Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
otolith said:
Yes, and as a percentage of parking income or litter fine income it's probably 27000000%.
Why use CT income when Councils get far more income from other sources?
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
PorkInsider said:
Interesting to note also that even senior local government leaders accept that ther employees' pensions are unaffordable.
Coventry City Council estimates that 34% of council tax receipts will go into its workers' pensions by 2019.
It's utterly laughable that anyone would try to defend it, but crack on...
34 % of council tax, not 34 % of income ... lies, damn lies, and statistics with a touch of chicken little again ... Coventry City Council estimates that 34% of council tax receipts will go into its workers' pensions by 2019.
It's utterly laughable that anyone would try to defend it, but crack on...
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
in stead the consistent suprpluses the schemes have run have been returned to the exchequer ...
Pure financial fantasy. It's pay a little in now, take a lot out later. The liabilities accruing are massive.
mph1977 said:
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
PorkInsider said:
Interesting to note also that even senior local government leaders accept that ther employees' pensions are unaffordable.
Coventry City Council estimates that 34% of council tax receipts will go into its workers' pensions by 2019.
It's utterly laughable that anyone would try to defend it, but crack on...
34 % of council tax, not 34 % of income ... lies, damn lies, and statistics with a touch of chicken little again ... Coventry City Council estimates that 34% of council tax receipts will go into its workers' pensions by 2019.
It's utterly laughable that anyone would try to defend it, but crack on...
The one doing the lying would appear to be you.
Countdown said:
Rovinghawk said:
Sorry- could you point out where the lies or damn lies are? I see only facts & figures, albeit ones that don't suit you.
I can understand why you're confused. Another thing to point out - not ALL your Council tax goes to the Council.mph1977 said:
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
PorkInsider said:
Interesting to note also that even senior local government leaders accept that ther employees' pensions are unaffordable.
Coventry City Council estimates that 34% of council tax receipts will go into its workers' pensions by 2019.
It's utterly laughable that anyone would try to defend it, but crack on...
34 % of council tax, not 34 % of income ... lies, damn lies, and statistics with a touch of chicken little again ... Coventry City Council estimates that 34% of council tax receipts will go into its workers' pensions by 2019.
It's utterly laughable that anyone would try to defend it, but crack on...
But if you don't think it's pretty outrageous that 34% of what council tax payers contribute will end up being spent on pensions rather than services for the benefits of a far wider group, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Rovinghawk said:
Countdown said:
Rovinghawk said:
Sorry- could you point out where the lies or damn lies are? I see only facts & figures, albeit ones that don't suit you.
I can understand why you're confused. Another thing to point out - not ALL your Council tax goes to the Council.Like I said earlier - would it be an accurate representation to say that 27941000000 % of litter fines were used to pay for pensions? It wouldn't, because litter fines are not ringfenced to pay for pensions. It could arguably be true that 10% of litter fine income was used to pay for pensions BECAUSE 10% of the Council's total income was used to pay for pensions and you could argue that the pension contributions were taken pro-rata from all sources.
The headline "34% of CT used to pay for pensions|" is designed to elicit a pavlovian response from the gullible.
lauda said:
But if you don't think it's pretty outrageous that 34% of what council tax payers contribute will end up being spent on pensions rather than services for the benefits of a far wider group, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
34% of what Council Tapayers contribute will NOT go into pensions. (Approximately) 10% will and that's only for Coventry CC.
Countdown said:
The headline "34% of CT used to pay for pensions|" is designed to elicit a pavlovian response from the gullible.
The statement that pensions would account for 34% of CT was made by the head of finance- why would he wish to elicit such a response? As for 27000000% of litter fines, this 27000000% doesn't actually exist in the coffers, hence it's not going into the pension fund.
If you don't see the problem with pensions then no amount of discussion will alter this.
Rovinghawk said:
Countdown said:
The headline "34% of CT used to pay for pensions|" is designed to elicit a pavlovian response from the gullible.
The statement that pensions would account for 34% of CT was made by the head of finance- why would he wish to elicit such a response? As for 27000000% of litter fines, this 27000000% doesn't actually exist in the coffers, hence it's not going into the pension fund.
If you don't see the problem with pensions then no amount of discussion will alter this.
Countdown said:
lauda said:
But if you don't think it's pretty outrageous that 34% of what council tax payers contribute will end up being spent on pensions rather than services for the benefits of a far wider group, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
34% of what Council Tapayers contribute will NOT go into pensions. (Approximately) 10% will and that's only for Coventry CC.
So if it makes you happier, I think that it's outrageous that an amount equivalent to 34% of council tax (not council budget) will be spent on pensions by 2020.
lauda said:
According to your post on the previous page, it's approximately 10% of total council budget. Which is the equivalent of 34% of council tax receipts.
So if it makes you happier, I think that it's outrageous that an amount equivalent to 34% of council tax (not council budget) will be spent on pensions by 2020.
which is a different point to that of the pavlovian response eliciting headline ... So if it makes you happier, I think that it's outrageous that an amount equivalent to 34% of council tax (not council budget) will be spent on pensions by 2020.
why do you consider it outrageous that responsible employers try to make decent pension schemes and make the best of what they are allowed to do by law ?
mph1977 said:
The employer in the case of the NHS pension, is an NHS trust, NHS foundation trust , other NHS body and certain private / charitable organisations who solely provide NHS services
not your ego ...
It's almost as if you are too stupid to understand where they get the money from!not your ego ...
mph1977 said:
That Individual wanted the pavlovian response that you, sidicks and other powerfully built Be-goateed PHers will have along with the Heily Fail and Daily Sexpest readers ...
That individual is the council head of finance. Why would he want such a response? Why would his council approve of an action to elicit that response? Why are you using such perjorative terms?Maybe it's just a fact being stated, couched in a manner that is easy to understand.
sidicks said:
mph1977 said:
The employer in the case of the NHS pension, is an NHS trust, NHS foundation trust , other NHS body and certain private / charitable organisations who solely provide NHS services
not your ego ...
It's almost as if you are too stupid to understand where they get the money from!not your ego ...
mph1977 said:
lauda said:
According to your post on the previous page, it's approximately 10% of total council budget. Which is the equivalent of 34% of council tax receipts.
So if it makes you happier, I think that it's outrageous that an amount equivalent to 34% of council tax (not council budget) will be spent on pensions by 2020.
which is a different point to that of the pavlovian response eliciting headline ... So if it makes you happier, I think that it's outrageous that an amount equivalent to 34% of council tax (not council budget) will be spent on pensions by 2020.
why do you consider it outrageous that responsible employers try to make decent pension schemes and make the best of what they are allowed to do by law ?
The existing provisions as they exist in the public sector go above and beyond 'decent' and are very generous. I believe that they should be made less generous, whilst still being decent. And I believe that if after doing this there is, as some seem to believe there will be, there's a surplus of funds sloshing around in the public coffers because the existing provisons were affordable anyway, this should be used to improve retirement provision for all workers via a higher basic state pension.
mph1977 said:
it;s almost as if you are too stupid to realise the myth of the NHS as a monolith employing the 3rd largest workforce in the worlfd is a tabloid fabrication to try and evoke your pavlovian response ...
A comparison might be ICI or Sony- they have lots of business divisions but ultimately it's the same conglomerate.You seem to like to mention Pavlov today. (Just saying)
mph1977 said:
which is a different point to that of the pavlovian response eliciting headline ...
why do you consider it outrageous that responsible employers try to make decent pension schemes and make the best of what they are allowed to do by law ?
A 'responsible employer' (the government) wouldn't be mortgaging the income of future taxpayers, but you're clearly too stupid to understand how these pensions work!!why do you consider it outrageous that responsible employers try to make decent pension schemes and make the best of what they are allowed to do by law ?
mph1977 said:
it;s almost as if you are too stupid to realise the myth of the NHS as a monolith employing the 3rd largest workforce in the worlfd is a tabloid fabrication to try and evoke your pavlovian response ...
This issue is nothing to do with the size of the NHS (which has never been in dispute - but nice try at moving the goalposts because you don't understand the issues!Edited by sidicks on Friday 27th November 13:58
Countdown said:
otolith said:
Yes, and as a percentage of parking income or litter fine income it's probably 27000000%.Why use CT income when Councils get far more income from other sources?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff