Budget Bullshit Bingo (2020)

[Donald Trumps]

It's certainly a God awful departing message from a Chief MInister

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, Donald Trumps said:

Quayle has said £50m per annum will be need to be taken from general revenue from 2022/23 to satisfy the PSPR & that in his view services to the public will have to be reduced to fund it

Is this 'good government'?

No. It's transparently not. But it allows for running away from the problem which is what's happened since the noughties. It could and should have been addressed, there's been 14-odd years to do it. But that would have meant "manning up" and upsetting a key voter group.

ETA. Quayle/Cannan have taken almost four years to come up with this edict. Some changes have been made during that time to put things on a sustainable footing, but NOT address the legacy. Bell/Teare had four years. As did the Brown administration. All chose to file in the "too difficult tray" and kick the can down the road.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Non-Believer
Extra bit

[wrighty]

6 hours ago, sir nige said:

£68m coming in.......£100m going out on wrighty's figures per year.......

if they dropped outgoings to £60m plus invested £8m the liability has gone......

 

That would work, assuming there were no knock-on consequences of reducing everyone’s pension to 60% of its current value, and every future pensioner having their projection reduced to 60% for the same level of contribution. 
 

Firstly I think there would be legal challenges, both from existing and future pensioners.  Even if won, these would be costly. 
 

Secondly, you’d depress GDP. With £40m less circulating round the economy some businesses would close. In an economy our size this is not an insignificant sum. 
 

Thirdly, such a massive reduction in future pension benefits would adversely affect recruitment.  You might want to cull the CS, but I assume you think teachers, police, doctors, nurses etc are worthwhile and necessary?

And finally, some existing members would drop out due to reduced future benefits. Again you might think ‘good’, but it’d mean that next year you only get £50m to divvy up, £40m the next etc, so you’d have to be culling benefits each year until there was no pension at all. Again, you might say ‘good’. 
 

I’m not saying that your principle of having a funded scheme is wrong, but changing to one overnight definitely is. It has to be done over a longer time period, more like 40 years. 

[Phillip Dearden]

8 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I’m not saying that your principle of having a funded scheme is wrong, but changing to one overnight definitely is. It has to be done over a longer time period, more like 40 years. 

A funded scheme would be great but the transition is difficult.

If you started one today and moved all the CS/PS onto it, then for 30+ years you would have to funds the scheme (current contributions) and pay pensions out of other revenue. Thus, in time we might get to a good place but for most of our lives, the cash-flow burden is doubled.

This is the sort of thing to start when revenue's are healthy.

[sir nige]

15 minutes ago, wrighty said:

That would work, assuming there were no knock-on consequences of reducing everyone’s pension to 60% of its current value, and every future pensioner having their projection reduced to 60% for the same level of contribution. 
 

Firstly I think there would be legal challenges, both from existing and future pensioners.  Even if won, these would be costly. 
 

Secondly, you’d depress GDP. With £40m less circulating round the economy some businesses would close. In an economy our size this is not an insignificant sum. 
 

Thirdly, such a massive reduction in future pension benefits would adversely affect recruitment.  You might want to cull the CS, but I assume you think teachers, police, doctors, nurses etc are worthwhile and necessary?

And finally, some existing members would drop out due to reduced future benefits. Again you might think ‘good’, but it’d mean that next year you only get £50m to divvy up, £40m the next etc, so you’d have to be culling benefits each year until there was no pension at all. Again, you might say ‘good’. 
 

I’m not saying that your principle of having a funded scheme is wrong, but changing to one overnight definitely is. It has to be done over a longer time period, more like 40 years. 

while payments would drop in the short term, the return on investments would push it back up......

canada changed the law to do this.....no reason iomg couldn't.....

or wait until the money runs out and they get sod all anyway.......

[Kopek]

Pensions are a legal and moral obligation.

Services will be cut before pensions are not paid.

[Donald Trumps]

I would speculate on there being some resistance if health spending were cut to fund the PSPR instead

[Numbnuts]

18 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

I would speculate on there being some resistance if health spending were cut to fund the PSPR instead

Ohhh I agree ...especially as there's money getting  wasted it would seem daily by different Departments . And how many millions on consultants reports that are just left in the shelf . Oh then there's DOI ! 

[sir nige]

44 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Pensions are a legal and moral obligation.

 

nothing in life is guaranteed.......

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

Pensions are a legal and moral obligation.

So should be the governance, management and funding of their liquidity.

NOR should it be legal to flagrantly disregard a brewing unsustainability situation. And then dumping the financial liability on the taxpayer when it's FINALLY admitted that there's a problem.

[GD4ELI]

1 hour ago, sir nige said:

while payments would drop in the short term, the return on investments would push it back up......

canada changed the law to do this.....no reason iomg couldn't.....

or wait until the money runs out and they get sod all anyway.......

You've never provided a link to this claim about Canada, also i am 101% sure the IOM gov. would lose any legal challenge.

[Kopek]

22 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

So should be the governance, management and funding of their liquidity.

NOR should it be legal to flagrantly disregard a brewing unsustainability situation. And then dumping the financial liability on the taxpayer when it's FINALLY admitted that there's a problem.

That's a Political obligation? For MHKs to protect us citizens from the fallout of past stupidities?

[Donald Trumps]

Would an Auditor General ensure political footballs aren't forever kicked down the road?

[Kopek]

The AG. , financial as opposed to legal, would highly likely only be allowed to look into current or future expenditure, the PAC., who can do so, would probably, though jealously defending their position, would object to the AG usurping their power to do so.

It is a logical provision of oversight but politicians, more over Comin, may not want this?

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, Kopek said:

That's a Political obligation? For MHKs to protect us citizens from the fallout of past stupidities?

No. For the protection of citizens from the fallout of past stupidities and short term self interest of MHKs.

Because that's what has got us into this fine mess, Stanley.