Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
no it doesn;t 'generate' cash but money is returned to the exchequer
More comes out than goes in. The balance comes from taxes. Do you not understand this simple concept? It's how public sector pensions work.the sums paid in have for the past nearly 70 years exceeded the amount paid out , meaning that money has been returned to the exchequer as HMG choses to underwrite the scheme rather than allow that money to accumulate as a 'funded' scheme.
there seems to be some kind of mis apprehension that that it's still 'tax payers money' once it has been used to purchase goods and services from providers ... an arguement people don;t use with 'customers money' from other providers once the service or product has been delivered ...
hence the comments aobut Chicken little figures, Pavlovian response, alice in wonderland defintions
mph1977 said:
employees pay in , employers pay in
the sums paid in have for the past nearly 70 years exceeded the amount paid out , meaning that money has been returned to the exchequer as HMG choses to underwrite the scheme rather than allow that money to accumulate as a 'funded' scheme.
there seems to be some kind of mis apprehension that that it's still 'tax payers money' once it has been used to purchase goods and services from providers ... an arguement people don;t use with 'customers money' from other providers once the service or product has been delivered ...
hence the comments aobut Chicken little figures, Pavlovian response, alice in wonderland defintions
mthe sums paid in have for the past nearly 70 years exceeded the amount paid out , meaning that money has been returned to the exchequer as HMG choses to underwrite the scheme rather than allow that money to accumulate as a 'funded' scheme.
there seems to be some kind of mis apprehension that that it's still 'tax payers money' once it has been used to purchase goods and services from providers ... an arguement people don;t use with 'customers money' from other providers once the service or product has been delivered ...
hence the comments aobut Chicken little figures, Pavlovian response, alice in wonderland defintions
Please do us all a favour and p
s off and find a thread where you actually know and understand the issue!
sidicks said:
Please do us all a favour and ps off and find a thread where you actually know and understand the issue!
this is the problem you cannot see beyond your own prejudices and this fixed delusion that you have with regard to when moneny paid by central government for goods and services stops being 'taxpayers money' and is the money of the service provider ... s off and find a thread where you actually know and understand the issue!mph1977 said:
this is the problem you cannot see beyond your own prejudices and this fixed delusion that you have with regard to when moneny paid by central government for goods and services stops being 'taxpayers money' and is the money of the service provider ...
Anyone that knows anything about pensions knows that I'm right and you're wrong.Any the only relevance is who is subsiding the pensions!
mph1977 said:
sidicks said:
Please do us all a favour and ps off and find a thread where you actually know and understand the issue!
this is the problem you cannot see beyond your own prejudices and this fixed delusion that you have with regard to when moneny paid by central government for goods and services stops being 'taxpayers money' and is the money of the service provider ... s off and find a thread where you actually know and understand the issue!A 'profit' to the treasury will only result if the contributions paid are exceeding the value of pension rights accrued, and even then that is a very dubious notion of 'profit' as you are including employer contributions.
Current contributions are not even close to the value of pension rights being accrued so no 'profit' is being earned.
If you want to understand the true situation with public sector pensions take a look at one of the few funded schemes the Local Government Pension Scheme. The one I have first hand knowledge of is the Wiltshire scheme. Employer contributions have reached 23% and the deficit is STILL rising year after year after year.
JagLover said:
I think Sidick reacted as he did as you are completely missing the point.
A 'profit' to the treasury will only result if the contributions paid are exceeding the value of pension rights accrued, and even then that is a very dubious notion of 'profit' as you are including employer contributions.
Current contributions are not even close to the value of pension rights being accrued so no 'profit' is being earned.
If you want to understand the true situation with public sector pensions take a look at one of the few funded schemes the Local Government Pension Scheme. The one I have first hand knowledge of is the Wiltshire scheme. Employer contributions have reached 23% and the deficit is STILL rising year after year after year.
It's been explained clearly enough to him on numerous occasions, so the only logical conclusion is that he's simply not clever enough to understand. No other explanation!!A 'profit' to the treasury will only result if the contributions paid are exceeding the value of pension rights accrued, and even then that is a very dubious notion of 'profit' as you are including employer contributions.
Current contributions are not even close to the value of pension rights being accrued so no 'profit' is being earned.
If you want to understand the true situation with public sector pensions take a look at one of the few funded schemes the Local Government Pension Scheme. The one I have first hand knowledge of is the Wiltshire scheme. Employer contributions have reached 23% and the deficit is STILL rising year after year after year.
sidicks said:
Anyone that knows anything about pensions knows that I'm right and you're wrong.
Any the only relevance is who is subsiding the pensions!
i'm not sure how the fact NHSBSA returns money to the exchequer is the 'taxpayer subsidising the pension ' any more than any employer making decent employer contributions and the excess contribtuions being held by whom so ever underwrites the scheme ... Any the only relevance is who is subsiding the pensions!
mph1977 said:
i'm not sure how the fact NHSBSA returns money to the exchequer is the 'taxpayer subsidising the pension ' any more than any employer making decent employer contributions and the excess contribtuions being held by whom so ever underwrites the scheme ...
As frequently demonstrated you're 'not sure' about quite a lot about pension schemes - fortunately your job doesn't depend on you understanding them!mph1977 said:
employees pay in , employers pay in
The 'employer' gets money from government & gives money back. In no way is that a 'surplus'.mph1977 said:
there seems to be some kind of mis apprehension that that it's still 'tax payers money'
It came from the taxpayer. The provider is a government entity. The money never leaves government hands, regardless of which branch of the authorities it passes through.mph1977 said:
sidicks said:
Anyone that knows anything about pensions knows that I'm right and you're wrong.
Any the only relevance is who is subsiding the pensions!
i'm not sure how the fact NHSBSA returns money to the exchequer is the 'taxpayer subsidising the pension ' any more than any employer making decent employer contributions and the excess contribtuions being held by whom so ever underwrites the scheme ... Any the only relevance is who is subsiding the pensions!
The nhs does not pay enough in to ensure it can get enough out in the future,
If you calculate all the money it will need to pay our over the next fifty years, versus all the investments (or equivalents) then there is a humongous deficit,
In the private sector this would be illegal (as in the directors can end up in jail)
The solution would be for the current members to pay more in, or for the employer to pay much more, which would probably kill the business.
Some of the frankly outrageous things I've seen the NHS do have left me certain it needs wholesale change. You've got to start somewhere!
t400ble said:
My take on this.
We live in a 7 day a week world. the job requires it.
Don't like it? Find something else to do in life.
How many times do people need to be told, doctors expect and are happy to work any of 24 hours a day 365 days of a year, will you please explain why it is safe for a doctor to work more hours in one week than a truck driver is allowed to work in a fortnight.We live in a 7 day a week world. the job requires it.
Don't like it? Find something else to do in life.
sidicks said:
johnfm said:
To be fair, I think he says they are 'unaffordable', not 'bad' per se.
Indeed - I've never tried to argue about what certain public sector workers 'deserve', simply that the economics of the schemes don't add up under current demographics.You've definitely got a problem with public sector pensions beyond their affordability!
- insert random smiley*
SpeedMattersNot said:
sidicks said:
johnfm said:
To be fair, I think he says they are 'unaffordable', not 'bad' per se.
Indeed - I've never tried to argue about what certain public sector workers 'deserve', simply that the economics of the schemes don't add up under current demographics.Clearly some individuals will deserve them more than others!
SpeedMattersNot said:
We once had a multiple page debate to convince you teachers pensions were silver plated, not gold plated.
Well, it's clearly a subjective opinion, but I'd argue that having a massive taxpayer subsidy takes you to silver-plating and the taxpayer taking all of the investment, inflation and longevity risks gets you to gold!SpeedMattersNot said:
It was after that debate I vowed never to respond to people who quoted me in breakdowns of my posts.
That seems a somewhat arbitrary rule to follow, but it's your choice.
When multiple comments / issues are discussed, I find it helpful to respond to them directly.
I want expect a reply from you.
SpeedMattersNot said:
You've definitely got a problem with public sector pensions beyond their affordability!
So you keep saying, yet you are wrong and would be best advised to stick to what you think, rather than making claims about what others believe!!SpeedMattersNot said:
- insert random smiley*
ArmaghMan said:
t400ble said:
My take on this.
We live in a 7 day a week world. the job requires it.
Don't like it? Find something else to do in life.
They don't have to find something else to do, they simply do the same thing in another country where they have a better work life We live in a 7 day a week world. the job requires it.
Don't like it? Find something else to do in life.
Job done then.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff