To be stressed out about pressure to strike

[peppapighastakenovermylife]

Without saying too much, my 'organisation' has announced strike action.

I really do not want to do it but feel awful at not. I wouldnt actually have to cross a picket line or anything (can simply work at home) but feel like I 'should' strike.

The strike is over our pensions. I understand the impact but feel that I can't worry about something now that will happen in probably 35 - 40 years time. I feel pretty lucky to even be able to afford to pay anything into a pension, let alone a company one. The returns are still better than other private pensions. However I understand why some are striking.

It is potentially two days strike. I cannot afford to lose that money. I am the main wage earner and just come off SMP. If I strike food will either be going on the credit card with no clear means of paying it off soon. There are more pressing issues such as redundancy, fuel costs, reductions in tax credits and so on looming. I feel like I need to worry about now rather than way in the future and do not have the 'luxury' that many well paid members of staff might have of not really noticing the loss of a days pay.

Would you strike? Have you gone on strike in the past? I am too 'young' (I wish ) to have really been in this situation before

I wouldn't be a union member because I have thousands of faults but hypocrisy is not one of them... similarly why I refuse to claim any type of tax credit, hb, JSA when out of work... I don't judge people but couldn't sleep at night.

I'm sorry to hear you've had these experiences, I didn't realise it was still an issue :(

Peppa - I love that you are a specialist in one field and no others, I take the piss hourly out of my lovely DP for knowing absolutely bugger all about most things in life despite being so brilliant in his chosen area. I think the best recent example was him not realising that the Arctic is not a continent like the Antarctic.

Erm....I would get on well with your DH it seems!!

Why can't you claim benefits when out of work?

Because I believe in a small state, I'm morally against the welfare state because I'm a committed Libertarian but I get that life doesn't work that way etc etc. I'd never judge anyone who uses the welfare state AT ALL but I know it goes against everything I've ever stood for, even academic interests (19thC libertarianism, property etc) and a genuine belief that taxation is theft. I know if I claimed benefits I'd be going against everything I've professed to believe and it would make me a huge hypocrite. Again... not judging people who do.

Its all very nice for these "hard earned grants" blah blah blah but think of we poor academics who are front line enough to be witheld from research.

Do you use the NHS happiestblonde?

Noble - I went to A&E once, every other health experience has been private. I was privately educated. This was my parent's decision not mine.

oops parents'

How did you feel about using A&E?

I was about 7 with a bleeding head. In pain I'd imagine. My mother did have a plastic surgeon flown down though for the stitching

Please do not twist me saying I would not take benefits if out of work to mean I oppose the NHS - the NHS is brilliant (but inefficient with huge need for reform) and the people who work for it are wonderful. My education and private health was because of my parents and I'm still covered by my father's health insurance... If I had to pay I'd be grateful for the NHS

I'm not twisting what you're saying, I'm trying to understand your position.

Isn't the welfare state like the NHS in that you pay your money in (taxation), and it's there when you need it?

I don't think it is the role of the state to provide the level of support it does. Nearly everyone uses the NHS, not so many rely on the welfare state. Either way, each to their own it's just against my personal principles so I've worked through my savings rather than claim any form of state support when out of work.

Happiestblonde - not sure what a libertarian is?? But i def believe in taxes. The NHS is amazing - not perfect, but good for someone like me who would have to pay massive premiums in a US-style health service. My foreign friends all have to pay full price on all meds inc life-saving basics like insulin. I didn't appreciate the NHS until my mental health diagnosis - i looked on US websites which advise people how they 'may' get help if they can't pay for meds. Back to striking - i also work for the NHS - if my union called a strike then my decision on strike action would rest on what is best for the patients and public, as well as my colleagues. In my job that's why we don't strike really. I would strike in defence of the NHS though and have signed petitions.

Student grants, child benefit, tax credits ... haven't most people taken money out of the pot at some point?

I don't think you're allowed to claim the dole if you've got a large stash of savings to work through anyway.

You don't think that it's the role of the state to provide a high level of support but you don't oppose the NHS? How do you reconcile the two?

Sorry for the questions, I am genuinely interested.

happiest you seem to have been in a very lucky position so far. Do you think you would have a different take on welfare would you have had a different start in life?

A libertarian is a believer in a small state which takes a laissez faire approach to governance. They believe in limited government intervention into the economy and society as a whole. I do see where happiest is coming from and she is following her principles through her actions.

Well byrel the problem is that the market won't provide where there is no chance of profit, and then where does that leave the needy and vulnerable? At the mercy of charity or philanthropy- a lottery situation and a return to the not especially 'golden age' of Edwardian or Victorian England.
I wonder in what way libertarians feel so oppressed by the state? seriously, what are you actually being prevented from doing? Trousering a few more quid each month? It sounds as if happiest at least is from a background where there was plenty to spare, even after taxation!
How much more me, me, me would libertarians like to be? We all live in this society together.

Libertarians tend to feel that tax is too high and that the government is too involved in the economy and that this harms enterprise. They also believe that there are too many laws and are often advocates for causes such decriminalisation of drugs

Being a libertarian sounds fine then... for those with lots of money!
I've always worked very hard. As a mortgage payer i'm now discovering how scary life is when you have to reduce your working hours (and wages) to save your health, yet the govt are cutting disability benefits.
But i'm lucky - i meet other CMHT clients who sleep on friends' sofas and can't get jobs at all. What would happen to these people in a no tax society??

A flat 10% - 20% tax could increase revenues as wealth moves to where tax rates are low so therefore the poor do better.

Xenia,

You do talk some rubbish. Firstly, has there been any meaningful evidence of the trickle down effect that you allude to in your post?

www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Income-inequality.html

If you see the above link, there is a great chart of U.s income growth by quintile 1967-2001. The top quintile has been growing along a straight line. The other quintiles have had almost static real income growth. That effect has only grown more extreme in the last 10 years. The U.S in undeniably a low tax economy.

In addition, if you bring people in purely by a low tax rate, these are people who will move elsewhere very quickly if incentivised to do so. Ireland is suffering that problem now.

There is clearly too high a tax rate (personally I think anything above 50% is way too high) but 10-20% is clearly too low. I am not sure that the old top tax rate of 40% is too far from the optimal rate.

In the US rates are about the same as we used to be when you include local state tax. I've done comparisons before - 40 - 42%. We don't really have local taxation in the same way in the UK. In the UK when we brought upper rates down from 65 - 99% gradutally and then the last change down to 40% tax revenues increased. People don't bother wtih tax avoidance if the rate is low enough. We need tax simplicity, merging of tax and NI for a start.

Sweden has 57% upper rate but no inheritance tax. That is not too far off the upper rate in the UK now - 50% plus also some NI - I think giong to be 2% NI. The Swedes get a huge lot more for their money. We seem to have the high tax and few of the resulting benefits. I was speaking to someone moving tom Finland to the UK - his childcare bills were going to be 10x what they were at home although tax would come down a little bit.

Anyway no party in the UK seems at all interested in reducing the 52% (from 2011) top rate of tax/NI.

I don't think relative povery is a problem. If you draw in more tax revenues from the rich as your tax rates are low then you have more to spend on the poor but if that means you spend enough to ensure they are fed and housed I don't see why they are also entitled to one fifth of the income of the rich , say, hoever high the earnings of the rich rise. However it would ensure we had enough funds to keep the poor fed and housed. If the poor have jealousy issues then they need to go to church more or work harder and succeed.

A friend was saying something similar yesterday. She is happy with her pay increase as she thought there would be none at all but is slightly concerned about her pension but doesn't really want to strike but also doesn't want to cross a picket line.

SDhe has also been told she can't authorise leave on that day and there is a member of her team who needs leave for personal family reasons.

I don't think it will affect dh as although his college is attached to a uni it is in the private sector.

He also isn't in the union.

Xenia,

Relative poverty clearly is a problem. There is no way that the rich are working 10x harder than they were in the 60s or are 10x brighter, but that is what has happened to their incomes in real terms. Since 2003, only the top quintile has seen any income growth at all, and the top 1% has seen exponential growth.

The problem is that government (and central bank) policy is geared towards helping the richest (and poorest) at the expense of the middle classes. Cutting interest rates to zero is a godsend to the asset rich, and bankers in particular. It has done nothing for your average mortgage payer, though, as credit spreads have exploded. Equally, "green" energy policies and high fuel duties are killers for the middle classes. The poor live on benefits and, for someone on 200k a year, who cares whether their utility bills are £1,000pa or £2,000pa.

I can defend real capitalism but not what we have at the moment, which is a version of "crony" capitalism where certain cliques are overly rewarded for very average performance.

Why should it matter if the poor are fed and housed if the rich got richer? It doesn't mean the poor have less. In fact it usually means they have a bit more or at least we can afford not to cut their benefits.

I certainly agree there is a squeezed middle at present and an unfairness that those who don't work are often as well off as those in work but not earning much.

There is nothing to stop any mumsnetter with enough drive and high enough IQ etc to make a lot of money. It's a free market.