United Ireland Poll - please vote

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

can you do the honours seeing as you're making the statement.

No problem. This guy wrote this in response to Doyle's paper;

First, Doyle’s argument with regard to pensions is based in part on the view
that through payments of social insurance and taxes, individuals accrue entitlements to pensions and that it would be expected that the UK government would honour these entitlements. Doyle makes the point that public pensionsin the UK and Ireland are not funded and instead are pay-as-you-go. He also concedes that the UK government would have a reasonable point if they were to ask the Irish authorities to take over this responsibility because of the lack of pre-funding. Doyle seems to argue that, on balance, the UK would continue to pay but I am simply not so sure. I think it is a more likely outcome that the UK government would look at the fiscal balance in aggregate and seek to negotiate a settlement whereby they might continue to pay part of the pensions bill in exchange, for example, for accepting all liability for the UK national debt.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.3318/isia.2021.32b.31.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A4ce6a644a5eb2e740d26e3bd098f4274

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

No problem. This guy wrote this in response to Doyle's paper;

First, Doyle’s argument with regard to pensions is based in part on the view
that through payments of social insurance and taxes, individuals accrue entitlements to pensions and that it would be expected that the UK government would honour these entitlements. Doyle makes the point that public pensionsin the UK and Ireland are not funded and instead are pay-as-you-go. He also concedes that the UK government would have a reasonable point if they were to ask the Irish authorities to take over this responsibility because of the lack of pre-funding. Doyle seems to argue that, on balance, the UK would continue to pay but I am simply not so sure. I think it is a more likely outcome that the UK government would look at the fiscal balance in aggregate and seek to negotiate a settlement whereby they might continue to pay part of the pensions bill in exchange, for example, for accepting all liability for the UK national debt.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.3318/isia.2021.32b.31.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A4ce6a644a5eb2e740d26e3bd098f4274

Problem. That's a reference to someone's opinion. Can you post up a link to where the UK is not obliged to pay pensions to people that paid National Insurance contributions?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

No problem. This guy wrote this in response to Doyle's paper;

First, Doyle’s argument with regard to pensions is based in part on the view
that through payments of social insurance and taxes, individuals accrue entitlements to pensions and that it would be expected that the UK government would honour these entitlements. Doyle makes the point that public pensionsin the UK and Ireland are not funded and instead are pay-as-you-go. He also concedes that the UK government would have a reasonable point if they were to ask the Irish authorities to take over this responsibility because of the lack of pre-funding. Doyle seems to argue that, on balance, the UK would continue to pay but I am simply not so sure. I think it is a more likely outcome that the UK government would look at the fiscal balance in aggregate and seek to negotiate a settlement whereby they might continue to pay part of the pensions bill in exchange, for example, for accepting all liability for the UK national debt.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.3318/isia.2021.32b.31.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A4ce6a644a5eb2e740d26e3bd098f4274

So just because you like the cut of his/her jib, that is what will happen? Really?

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

Problem. That's a reference to someone's opinion. Can you post up a link to where the UK is not obliged to pay pensions to people that paid National Insurance contributions?

Here is another;

Most public pension systems operate on a pay-as-you-go basis. This means
that pensions paid to current pensioners are financed from contributions paid
by current workers



https://ifs.org.uk/economic_review/fp184.pdf

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Problem. That's a reference to someone's opinion. Can you post up a link to where the UK is not obliged to pay pensions to people that paid National Insurance contributions?

Also, as has been pointed out the UK continues to pay pensions to expats, and those that were never British. What makes anyone think they can discriminate against those living in the present NI that will be allowed to retain British citizenship. Fantasy thinking. Pure fantasy.

Plus, the Irish lobby in the US would spill more than British tea into the harbour if the British tried this lark.

So, no. You can forget that fantasy.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So just because you like the cut of his/her jib, that is what will happen? Really?

Where did I say that?

I said SF and Doyle think that they will pay it but that there is no legal obligation. The other guy thinks that they might not in the event of Scottish independence.

I've no idea if they will or not but I think there is a moral obligation even if there is no legal one.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, as has been pointed out the UK continues to pay pensions to expats, and those that were never British. What makes anyone think they can discriminate against those living in the present NI that will be allowed to retain British citizenship. Fantasy thinking. Pure fantasy.

Plus, the Irish lobby in the US would spill more than British tea into the harbour if the British tried this lark.

So, no. You can forget that fantasy.

I'd imagine the Unionist fraternity, not confident of the success of a UI will exert pressure to have the British pay them too.

That's just an 'opinion' - it hasn't miraculously gotten a blessing and become fact.

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, as has been pointed out the UK continues to pay pensions to expats, and those that were never British. What makes anyone think they can discriminate against those living in the present NI that will be allowed to retain British citizenship. Fantasy thinking. Pure fantasy.

Plus, the Irish lobby in the US would spill more than British tea into the harbour if the British tried this lark.

So, no. You can forget that fantasy.

Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. The subvention (which includes pension obligation or otherwise) is only a minor part of the cost of an investment in a United Ireland.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Here is another;

Most public pension systems operate on a pay-as-you-go basis. This means
that pensions paid to current pensioners are financed from contributions paid
by current workers



https://ifs.org.uk/economic_review/fp184.pdf

What makes you think the pay as you go system doesn't have a legal obligation to future pensioners? Just because the physical money from Peter is paid to Paul, what makes you think the UK doesn't have a future obligation to Peter?

and

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, as has been pointed out the UK continues to pay pensions to expats, and those that were never British. What makes anyone think they can discriminate against those living in the present NI that will be allowed to retain British citizenship. Fantasy thinking. Pure fantasy.

Plus, the Irish lobby in the US would spill more than British tea into the harbour if the British tried this lark.

So, no. You can forget that fantasy.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd imagine the Unionist fraternity, not confident of the success of a UI will exert pressure to have the British pay them too.

That's just an 'opinion' - it hasn't miraculously gotten a blessing and become fact.

Francie, please point out which post where I presented this as a fact?

(well apart from that it is a fact that there is no legal obligation)

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

What makes you think the pay as you go system doesn't have a legal obligation to future pensioners? Just because the physical money from Peter is paid to Paul, what makes you think the UK doesn't have a future obligation to Peter?

and

Well it's the law according to the experts. Your pension isn't ring fenced your you.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Well it's the law according to the experts. Your pension isn't ring fenced your you.

The same will go for anyone paid a pension from the UK government. They may stop paying pensions in the future, but they cannot say, we'll pay Clive in Essex and and not Willie junior from Londonderry.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, please point out which post where I presented this as a fact?

(well apart from that it is a fact that there is no legal obligation)

You are ignoring questions and requests for backup from CW. You are trying to leave it out there and are blocking a proper discussion of it as a possibility.

You must think posters are foolish?

Shebean

jh79 wrote: »

As I said to the other poster, the legal position is they don't have to.

I though the same as you guys but the economists say it's a common misconception among the general public that their pension is ring fenced and protected. Probably the exact same situation here too.

You can live abroad and receive your UK pension.
You are guessing that the UK might renege on the pensions of people who paid into it for their working lives. I believe less than ten years means no pension. Basically if you have paid in enough you are due and you can live where you like.
Private pensions would remain as is I would imagine.
These are the kind of things need laying out before we can hazard a guess at the cost of a UI. Throwing out ifs and buts is fun to discuss but not provable at this point.

Shebean

Shebean wrote: »

You can live abroad and receive your UK pension.
You are guessing that the UK might renege on the pensions of people who paid into it for their working lives. I believe less than ten years means no pension. Basically if you have paid in enough you are due and you can live where you like.
Private pensions would remain as is I would imagine.
These are the kind of things need laying out before we can hazard a guess at the cost of a UI. Throwing out ifs and buts is fun to discuss but not provable at this point.

I think we can start off with the point of view that the UK will honour pensions that it has done in the past and will do in the future, at the same rate to its citizens. As it has done in the past. It's fantasy to think otherwise. A fantasy some are readily willing to cling to.

As I said above, I've more faith in the UK than unionists.

jh79

Shebean wrote: »

You can live abroad and receive your UK pension.
You are guessing that the UK might renege on the pensions of people who paid into it for their working lives. I believe less than ten years means no pension. Basically if you have paid in enough you are due and you can live where you like.
Private pensions would remain as is I would imagine.
These are the kind of things need laying out before we can hazard a guess at the cost of a UI. Throwing out ifs and buts is fun to discuss but not provable at this point.

As I said, I was surprised when I found out too. It's the same here too.

But Doyle has said it irrelevant anyways as it's not the significant part of the investment.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are ignoring questions and requests for backup from CW. You are trying to leave it out there and are blocking a proper discussion of it as a possibility.

You must think posters are foolish?

I gave him the back up

https://ifs.org.uk/economic_review/fp184.pdf

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

As I said, I was surprised when I found out too. It's the same here too.

But Doyle has said it irrelevant anyways as it's not the significant part of the investment.

Tortoise debating.
Make a claim, when it is rubbished retreat into your shell claiming it isn't important anyway.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

As I said, I was surprised when I found out too. It's the same here too.

And it's not relevant. IF the UK stops paying pensions then nobody gets them. If the UK does (barring an asteroid hitting) pay pensions to its citizens it will pay to those that paid into the scheme in equal measure, as it has done in the past, as it currently does. That it might stop that in the future is... what's the word... yes, fantasy. That's the word. Fantasy.

Shebean

jh79 wrote: »

As I said, I was surprised when I found out too. It's the same here too.

But Doyle has said it irrelevant anyways as it's not the significant part of the investment.

It's significant enough to be used as a roadblock by some.
I cannot see the UK government refusing to pay the pensions of people who fit the criteria for receiving it. While they are capable of anything, I agree, it's not worth putting in the mix as a possibility.

Shebean

Shebean wrote: »

It's significant enough to be used as a roadblock by some.
I cannot see the UK government refusing to pay the pensions of people who fit the criteria for receiving it. While they are capable of anything, I agree, it's not worth putting in the mix as a possibility.

Hopefully this has been put to bed... on this thread at least.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Tortoise debating.
Make a claim, when it is rubbished retreat into your shell claiming it isn't important anyway.

I've backed my claim up. There is no legal obligation. Check the link i've had to post twice! Out for a bit of revenge are we ?

Still, I can't see them not paying. Either way isn't going to have a huge impact on the cost of an investment in a United Ireland.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I've backed my claim up. There is no legal obligation. Check the link i've had to post twice! Out for a bit of revenge are we ?

Still, I can't see them not paying. Either way isn't going to have a huge impact on the cost of an investment in a United Ireland.

You presented it as a negative. Now you claim you can't see it happening. :rolleyes:

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You presented it as a negative. Now you claim you can't see it happening. :rolleyes:

Shifting the goal posts I see. Itching to get revenge.

I presented it as an alternative opinion from another expert.

I'm not sure as to whether its a legal obligation or not. I don't think it can be said definitely there's no legal obligation. It would have to be tested in the courts.

What we do know is that it would be electoral suicide for any government to stop paying pensions. Or if the circumstances were to arise for the UK government to stop paying pensions the UK's finances would have to be shattered.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Shifting the goal posts I see. Itching to get revenge.

I presented it as an alternative opinion from another expert.

Flattering yourself won't cut it.

I hope this is the strategy come a BP, present arguments you don't really believe in and withdraw them when they are challenged. I see great success in that

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure as to whether its a legal obligation or not. I don't think it can be said definitely there's no legal obligation. It would have to be tested in the courts.

What we do know is that it would be electoral suicide for any government to stop paying pensions. Or if the circumstances were to arise for the UK government to stop paying pensions the UK's finances would have to be shattered.

I could guarantee it will be a disgruntled Unionist testing it too.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Flattering yourself won't cut it.

I hope this is the strategy come a BP, present arguments you don't really believe in and withdraw them when they are challenged. I see great success in that

Jaysus you really are hurting.

It was challenged and I backed it up. That is the situation according to 2 individual experts and a UK economic institute.

Doyle wasn't bothered and has promised a reply. Not an insecure Republican presumably.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And it's not relevant. IF the UK stops paying pensions then nobody gets them. If the UK does (barring an asteroid hitting) pay pensions to its citizens it will pay to those that paid into the scheme in equal measure, as it has done in the past, as it currently does. That it might stop that in the future is... what's the word... yes, fantasy. That's the word. Fantasy.

The point the expert was making was that paying for both NI and Scotland might lead to the British negotiating a lower sum. There is no legal obligation so obviously it's a possibility.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Jaysus you really are hurting.

It was challenged and I backed it up. That is the situation according to 2 individual experts and a UK economic institute.

Doyle wasn't bothered and has promised a reply. Not an insecure Republican presumably.

You backed away from it as unimportant when challenged. And stated you didn't believe it yourself.

Nobody hurting here but your cred.