Public sector watch
Discussion
mph1977 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Countdown said:
V8 Fettler said:
It seems you don't understand the term "Employer". I have several contracts in place where the other party is defined as "the Employer".
They are not Contracts of Employment. They are probably Contracts for Service. You are not an Employee. You are not on their payroll. You do not pay "Employee" contributions into their pension Scheme. As such they are NOT obliged to make "Employer" contributions for you in their pension scheme.So, can you actually show me an Employer pension scheme where the employer makes zero contributions?
sheepshanks said:
Yes, and the contribution taken from most public servants is now far higher than almost anybody in the private sector is putting into their pension.
I've emboldened the relevant words.Countdown said:
V8 Fettler said:
I did say "probably not as you would define", was that too cryptic? You're moving the goalposts from "private sector pension scheme" to "employer pension scheme". Big difference.
Not at all. It HAS to be an "Employer pension scheme" if you want an "Employer contributions". Personal pensions do not have employer contributions because they're "personal". In both cases the clue's in the name. 
V8 Fettler said:
You initially assumed that "Employer" could only refer to an "Employer" in an Employer/Employee contractual relationship, I cryptically corrected you with a cryptic reference to wider use of the term "Employer". I've think you have it straight now.
They're not your employers. You're self employed. Do you understand the difference?p.s. if you want you can call them your Lords and masters. It doesn't mean that they ARE your Lords and Masters.
Countdown said:
V8 Fettler said:
You initially assumed that "Employer" could only refer to an "Employer" in an Employer/Employee contractual relationship, I cryptically corrected you with a cryptic reference to wider use of the term "Employer". I've think you have it straight now.
They're not your employers. You're self employed. Do you understand the difference?p.s. if you want you can call them your Lords and masters. It doesn't mean that they ARE your Lords and Masters.
Going back into the dim and distant past....
Are there many private sector pension schemes where the employer contribution
is zero?The schemes I contribute to have no employer contributions.That's because the schemes you contribute to HAVE NO EMPLOYER. Pretty much ALL employers now have to set up pension schemes for their employees. You do not fall under the definition of an "employee". That is why you don't get any of your 9as you call them) "Employers" paying into your PERSONAL pension.
Basic financial education seems to be increasingly lacking.
V8 Fettler said:
Countdown said:
V8 Fettler said:
A bizarre and feeble analogy.
Are there many public sector pension schemes where the employer contribution is zero?
No (AFAIK)Are there many public sector pension schemes where the employer contribution is zero?
Are there many private sector pension schemes where the employer contribution
is zero?
Basic financial education seems to be increasingly lacking.
V8 Fettler said:
You're still missing the point. It is possible to have a contractual relationship with an Employer without having the benefit of Employer's contributions to a pension. But it's not as you would define an Employer (have I said that before?).
having a contractual relationship with an Employer doesn't make you an Employee. Hint: If you're on their payroll, you're an employee. If you're not, you're not.Countdown said:
Going back into the dim and distant past....
Are there many private sector pension schemes where the employer contribution
is zero?The schemes I contribute to have no employer contributions.That's because the schemes you contribute to HAVE NO EMPLOYER. Pretty much ALL employers now have to set up pension schemes for their employees. You do not fall under the definition of an "employee". That is why you don't get any of your 9as you call them) "Employers" paying into your PERSONAL pension.
Basic financial education seems to be increasingly lacking.
Not my definition, it's defined in contract law. The point I was making (which surely should have sunk in by now) is that it is possible for an individual to have a contractual relationship with an Employer and yet that Employer makes no contributions to that individual's pension scheme.V8 Fettler said:
Countdown said:
V8 Fettler said:
A bizarre and feeble analogy.
Are there many public sector pension schemes where the employer contribution is zero?
No (AFAIK)Are there many public sector pension schemes where the employer contribution is zero?
Are there many private sector pension schemes where the employer contribution
is zero?
Basic financial education seems to be increasingly lacking.
The best piece of financial education I have had over several decades was "Don't trust someone involved in finance".
Countdown said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're still missing the point. It is possible to have a contractual relationship with an Employer without having the benefit of Employer's contributions to a pension. But it's not as you would define an Employer (have I said that before?).
having a contractual relationship with an Employer doesn't make you an Employee. Hint: If you're on their payroll, you're an employee. If you're not, you're not.SpeedMattersNot said:
Not joining in in the squabble, but be careful of IR35.
and aside from IR35 if you aren;t paid PAYE through the payroll what makes you think the employer will contribute ... and why do you think scam self employment is common in so many areas as a way of skirting the NMW , employer responsibilities and for workjers to run the gauntlet of trying to sail under HMRC radar...
FiF said:
I read the other day that ours got £40K for organising the election in his capacity as Returning Officer. There's a standard way of calculating it, apparently.OK, I'm sure it was a pretty busy period for him, but no prizes for guessing that the Council didn't get a refund for all his activities that had to take a back seat during that time.
FiF said:
How much should the CEO of an organisation with a £300m turnover be paid?Shes cheap compared to my County Council.
"It's been claimed the head of Somerset's Children's Services, Peter Lewis, is one of the most expensive council employees in Britain. Mr Lewis costs £318,500 pounds a year. Two temporary deputies cost a further £422,500 pounds between them. The total for the three managers is £741,000."
Im sure they all think they are worth it though.
"It's been claimed the head of Somerset's Children's Services, Peter Lewis, is one of the most expensive council employees in Britain. Mr Lewis costs £318,500 pounds a year. Two temporary deputies cost a further £422,500 pounds between them. The total for the three managers is £741,000."
Im sure they all think they are worth it though.
Countdown said:
FiF said:
How much should the CEO of an organisation with a £300m turnover be paid?PRTVR said:
As a civil servant, a lot less than the PM, who is responsible for the whole country.
Why is £142k the limit? Partners in the Big 4 earn in excess of £500k per annum with significantly less responsibility that either the PM or the CEO of an LA. Are they overpaid or is the PM underpaid?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff