Council docked government funding over ripped out bike lane

Not at all Rendel.

It is entirely true.

The equivalent of 20% of all council tax collected (many years ago) was spent on employer pension contributions.

Whether council tax receipts are an appropriate denominator is a matter for debate but it doesn't make the figures inaccurate or dishonest.

Rich_cb wrote:

Not at all Rendel. It is entirely true. The equivalent of 20% of all council tax collected (many years ago) was spent on employer pension contributions. Whether council tax receipts are an appropriate denominator is a matter for debate but it doesn't make the figures inaccurate or dishonest.

It would, and could, only be true if a council sequestered all council tax revenues in a separate account and only paid pensions out of said account. If all revenues (council tax, direct grant and business rates) go into the same account/system out of which pensions are paid then whilst it would be true to say that 10% of all council revenue goes on pensions, it's not true to say that 20% of all council tax does, that's the TPA creating a false metric in order to make the figure look at first glance, and as it would be reported in the Mail etc, twice as large as it actually is.

It is true to say that it is "equivalent to" 20% of council tax revenue.

The "equivalent to" is the crucial bit.

That's the exact phrase used in the report linked to by your good chum Nige.

Which is meaningless.

Although you say you have 'acknowledged it multiple times on this thread' you then go on to repeat this as though it is legitimate. Doesn't sound much of an acknowledgement and as per the Ipswich council example it is dishonest.

And with Ipswch spend at 149 M, then their salaries are going to be going on for 100M and certainly way above the 14.5 M council tax. 300% of your council tax goes on salaries. Doesn't make any sense at all.

Also ignores the tax base and hence the actual council tax at band D.  Just focusing on council tax raised without the base is another level of distortion.

Anyway this is all repetiton now, so unless something new comes up, I doubt I will make any more posts.

It's not dishonest at all.

It's perfectly legitimate to say that council pension contributions are "equivalent to" a fifth of all council tax revenues.

You may prefer the data presented in a different way but that is merely your opinion.

The figures are accurate and the comparison is accurate. It cannot therefore be dishonest.

Not it's not perfectly legitimate for all the reasons given.

Do you seriously think 'salaries are 500% of council tax' is in anyway meaningful, legitimate, equivalent.
Is is mere arthimetic - it conveys no meaning and ignores all the other points I have raised which you continue to ignore despite your claims of acknowledgement.

I think we're in agreement that the figures themselves are accurate we just disagree about the way in which they are presented.

I've acknowledged your points regarding this, I just don't happen to agree with them.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Rich_cb wrote:

Facts are facts regardless of who says them. Attacking the source of a an uncomfortable fact is usually just a tactic to avoid acknowledging said fact.

A "fact" is not an argument though is it?

Making an argument involves marshalling several facts. Some of which may be uncontested by both parties, some which may. It's also possible that something is true but not really relevant to what you're arguing about.

So we have:

"All councils have been cut to the bone due to unnecessary austerity the last 11 years"

and

"1 in every 5 pound spent in council tax goes on pensions"

These can both be true. It may be that councils could find some extra savings or reprioritise. It may be that they have little or no control over their contributions to current pensions. It may be that what the councils do is ultimately reliant on the level of funding from government. After all there are restrictions on them around borrowing and minimum levels of service.

As for the source - this is clearly an argument about policies and where resources are spend or provided. I'd say it was entirely relevant as to who is making the argument ("fact").

In this case markieteeee is merely pointing out that the organisation quoted has as its raison d'etre the ideological point that people should be paying much less tax. That sounds like a reasonable aim, agree or disagree. However this organisation have been accused of various tax / financial shenanigans (special pleading on their own behalf essentially - using public money for political purposes), have admitted lying to discredit their opponents (in court) and may be funded by - and principally for the benefit of - people with lots of money who don't want to pay the tax they're due. (Plenty of articles on that but of course that depends on your degree of trust in the BBC / the Guardian - you might question their credibility of course!) I think it's not unreasonable to question their motivations and general credibility. Unfortunately the "whofundsyou.org" website has now gone otherwise we could look there.

If anyone is still reading (unlikely) there are some graphs available!

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/local-government-funding-england

https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/cities-outlook-2019/a-decade-of-austerity/

I read to the end, chrisonatrike so don't despair. It's the perfect summation too.  Enjoy your Sunday.

NB lower down the thread you scoff at an astute comedic summary of the effects of austerity.  You did so because the comedian self-identifies as a Maoist and therefore is 'stupid'. "Attacking the source of a (sic) an uncomfortable fact is usually just a tactic to avoid acknowledging said fact."

However, in my reply to 'Garage at Large' I didn't say whether the 'fact' was true or not, as I haven't looked into it.  I merely pointed out that citing from a discredited source is not the way to persuade people.  Splitting hairs when defending a corrupt organisation is usually a tactic to avoid acknowledging your support for them.

Incorrect.

The summary of austerity is not astute.

It is completely flawed. It is stupid.

Adherents of Maosim have killed millions of people in attempting to implement it.

Anyone stupid enough to be a Maoist despite this is also likely to make statements on other topics that are stupid.

As they did in this situation.

I haven't defended the TPA as an entity. I've defended the validity of this particular set of figures. This may simply be an example of the 'stopped clock' principle but from my reading of the report it appears their figures are sound on this occasion.

You have dismissed the figures based on your distrust of the organisation stating them, this is a common logical fallacy and is frequently deployed by people on all parts of the political spectrum.

Rich_cb wrote:

Incorrect. The summary of austerity is not astute. It is completely flawed. It is stupid. Adherents of Maosim have killed millions of people in attempting to implement it. Anyone stupid enough to be a Maoist despite this is also likely to make statements on other topics that are stupid. As they did in this situation. I haven't defended the TPA as an entity. I've defended the validity of this particular set of figures. This may simply be an example of the 'stopped clock' principle but from my reading of the report it appears their figures are sound on this occasion. You have dismissed the figures based on your distrust of the organisation stating them, this is a common logical fallacy and is frequently deployed by people on all parts of the political spectrum.

I quoted this because I found it funny. Like most funny things that's because of the element of truth in it.

Think this is a bit of a dead cat here.

I'm not aware that Alexei Sayle has killed anyone - although he may have caused some to corpse. Nor has he (much as he may wish) unseated or even influenced any government that I'm aware of.

The TPA have done illegal things - that's a matter of legal record. To me it looks more like they're trying to liberate "some people" than "the people" from "excessive tax".

Maoists, communists, right-wing governments and indeed dictators of all the dimensions of the political spectrum (not sure what the term is for a multi-dimensional spectrum?) have killed millions - either through targetted action or more or less directly by their policies. Non-governmental organisations and companies large and small have also been responsible for plenty of death andinjury and theft of resources in the pursuit of wealth or influence.

Anyway, back to where we started. As you say, our original fact may be true. It may be not. It's just one point though and I'm not sure it's entirely relevant to the "councils have had their funding reduced" point at the start of this interesting digression.

I'm sure there's waste in councils and that they could spend their money better, just as I'm sure that the last few governments have substantially cut their funding, and that rich people and organisations work quite hard to reduce their quota of tax or simply avoid it one way or another.

I'd like people to pay a fair amount for things - like cars, or profits made - that affect or benefit from the "common" resources which we all pay for via tax. I'd like the government and councils to look at their priorities when it comes to transport and prioritise private motor transport less. (I think it's too much to hope that they would prioritise other forms of transport over cars at the moment).

chrisonatrike wrote:

Maoists, communists, right-wing governments and indeed dictators of all the dimensions of the political spectrum (not sure what the term is for a multi-dimensional spectrum?)

The political palette?

(Although some of them are rather less than palatable.)

The flaw in the joke is that there is no element of truth to it.

It relies on the false premise that the targets for 'austerity' were chosen based on their responsibility for the financial crisis.

Rich_cb wrote:

The flaw in the joke is that there is no element of truth to it. It relies on the false premise that the targets for 'austerity' were chosen based on their responsibility for the financial crisis.

Maybe just me then - I think that's exactly what makes it funny.  I can certainly agree that the targets for austerity were nothing to do with those responsible for the crisis! We had the crisis (in no way anything to do with librarians and little to do with local councils), the banks tanked, they were backed by the governments, the taxpayer ultimately footed the bill. (Maybe the taxpayer's alliance should be calling for stronger regulation of the financial sector too?) I do believe a banker or two might have had to hand back a gong / lost a bonus so they suffered too... As a result in 2010 the government at the time chose to cut spending on services in line with a particular ideology and that mostly ended up affecting the "man in the street". (A paper from 2011 on the effects / responses of local authorities here)

Jokes aren't funny if you have to explain them though!

In another example of the 'stopped clock' principle, I liked one of your posts on another thread earlier. Something where someone was seemingly defending allowing people to keep their license when they've killed people, as it might disrupt their lives.  I enjoyed your reply.

NB just to repeat, I said "Citing another source should be easy; and preferable; and won't look like you (or 'Garage at Large') endorse corruption." It was a proposal that people choose their sources with care if they wish to persuade people. But I'm glad, even in among your determination to get one over on people/ defend the GaL, you don't defend the TPA. 

Given that the figures in question appear to be from TPA's own research an alternative source may not be available.

If you dismiss those figures out of hand then, in this situation, you deny yourself useful facts on which to base an opinion.

Rich_cb wrote:

Facts are facts regardless of who says them.

Attacking the source of a an uncomfortable fact is usually just a tactic to avoid acknowledging said fact.

"Trains that run on time are really very useful" B Mussolini, 1938.

The factual basis of the quotation is undeniable. I'd still suggest using a more recent and less contentious source.

Sounds reasonable to me. Many council jobs are low paid and thankless. Why shouldn't they have a decent retirement?
The reason defined benefit pensions got into trouble in the first place was crappy private sector companies low balling their funding. Then you had the Maxwell effect. 

Actually public sector pay is roughly 10% better than private pay and gives a better pension at retirement too, certainly based upon a typical working week.

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

Actually public sector pay is roughly 10% better than private pay and gives a better pension at retirement too, certainly based upon a typical working week.

I'd be interested to know the basis of that assertion. It's certainly not true in the fields of medicine, law or education.

I'd say it's more like admin and non professional staff are paid more and professional staff are paid less.

There is also an absurd culture of unpaid overtime in this country which may affect the private sector more.

Well, that is true if you look at the general population. However, if you compare basic salaries of private and public sector jobs that require equivalent skills and education, then the private sector is over 20% better paid. The public sector pensions close about a third of the gap.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

Actually public sector pay is roughly 10% better than private pay and gives a better pension at retirement too, certainly based upon a typical working week.

I'd be interested to know the basis of that assertion. It's certainly not true in the fields of medicine, law or education.

And it doesn't take into account the higher proportion of other public sector jobs that require graduate and post graduate degrees. For any public sector role, it's comparable private sector role is likely to be better paid. 

is that the case though overall ? I thought most public sector workers were on the same kinds of defined contribution pensions thesedays, those already employed might not have been forced to accept the worse conditions that came along, as private sector workers were, but they are a declining workforce in size

In the main, they ate still defined benefit but based on average salary over working life.

hirsute wrote:

In the main, they ate still defined benefit but based on average salary over working life.

as it should be, someone who gets a promotion and big pay rise in thier last year of working should not see their pension fund immediately increase in size proportionally. why should they recieve a pension top up over colleagues that have paid just as much, or more in over the years.

You can't quote that Alexei Sayle line too much: "Austerity is the idea that the 2008 financial crash was caused by Wolverhampton having too many libraries." (I'm happy to conceed that he is not just a Maxist but indeed a Maoist as he says he still is).

If he is indeed a Maoist then it's not surprising he made such a stupid statement.

Pensions are part of the cost of employment. The cost of employment is a significant proportion of any organisation, public or private. To isolate one particular line on the cost ledger is to misunderstand what you're talking about. But I'd expect that of the blinkered TPA.