I believe that’s called communism
The budget.
- Thread starter Computer_Fox
- Start date
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
Before taking into account the state pension (and in many cases even taking it into account) many if not most people - some by choice - will probably end up retiring on less than half of what they earnt at the end of their working lives and in many cases won't have had the resources to pay into additional personal pensions even if they wanted to.
Of course not, I never suggested they would (well, apart from any work related expenses which would) but pension planning isn't just about working out what you might get but what you need and, if you're lucky, what you want (and then if you have defined contribution pensions having done that, gambling on how long you might have on this mortal coil and whether stock markets, interest rates, bonds, annuity rates, inflation & taxes are going to go up, down or sideways... even if you don't realise that "gambling" is exactly what you are doing, though of course regardless of type of pension we're all betting to an extent on what governments will do too). And if you are really lucky you'll be able to retire when you plan to.
I just don't really see why high earning civil servants cannot take on some risk themselves rather than having it all guaranteed from the public purse.
Anyway, there are much bigger conversations that need to be had regarding taxation and spending but it will never happen and we will continue to fiddle around the edges whilst we, as individuals, will just generally be hoping that we aren't too adversely impacted by any changes.
courtslcfc
The Leper of the board.
They hate pubs.
Simple, lower pub taxes (beer tax, business rates, etc), more people spending, more people in jobs, less businesses shutting down.
Raise shop alcohol taxes, make it less affordable to get shit faced at home.
My corner shop has San Miguel on sale 4 pint cans for £8. You can't buy a pint and a pinot in the pub for less than that these days, especially when you can buy two bottles for £8.
Simple, lower pub taxes (beer tax, business rates, etc), more people spending, more people in jobs, less businesses shutting down.
Raise shop alcohol taxes, make it less affordable to get shit faced at home.
My corner shop has San Miguel on sale 4 pint cans for £8. You can't buy a pint and a pinot in the pub for less than that these days, especially when you can buy two bottles for £8.
I would agree on this point but it's hardly a significant thing in terms of cost to the tax payer. You're talking pretty small numbers.
The average civil service pension is about £10k a year. A quarter of all existing civil servants earn the living wage or less.
There is definitely scope to make savings from high earners in the public sector generally but I can't see any government trying it. Just look at the doctors on strike at the moment for something far less significant.
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
Yes, I am sure in the vast scheme of things it isn't huge but that isn't a reason not to look into it because...
Whilst it wasn't specifically what I was talking about, the same questions on overall affordability that has led to the changes to the civil service schemes over the years will continue. The significant rise in employer contribution rate (i.e. tax income) over the years suggests (unsurprisingly given that the same pressures led to all but the death of defined benefit pensions in the private sector) that the pressure on the affordability of pension benefits is only increasing.
Which is why I was talking about "the unstated deal" in the earlier post and why the focus was on higher earners (and why I am not talking about civil servants as a whole though the affordability question will affect all). I assume though that the average civil service pension reflects not only those on lower salaries but that, as with the world of work generally, there is far more mobility than in the past (whether through cost cutting or personal choice).
Sure but that speaks to my final point regarding the more important conversations that will never happen even though I wasn't specifically talking about high earners in the public sector. It is a much, much, much, much bigger conversation than that.
Last edited:
Billsballbag
Roofer
What will change is the introduction of AI. It will replace the need for a lot of the professional classes within the state sector who are basically undertaking intellectual processing tasks.
They are a closed shop with no competition and significant union influence. AI isn't. It won't want to work part time, it won't strike, it doesn't need (and under appreciate the benefit of) an indexed link and very generous pension.
The lanyard class will be less influential and less costly in future.
The "resident" doctors are a case in point. Having had a vast increase in salary they are out to strike again. They are ideological and out of touch. They use arbitrary dates to suit their argument and questionable inflation data to support it. They are trainees and heavily unionised. Public support has drastically reduced and in the next decade AI will replace a significant number of roles.
They are a closed shop with no competition and significant union influence. AI isn't. It won't want to work part time, it won't strike, it doesn't need (and under appreciate the benefit of) an indexed link and very generous pension.
The lanyard class will be less influential and less costly in future.
The "resident" doctors are a case in point. Having had a vast increase in salary they are out to strike again. They are ideological and out of touch. They use arbitrary dates to suit their argument and questionable inflation data to support it. They are trainees and heavily unionised. Public support has drastically reduced and in the next decade AI will replace a significant number of roles.
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
And, if that is the case, in the private sector too so, yes, the tax burden may decrease but so will the tax take across the board.
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
And, I should add, what does that all mean for the population as a whole? We know the rich don't want to pay more tax so we'll have decreasing tax income, increasing numbers of people needing financial support as they get older but no money to pay for it (though at least there should be more people available to provide care if only they could be paid!).
The six local authorities that breached the cap on council tax increases spent a combined £270m on gold-plated pensions last year, official figures show.
Somerset, Windsor and Maidenhead, Trafford, Birmingham, Newham and Bradford all received government permission to exceed the limit, before hitting ratepayers with rises of between 7.5pc and 10pc for 2025-26.
However, they collected a total of £1.7bn in council tax during 2024-25 and spent the equivalent of 16pc of it on pension contributions for staff.
Somerset, Windsor and Maidenhead, Trafford, Birmingham, Newham and Bradford all received government permission to exceed the limit, before hitting ratepayers with rises of between 7.5pc and 10pc for 2025-26.
However, they collected a total of £1.7bn in council tax during 2024-25 and spent the equivalent of 16pc of it on pension contributions for staff.
Billsballbag
Roofer
The private sector is far more dynamic and receptive to change and will benefit much more from the job creation that will come with that change rather than be affected by the demise in the status quo. Meanwhile it wasn't long ago that the NHS was the worlds biggest purchaser of fax machines.
Despite the doomsayers about the state of the nation we still have the most robust legal and financial sector on the planet which creates a stability that assists innovation and job creation, plus a strong albeit bloated University sector.
However, the old white collar professions will see a dramatic shift albeit I'm yet to hear of many people who think that a reduction in the number of lawyers and accountants is what keeps them awake at night.
The private sector is good at creative destruction due to competitive market dynamics. The main reason those market forces have failed to produce a rise in productivity over the last 15 years is the disaster of zero interest rate policy keeping companies alive on cheap debt despite them being well past their sell by date.
The public sector hangs on to the past with sepia tinted eyes because it can do. That is about to change in my view as AI competes with the state workforce and produces better results.
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
Ignoring the fact that your post ironically reads like it was written by AI, I am interested to understand what types of jobs you feel will be created by the widespread adoption of AI against those that will go? I am sure there will be some job creation as a result but I feel that the prospect of fundamental changes to the job market is much larger than even, for example, outsourcing and we shouldn't be complacent.
Probably because a load of angry people were complaining about the cost of deploying a modern solution compared to the cost of fax machines or who had insisted money was saved by entering into long term purchasing agreements.
If current competitive market dynamics were that, erm, dynamic then the market would have seen the end of those companies irrespective of cheap debt. In short there is a more fundamental issue.
From what I can see that has an element of truth in it but I think that it is also true that increasingly the public sector follows the lead of the private sector (i.e. it does change & evolve) just not as effectively (because it doesn't have the same drivers) & not as quickly. But also worth mentioning the obvious that the Public Sector is huge with many different operating models and it is inherently problematic talking about the practices across it as if it is a single organisation except when discussing those elements that share characteristics.
astleyfox
Roofer
I’d jack in tomorrow.
Billsballbag
Roofer
My view is that zero interest rates caused a lot more issues than your view. They were un-precedented and kept crap business' alive for a decade not allowing better smaller business' to grow and compete.
In regard to AI job creation, it could help assist a number of growing industries by charging up innovation not yet mature, life sciences being one. It will decimate the need for certain traditional roles and have absolutely no impact on others whatsoever. But other things will emerge, just like every other time a game changing event game along going back to the industrial revolution.
It could be a naive view but in the last decade the number of ridiculous jobs created by social media is a case in point.
In regard to AI job creation, it could help assist a number of growing industries by charging up innovation not yet mature, life sciences being one. It will decimate the need for certain traditional roles and have absolutely no impact on others whatsoever. But other things will emerge, just like every other time a game changing event game along going back to the industrial revolution.
It could be a naive view but in the last decade the number of ridiculous jobs created by social media is a case in point.
My bit of the public sector is very actively looking to apply AI - it's something that has come up very quickly. I remain a little sceptical about it generally (not just in the public sector) as I think it will take some time and experience (and plenty of wrong turns, dead ends, etc) before different sectors work out where the real impact and value of AI will be. That's not to say it shouldn't be pursued, but the benefits will take longer to come than claimed (and often not be in the expected areas).
I'd be interested to know where you (Bill) and others think the big impact of AI is going to be (and how).
mac
369
We won’t know us arse from us elbow in a social setting.
Work wise, it will obviously change everything, like you say, it’s all happening so quick. Yer fucked.
I recommend the podcast called 'The Last Invention'. Somewhat scary but extremely well informed and produced.
Yeah but a lot of the "so quick" is gong to turn out to be wrong, unhelpful or even harmful, I reckon, which is then going to need some unpicking and redoing - that's what I mean about us all being in the early stages of figuring out what to do with this. We've had social media, broadly defined, for, what, 20 years or so? - and we still don't quite know how to use it for the best, the ideas of it have changed massively since it first came along. That's not just a matter of engineering, it's about people and community and organisations and society etcWe won’t know us arse from us elbow in a social setting.
Work wise, it will obviously change everything, like you say, it’s all happening so quick. Yer fucked.
Billsballbag
Roofer
Social media is pretty toxic and can only do so many things. AI is basically the Rolls Royce of search engines. It is already helping all sorts of people with analysis, fact findings, writing job descriptions etc. You can look up case law, give it hypothetical situations to provide answers to professional negotiations and all sorts. I know teachers who use it for lesson planning, architects who are using it for designs a real mix.
The more you detail what you need the better the output. And it's rapid. It will lead to the requirement for a lot less people in the traditional professions. The public sector will resist the change but it will cut down the need for such a large and expensive civil service. Services like GP surgeries in the NHS and radiography are likely to also become a lot more efficient.
The more you detail what you need the better the output. And it's rapid. It will lead to the requirement for a lot less people in the traditional professions. The public sector will resist the change but it will cut down the need for such a large and expensive civil service. Services like GP surgeries in the NHS and radiography are likely to also become a lot more efficient.
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
"AI slop is low-quality, mass-produced content generated by AI that floods the internet with a lack of substance or value. This includes text, images, and videos, often created to game algorithms for profit, and can be considered a form of advanced online spam. While not always harmful, it can spread misinformation and create digital clutter, making it harder to find genuine human-generated content."
At least it proves AI sometimes works.
At least it proves AI sometimes works.
Adumass
Bentleys Roofer
That's not my experience is chatgpt, copilot or Gemini. Often gives me incorrect results, based on something it's scraped from Reddit.
Clearly has potential, but nowhere near ready yet to start replacing people en masse. How quickly they close that gap, who knows?
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
Businesses are already replacing people with AI hoping to cut costs. AI that is based on Internet content will in all likelihood be shit because, well, any old idiot can post any old bollocks on the internet (including in things like Wikipedia.... less said about other sites [not thinking of any in particular *ahem*] the better). But beyond that (and to SteveYork's point) there is already & will be lots of missteps. Any experience with what these days is called "talent acquisition" should convince anybody of that.
soupsandwich
Roofer
10/15 mins goofing about with any AI and it's obvious limitations are apparent. However as a disinformation tool it is an expert.
Computer_Fox
Registered
artificial intelligence and robotics fed by server farms
If you do a quick search on YouTube of the best robots of 2025 you will eventually fall in and realise, ahem ahem Jeff Bezzos robots and Ai will be running Amazon soon.
Self driving delivery trucks and a robot walking the delivery to the door.
If you do a quick search on YouTube of the best robots of 2025 you will eventually fall in and realise, ahem ahem Jeff Bezzos robots and Ai will be running Amazon soon.
Self driving delivery trucks and a robot walking the delivery to the door.
Billsballbag
Roofer
The speed at which it is developing and evolving is pretty impressive and it will probably become much better at a lot of things very quickly.
It depends what you use it for. There are other technologies that are rapidly taking off as well. You're GP will likely be your watch within 15 years.
Me and buzz work in roughly the same sector (software albeit different sections).
There are not many things i'm certain of but one thing is that AI can do some things very well and others terribly. It's the reason it is incorrectly named as there is no intelligence behind it, it is data mining with rules. It has very specific applications at present (one of the best being tedious data and statistical analysis in science and medicine) but as usual is being sold as a universal panacea to middle managers who want to cut their bottom line and don't know any better.
Ironically one the things AI could do very well is higher level management jobs which are often interpreting spreadsheet data and making/tweaking policy based on it. but you'll never see the VP and C suite turkeys voting for christmas.
if you want to have a laugh or a cry read these two books.
'bullshit jobs' by David Graeber which posits that capitalism has to create worthless jobs (up to 50% of the workforce) to self perpetuate itself without which the system would collapse as not enough people would be working and contributing taxes to keep everything afloat. To keep the population credulous it then attaches yr self worth to your job so you don't think you're wasting your time.
'The big myth' by naomi oreskes and erik conway. it talks of how business elites, power brokers and trade associations have pushed the idea for over a century that big govt is bad and the free markets can solve all problems, and how this has pervaded businiess and govt thinking with devastating results. there has never been a free market anywher ein history, every market is regulated to some extent, but the less regualtion the better for these folks. the result is declining corporate taxation ("your robbing us of our profits that could be reinvested in wages" when in reality it only gets invested in VP and C level pay raises and stock buybacks), and wealth concentration in the top 20% that has exacerbated since thatcher/reagan came to power. Milton Friedman instead of John Maynard Keynes. Fascinating.
There are not many things i'm certain of but one thing is that AI can do some things very well and others terribly. It's the reason it is incorrectly named as there is no intelligence behind it, it is data mining with rules. It has very specific applications at present (one of the best being tedious data and statistical analysis in science and medicine) but as usual is being sold as a universal panacea to middle managers who want to cut their bottom line and don't know any better.
Ironically one the things AI could do very well is higher level management jobs which are often interpreting spreadsheet data and making/tweaking policy based on it. but you'll never see the VP and C suite turkeys voting for christmas.
if you want to have a laugh or a cry read these two books.
'bullshit jobs' by David Graeber which posits that capitalism has to create worthless jobs (up to 50% of the workforce) to self perpetuate itself without which the system would collapse as not enough people would be working and contributing taxes to keep everything afloat. To keep the population credulous it then attaches yr self worth to your job so you don't think you're wasting your time.
'The big myth' by naomi oreskes and erik conway. it talks of how business elites, power brokers and trade associations have pushed the idea for over a century that big govt is bad and the free markets can solve all problems, and how this has pervaded businiess and govt thinking with devastating results. there has never been a free market anywher ein history, every market is regulated to some extent, but the less regualtion the better for these folks. the result is declining corporate taxation ("your robbing us of our profits that could be reinvested in wages" when in reality it only gets invested in VP and C level pay raises and stock buybacks), and wealth concentration in the top 20% that has exacerbated since thatcher/reagan came to power. Milton Friedman instead of John Maynard Keynes. Fascinating.
Everton Carr
Registered
You are wasted in this Country you really would love China
