IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Barlow]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Govt pensions? Funded by a growing blackhole? And what are those pensions spent on - where does that money go?

Well not foreign holidays, cruises and second homes in Cyprus/France/Romania etc.

I walk past Costa these days and see a sea of civil servants' faces, retired. Quietly and slowly supping from their cups. Heart rates slow, all muscles relaxed. Their bodies know no difference from the past 30-40 super-annuated years

[Andy Onchan]

31 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

That's a basic misunderstanding of the position and it's been explained before but clearly you haven't listened.

That number is an arbitrary actuarial number that basically says if we had to pay up every single pension liability of every scheme member(present and future payments until death), and we had to have the lot in a fund to do it today, how much are we short?

The answer is we will always " be short"  because there isn't a fund.  It's unfunded. At the same time there isn't ever going to be a scenario where we have to have it all available today.

The pertinent numbers are actually what it costs per year to fund and can it be met?.  That's all that really matters.  So that figure is the cost of that years liabilities, minus the contributions from employees.  Which is met from general revenue with a top up from reserves.

Clearly that is a slightly different discussion because there is a problem coming up there.   But the 4bn number is simply sensationalist rubbish. At best.

If the pensions were not paid the numbers wouldn't be arbitrary. Or have I got that wrong?

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

24 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

If the pensions were not paid the numbers wouldn't be arbitrary. Or have I got that wrong?

But it isnt a real situation is it?  It's the sum total of all liabilities that could possibly be due over the entire period for everyone.

That isn't real.  It can't ever happen.

[Andy Onchan]

3 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

But it isnt a real situation is it?  It's the sum total of all liabilities that could possibly be due over the entire period for everyone.

That isn't real.  It can't ever happen.

As I said, if you stopped paying it then you would soon find out if a liability existed or not. The lawyers would think all their Christmas' had come at once! 

[Lxxx]

6 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

But it isnt a real situation is it?  It's the sum total of all liabilities that could possibly be due over the entire period for everyone.

That isn't real.  It can't ever happen.

Likewise they are only IOU's. They can all be amended at the flick of a pen and it is in government's power to do so, if they should ever grow a pair large enough to address it. 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

Just now, Andy Onchan said:

As I said, if you stopped paying it then you would soon find out if a liability existed or not. The lawyers would think all their Christmas' had come at once! 

It's an immediate liability though that matters.

Look at it this way.  If I'm 30 I am currently paying for my old age pension. Which by that time will probably be granted to me at 70.  There is no requirement for it to be fully funded for me now.  It'll be funded by others. When I'm 70.

The 4bn deficit mentioned above just isn't a deficit.  The important numbers are actually how we meet the annual funding requirements which are going to take a while before they become more affordable based on the changed costs and conditions the scheme has now.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

52 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Well not foreign holidays, cruises and second homes in Cyprus/France/Romania etc.

I walk past Costa these days and see a sea of civil servants' faces, retired. Quietly and slowly supping from their cups. Heart rates slow, all muscles relaxed. Their bodies know no difference from the past 30-40 super-annuated years

Lol

[Non-Believer]

10 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

It's an immediate liability though that matters.

Look at it this way.  If I'm 30 I am currently paying for my old age pension. Which by that time will probably be granted to me at 70.  There is no requirement for it to be fully funded for me now.  It'll be funded by others. When I'm 70.

The 4bn deficit mentioned above just isn't a deficit.  The important numbers are actually how we meet the annual funding requirements which are going to take a while before they become more affordable based on the changed costs and conditions the scheme has now.

The growing £4Bn figure, as has been posted before on these boards, is indeed so large as to be meaningless; there will be no immediate draw on that total sum. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can be so blissfully discounted.

What does also very much exist is the equally unfunded millions going out every year now in current pension payouts which are increasing the deficit, with what passes for the ficticious "pot" due to deplete next year, at which point General Revenue becomes liable.

Which however you twist the words, is the taxpayer or possibly the NI fund being expected to bear the weight of these underfunded, under-or-non contributed pensions. This will be very interesting under the current financial scenario.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

30 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

The growing £4Bn figure, as has been posted before on these boards, is indeed so large as to be meaningless; there will be no immediate draw on that total sum. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can be so blissfully discounted.

What does also very much exist is the equally unfunded millions going out every year now in current pension payouts which are increasing the deficit, with what passes for the ficticious "pot" due to deplete next year, at which point General Revenue becomes liable.

Which however you twist the words, is the taxpayer or possibly the NI fund being expected to bear the weight of these underfunded, under-or-non contributed pensions. This will be very interesting under the current financial scenario.

I'm not twisting anything.  You're simple too twisted or wilfully obtuse to understand.  Phil Dearden has already explained it.

As explained, the figures you need to focus on are what is needed now, and each year in the medium term, and how is that funded from income.

What is clear is that when they published the breakdown of the pensions I seemed to recall the lions share is actually going to people who don't have enormous pensions.  Sub 10k per annum.(and many of those paid in super annuation for many years).

So there isn't a silver bullet to sort it.  There is a perception of thousands of people sat on 30k per annum plus incomes.  Which there isn't (although there are some).  So any measures to try and meet this will be via income to the government.  I.e from the taxpayer.

[Non-Believer]

16 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I'm not twisting anything.  You're simple too twisted or wilfully obtuse to understand.  Phil Dearden has already explained it.

As explained, the figures you need to focus on are what is needed now, and each year in the medium term, and how is that funded from income.

What is clear is that when they published the breakdown of the pensions I seemed to recall the lions share is actually going to people who don't have enormous pensions.  Sub 10k per annum.(and many of those paid in super annuation for many years).

So there isn't a silver bullet to sort it.  There is a perception of thousands of people sat on 30k per annum plus incomes.  Which there isn't (although there are some).  So any measures to try and meet this will be via income to the government.  I.e from the taxpayer.

I'm neither obtuse nor twisted (in fact, this suggestion is coming from a poster who was only three days ago "outed" by Roger Mexico over something of an obsession about the poster "Boredom" who actually departed these boards two years before you commenced your current trolling operation?  ).

The fact is that the Government's General Revenue or the NI fund will be expected to meet this commitment. As I have stated. That will be the silver bullet for the politicians.

I've made no comment or observation on the size of individual pensions. The picture is far bigger. To the tune of millions actually.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Non-Believer
Typo

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 minute ago, Non-Believer said:

I'm neither obtuse nor twisted (in fact, this suggestion is coming from a poster who was only three days ago "outed" over something of an obsession about the poster "Boredom" who actually departed these boards two years before you commenced your current trolling operation?  ).

The fact is that the Government's General Revenue or the NI fund will be expected to meet this commitment. As I have stated. That will be the silver bullet for the politicians.

I've made no comment or observation on the size of individual pensions. The picture is far bigger. To the tune of millions actually.

From memory Chris Thomas was on these boards when challenged about the NI fund and confirmed it wouldn't be touched?

Not that I massively care.  If it is over funded (which it may possibly be) I'm not that sure it matters.

I'm not completely sure what you're getting at regarding Boredom.  I've looked at the site long before I posted.  Many do (that's how everyone recognises you and 2112 must give each other a nudge) .  Being quick to identify the nutter behind Boredom and all his subsequent incarnations isn't obsessive. It's simply perceptive.

What trolling are you referring to?  Challenging your BS isn't trolling.

[Max Power]

Started separate thread.. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Max Power

[John Wright]

@The Dog's Dangly Bits and @Non-Believer take a break. You’re both trolling each other.

If anyone suspects a poster of being a boredom please report to the moderators with your reasoning. Otherwise shut up.

No sock puppet speculation allowed. Again, if convinced, report 

[Phillip Dearden]

15 hours ago, Barlow said:

There is a veritable shitload of money swilling about on this Island.

I reckon the Island can economically outlive any other economy in the world.

Foreign hols and those fucking cruises are well off the menu for a few years at least. What they gonna spend it on? What?

 

 

9 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

 

But how long is a closed loop economy sustainable for?

There is without doubt a bit of an internal boom going on at present. 

Not long.

Gladys was correct. You cannot base an economy on selling foreign made products to each other. Local service and support industries are important but there needs to be wealth creation. On the IOM most of the wealth creation is the export of Financial Services products (and some manufacturing) . Without that, the rest would not happen. Without outside contact, the relationships that facilitate those sales will degrade.

Thus, in the short-term Lockdown preserves our health and is required but it cannot persist long-term or the economy will decline.

 

[Barlow]

52 minutes ago, Phillip Dearden said:

 

Not long.

Gladys was correct. You cannot base an economy on selling foreign made products to each other. Local service and support industries are important but there needs to be wealth creation. On the IOM most of the wealth creation is the export of Financial Services products (and some manufacturing) . Without that, the rest would not happen. Without outside contact, the relationships that facilitate those sales will degrade.

Thus, in the short-term Lockdown preserves our health and is required but it cannot persist long-term or the economy will decline.

 

You are absolutely right of course. And so is Gladys. No one would doubt a word.

For a simple isle, say one of the Western Isle with a few hundred inhabitants, the model is obvious.

The Isle of Man has a lot of cash wealthy inhabitants. There is a lot of that cash sloshing about with not much to spend on just now, or in the near to medium future.

So . . other than "not long" could you hazard a ball park approximate stab in the dark guesstimate? 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Barlow