spends the money for state pensions into existence (and NIC destroys some of that money on the flip side).

Pensions and nurses wages comes from the same pot (government expenditure) in the same way that Lineker's salary and local radio expenditure does (BBC funding). You can't make one argument and claim it doesn't hold true for both cases.

You can see why the Tories aren't even attempting to govern properly any longer but are just intent on stoking a culture war. Unfortunately, it seems to work for people who aren't paying attention. If only the BBC was able to do it's job properly and inform! The Tories have made sure that won't happen with their appointments since 2010.

Yes I do know that effectively National Insurance is basically another tax to put in the Government's coffers and the state pension is paid out of the current pot.

I just don't think you understand how the state pension is earned. To receive the full basic pension you have to have at least 30 years of NI contributions,  it used to be 35 years so paying NI is inextricably linked to having a state pension.

Nope, there is no 'pot'. The government creates the money and gives it to the pensioners who then presumably spend it. The money has no relation to what has, or hasn't been paid in NIC contributions. I'm aware that the government calculates the level of the pension related to amount paid in NIC (to some degree), but it is still money being created by the government, just the same as nurses' salaries.

Tax and spend isn't a thing. It's spending the money into existence and taxing it to destroy it (double entry book-keeping - credits and debits have to balance out).

Don't take my word for it, incidentally. The Bank of England let it slip in a blog 9 years ago:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

Yet still we have a government (and an opposition, for that matter) who endlessly quote the guff that government spending is like a household so 'we can't afford it' when talking about anything they don't want to fund.

Give the nurses the pay rise they are asking for and what is going to happen to the money? Are they going to secrete it away into their Cayman Island bank accounts, or are they going to spend it into the economy, giving businesses a boost at a time when we're teetering on the brink of recession?

This is absolutely indisputable, despite the fact that many won’t see or accept it.

Quoted from Maringer

Nope, there is no 'pot'. The government creates the money and gives it to the pensioners who then presumably spend it. The money has no relation to what has, or hasn't been paid in NIC contributions. I'm aware that the government calculates the level of the pension related to amount paid in NIC (to some degree), but it is still money being created by the government, just the same as nurses' salaries.

Tax and spend isn't a thing. It's spending the money into existence and taxing it to destroy it (double entry book-keeping - credits and debits have to balance out).

When I said "pot" I wasn't referring to a pension pot but the whole of the Government's income, however this is what the ONS say :-

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus.....20general%20taxation.

As for the actual State Pension payments, of course there is a relation to the money individuals pay in National Insurance contributions, I was in a Contracted Out Money Purchase Pension Scheme which meant I paid lower NI Contributions and as such my State Pension was reduced.

Quoted from Maringer

Don't take my word for it, incidentally. The Bank of England let it slip in a blog 9 years ago:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy

Yet still we have a government (and an opposition, for that matter) who endlessly quote the guff that government spending is like a household so 'we can't afford it' when talking about anything they don't want to fund.

Give the nurses the pay rise they are asking for and what is going to happen to the money? Are they going to secrete it away into their Cayman Island bank accounts, or are they going to spend it into the economy, giving businesses a boost at a time when we're teetering on the brink of recession?

I wish people could grasp this.

Rich people squirrel money away in trusts, shares and offshore bank accounts, because they are greedy and obsessed with wealth. They just use money to make more money and try to move up the rich list.

Give the money to the great unwashed and guess what; they go out and spend it on sh1t, which keeps the economy fluid and benefits everyone.

It's a political choice to whom and where the wealth goes, but all you hear is that the country can't afford it. Utter bollox.

Quoted from arryarryarry

When I said "pot" I wasn't referring to a pension pot but the whole of the Government's income, however this is what the ONS say :-

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus.....20general%20taxation.

As for the actual State Pension payments, of course there is a relation to the money individuals pay in National Insurance contributions, I was in a Contracted Out Money Purchase Pension Scheme which meant I paid lower NI Contributions and as such my State Pension was reduced.

The problem here, is that the ONS is being deliberately opaque and, fundamentally, dishonest:

"The pension payments made by the government for unfunded pensions are financed on an ongoing basis from National Insurance contributions and general taxation".

This isn't true. There is no hypothecation in funding for taxes and the Bank of England link I pointed to actually explains how money is created for the spending. The ONS is fundamentally an arm of the Treasury (operating out of the same buildings, I believe) and the claims of 'independence' are nonsense. It's why the government won't agree to have the ONS analyse opposition budgets when a General Election is coming.

They can pretend the link between taxation and pensions exists (and the NIC have a very slight bearing), but, as the IFS note in their blurb about the state pension, the relationship between NIC paid and benefits received is 'vanishingly small':

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-taxes-explained/national-insurance-contributions-explained

Back to the Beeb and its problems.

On the way home from work (stopping off to do some shopping on the way), I was listening to Radio 4. First of all, the had a report about the resignation of the the BBC Chairman, Richard Sharp. According to 'sources', Sharp had been telling people he wasn't planning to resign until he had a visit (to his own home) by the Director General. The reporter said he'd let people make their minds up but it certainly seemed to indicate that he was persuaded to fall on his sword.

After I'd done my shopping, I turned the radio back on and heard what can only be described as a rant by the person being interviewed. Wondered who it was? Turns out it was Dominic Lawson who was scathing in his criticism, claiming the BBC reporter had no right to insinuate Sharp had been persuaded to go, had done nothing wrong in any case and didn't need to resign.

To me, this interview showed everything that was wrong with the BBC and everything that is wrong with the country, for that matter. Sharp, (Tory donor, Sunak's first boss at Goldman Sachs, given the job because nobody else thought it worth applying given the government had briefed he was going to et the job) probably did the right thing to resign following the report which criticised the manner in which he was appointed and his failure to declare conflicts of interest after helping to arrange a loan guarantee for Johnson when he was Prime Minister before he was appointed.

So, following Sharp's resignation and the BBC report into what they understood had gone on behind the scenes, what sort of a voice did they look to for some external analysis? Dominic Lawson, the journalist son of the former Chancellor, Nigel Lawson. He's a former editor of The Spectator (just like his late Dad), former editor of The Sunday Telegraph, and he's been a columnist for another right-wing paper, the Sunday Telegraph, for well over a decade. Oh, he's also mates with Sharp, having known him for the best part of 50 years since meeting at University.

The presenter on Radio 4 didn't push back against Lawson's tirade (I think he was shocked, truth be told!) so the casual listener could easily have thought he accepted it as being factual, rather than a bizarre opinion - BBC reporters aren't allowed to make inferences, apparently. But more than that, why was Lawson invited for an interview in the first place? Could you think of a less partial interviewee if you tried?

Nepotism, establishment, right-wing bias, all on show within a couple of excerpts which I heard driving home. It was pretty pathetic truth be told.

flipping left wing woke organisation…

Feel sorry for Burnsy I think he has been great for the station over the years, I’ve spent that  many years listening to his voice he feels like someone I know well., I sometimes listen to his morning show where I think he does another excellent job, but I’ve often wondered how long he would have left as he will speak his mind at times (a rarity these days) and I think this has been at odds with the BBC.