Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
Is not the avoidance of conflicts of interest a cornerstone of any fair legal system? You appear to accept that conflicts of interest are acceptable.
I accept it's better than what your undefined, no-solution alternative is. 1) Do we allow a judge (who I don't think this has any impact on from what I can read about him) to make a judgement which will be publicly available and subject to potential appeals to make a judgement?
2) Do we make fundamental changes to the law where we have a currently unspecified person or persons replacing judges for one matter where there's a perceived conflict of interest?
V8 Fettler said:
Nothing magical about paying substantial amounts of tax each year to fund the legal system and expecting the legal system to operate without conflicts of interest.
We expect the legal system to make rational decisions. Changing fundamentals of the legal system based on one case of this nature isn't that. V8 Fettler said:
You have no costings for the "expensive" alternative, so how can you therefore state that an alternative is expensive?
Funnily enough, I don't have costings for all the variables of whether it's primary legislation or not, which house it may or may not go through, if it'll be challenged, then appealed etc etc. Whatever the theoretical cost, it's cheaper than your non-solution.
Your quoting needs work 
And round and round we go . If remuneration is higher (than it needs to be) why aren't the best and brightest flocking to the Public Sector? They're not because they can do a cost/benefit analysis for themselves and the "totes amazeballs" pension plus the salary plus everything else isn't as good as what they can get in the Private Sector on a like-for-like basis You can't have it both ways - either the remuneration is higher than market levels or it isn't.
That's false based on known evidence - relatively few financially literate people value the full value of a DB pension. Well, i think that's rubbish but regardless - enough people DO seem to know what it's worth so that it's currently extremely difficult for the Government to get these financial illiterates to give it up.
So why do BUPA nurses, private doctors/dentists, and teachers get paid more than their Public Sector counterparts?
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
So you agree that remuneration is better in the Private Sector?
The ONS survey indicates that it's higher in some areas and lower in others. On average it's very slightly higher in the private sector but it's marginal and certainly dispels the myth that a heavily subsidised pension is compensation for lower salary.. If remuneration is higher (than it needs to be) why aren't the best and brightest flocking to the Public Sector? They're not because they can do a cost/benefit analysis for themselves and the "totes amazeballs" pension plus the salary plus everything else isn't as good as what they can get in the Private Sector on a like-for-like basis You can't have it both ways - either the remuneration is higher than market levels or it isn't.sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Rovinghawk said:
Read what he said about a raised salary and its greater perceived value to the staff.
The way he perceives it patently isn't the way the staff or the Unions seem to perceive it.sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Good for you. I choose not to do it because finance jobs in the Private Sector are far better paid. That's why I don't begrudge those that work in the Public Sector their pensions. They're generally dealing with the less pleasant aspects of our society for less pay.
Except the ONS survey says pretty much the opposite - maybe you should read it?!
it's part of the cost of running those jobs.Well they're forfitting wages for a good pension. I think most on here want the pension to go, and for the wages to stay the same (probably go down) too. That seems to be human nature - because you're not getting it no one else should either.
It's not unaffordable - it's a choice. Choose to spend £140+ million per overpriced F-35B Lockheed plane which doesn't work very well etc but I suppose those are 'affordable'? Or is it just that defence spending goes to the right people.
It's not unaffordable - it's a choice. Choose to spend £140+ million per overpriced F-35B Lockheed plane which doesn't work very well etc but I suppose those are 'affordable'? Or is it just that defence spending goes to the right people.
CoolHands said:
Well they're forfitting wages for a good pension.
No they're not. This is exactly the point! Have you not read any of the thread?!CoolHands said:
I think most on here want the pension to go, and for the wages to stay the same (probably go down) too. That seems to be human nature - because you're not getting it no one else should either.
You're wrong. Again! Perhaps you should read what people are actually saying?CoolHands said:
It's not unaffordable - it's a choice. Choose to spend £140+ million per overpriced F-35B Lockheed plane which doesn't work very well etc but I suppose those are 'affordable'? Or is it just that defence spending goes to the right people.
More nonsense?By your logic it's 'affordable' to cut tax rates to 5%!!
The point you keep missing is that, not only is it not affordable, it is simply not fair on those who have to pay for it!!
Well I don't understand you. If I stay in the scheme I forfeit wages, 6.5% ish. If I opt out, I don't. I can't see how you say that is incorrect?
Any the final point - why do you say it is 'unaffordable'? It may be an unfunded scheme but that doesn't mean it is unaffordable. Why is it nonsense to state what it clearly is - a choice the government has made that for whatever reason, it is a worthwhile thing to keep offering. Eventually will decide it isn't and change it more significantly, but that isn't really to do with affordability.
By your logic everything is unaffordable. Why spend x billions on the NHS? Or the police force. Or foreign aid etc etc it doesn't have to be self-funded to mean it's worth paying for.
Any the final point - why do you say it is 'unaffordable'? It may be an unfunded scheme but that doesn't mean it is unaffordable. Why is it nonsense to state what it clearly is - a choice the government has made that for whatever reason, it is a worthwhile thing to keep offering. Eventually will decide it isn't and change it more significantly, but that isn't really to do with affordability.
By your logic everything is unaffordable. Why spend x billions on the NHS? Or the police force. Or foreign aid etc etc it doesn't have to be self-funded to mean it's worth paying for.
CoolHands said:
Well I don't understand you. If I stay in the scheme I forfeit wages, 6.5% ish. If I opt out, I don't. I can't see how you say that is incorrect?
Eh? What on earth are you talking about?CoolHands said:
Any the final point - why do you say it is 'unaffordable'? It may be an unfunded scheme but that doesn't mean it is unaffordable. Why is it nonsense to state what it clearly is - a choice the government has made that for whatever reason, it is a worthwhile thing to keep offering. Eventually will decide it isn't and change it more significantly, but that isn't really to do with affordability.
So the fact that we currently have to borrow £40bn per annum just to pay the day-to-day bills (which doesn't take into account the true cost of pensions being accrued) doesn't suggest to you that current levels of spending are unaffordable?The fact that for each £1 you invest in your pension, the taxpayer has to invest £5 doesn't suggest things are a bit imbalanced?
The fact that these types of scheme were all but removed from the private sector 10-15 years ago due to affordability issues doesn't suggest that these schemes aren't unaffordable? I guess you're one of those who thinks that real world economics don't apply to the public sector?
CoolHands said:
By your logic everything is unaffordable. Why spend x billions on the NHS? Or the police force. Or foreign aid etc etc it doesn't have to be self-funded to mean it's worth paying for.
False logic. I've said no such thing. No wonder you're struggling with the concept if this is how your logic works!Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 18th January 21:51
sidicks said:
CoolHands said:
Well I don't understand you. If I stay in the scheme I forfeit wages, 6.5% ish. If I opt out, I don't. I can't see how you say that is incorrect?
Eh? What on earth are you talking about?CoolHands said:
Well I don't get what you don't get? If I opt out the teachers pensions, I don't have to pay 6.5% of my gross to my pension (even though we both know that money doesn't actually go into a pension pot). If stay in, I do pay that. If that's not right I'm afraid you'll have to explain further to me.
If you don't pay the 6.5% gross contribution, you won't get a pension and the tax payer won't have to pay the circa 30% subsidy.edited to add
I thought you were suggesting that, by working in the public sector, they are forfeiting wages (compared to the private sector), but that this is compensated for by a larger pension. This is certainly not the case according to the evidence from the ONS. However, I see what you are saying now.
Importantly, you are still ignoring the basic cost issue.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 18th January 22:05
What I find astonishing, is that despite moaning for over a year on this thread about how amazing public sector pensions are, and how unfair it is that public sector workers get them, so many respondents have yet to find themselves a job in the public sector.
Perhaps it's because the overall remuneration is better in the private sector (for the vast majority of professions). Otherwise I would have thought you'd all have been off to become a teacher/nurse/midwife/doctor/police officer/fireman/paramedic.........there's plenty of options, if as you say the pension is so amazing.
or perhaps, just perhaps, even this pension is not enough to tempt you, which begs the question, why begrudge it to those who do the things you wouldn't.
Perhaps it's because the overall remuneration is better in the private sector (for the vast majority of professions). Otherwise I would have thought you'd all have been off to become a teacher/nurse/midwife/doctor/police officer/fireman/paramedic.........there's plenty of options, if as you say the pension is so amazing.
or perhaps, just perhaps, even this pension is not enough to tempt you, which begs the question, why begrudge it to those who do the things you wouldn't.
sidicks said:
The point you keep missing is that, not only is it not affordable, it is simply not fair on those who have to pay for it!!
So who pays for private sector remuneration? Society as consumers of marketable services.And who pays for public sector remuneration? Society, as consumers of public services.
I'm sure you won't miss the point that it is the same "everyone" who is paying for both. You phrase it like there's a group funding the public sector, yet the private sector just get their cash from some completely unrelated group of people.
This idea of it not being "fair" is a bit meaningless. Is it "fair" a company rep gets a subsidised car that I have to pay for through their higher prices?
I used to allocate £250m of funding to schools,and listening to dozens of Head teachers moaning about what was "fair" quickly brought home how useless a concept it is, as its completey relative to whether someone is gaining or losing.
The fact that the public sector is hanging onto the idea of their staff's welfare in retirement is a good thing in my opinion.
The private sector could choose to do this - it would have to be paid for of course ( maybe renegotiate pay, as per opening thread).
But the private sector has taken another decision when deciding its business model - a much shorter term view.
Should they be forced to backtrack? Maybe. I think mandatory pensions should be introduced for those without provision, and large regional providers be set up keep costs down.
Should the public sector be forced into a race to the bottom? I don't see how that would help the economy, and whilst councils can be frustrating and sluggish and inefficient, they are democratic bodies acting on behalf of their communities - including the retired. And typically most staff live in the borough they work in.
I can't help feel this is just a 'cut spend, cut taxes' argument that has been dressed up in another guise to try and gain credibility.
Ian
tdog7 said:
What I find astonishing, is that despite moaning for over a year on this thread about how amazing public sector pensions are, and how unfair it is that public sector workers get them, so many respondents have yet to find themselves a job in the public sector.
The solution is not to become part of the problem.Ian Geary said:
Should the public sector be forced into a race to the bottom?
I keep hearing about "a race to the bottom"- what does this actually mean? What "race" and what "bottom"? Please explain the phrase you've used.What is needed is for a new & affordable pension system to replace the old unaffordable one. The alternative is to do nothing & watch the problem grow ever bigger. I want the former, you would appear to want the latter.
Rovinghawk said:
The solution is not to become part of the problem.
Haha....yes, we've long suffered as a country for having too many teachers nurses and midwives!only someone like you could describe teachers/nurses/midwives/doctors/police officer/paramedics/fireman as 'part of the problem''.......you really must have a warped sense of morality.
Why can't you admit you don't work in the public sector because working conditions are better for you in the private sector. I accept that would kind of screw up your argument against public sector pensions, but at least you could step away with a little dignity.
tdog7 said:
What I find astonishing, is that despite moaning for over a year on this thread about how amazing public sector pensions are, and how unfair it is that public sector workers get them, so many respondents have yet to find themselves a job in the public sector.
You've missed the point - presumably deliberately.tdog7 said:
Perhaps it's because the overall remuneration is better in the private sector (for the vast majority of professions).
Otherwise I would have thought you'd all have been off to become a teacher/nurse/midwife/doctor/police officer/fireman/paramedic.........there's plenty of options, if as you say the pension is so amazing.
As disproved by the ONS survey on numerous ocassions.Otherwise I would have thought you'd all have been off to become a teacher/nurse/midwife/doctor/police officer/fireman/paramedic.........there's plenty of options, if as you say the pension is so amazing.
tdog7 said:
or perhaps, just perhaps, even this pension is not enough to tempt you, which begs the question, why begrudge it to those who do the things you wouldn't.
Because it's not affordable, surely it's not hard to understand?!
Ian Geary said:
So who pays for private sector remuneration? Society as consumers of marketable services.
And who pays for public sector remuneration? Society, as consumers of public services.
I'm sure you won't miss the point that it is the same "everyone" who is paying for both. You phrase it like there's a group funding the public sector, yet the private sector just get their cash from some completely unrelated group of people.
This idea of it not being "fair" is a bit meaningless. Is it "fair" a company rep gets a subsidised car that I have to pay for through their higher prices?
I used to allocate £250m of funding to schools,and listening to dozens of Head teachers moaning about what was "fair" quickly brought home how useless a concept it is, as its completey relative to whether someone is gaining or losing.
The fact that the public sector is hanging onto the idea of their staff's welfare in retirement is a good thing in my opinion.
The private sector could choose to do this - it would have to be paid for of course ( maybe renegotiate pay, as per opening thread).
But the private sector has taken another decision when deciding its business model - a much shorter term view.
Should they be forced to backtrack? Maybe. I think mandatory pensions should be introduced for those without provision, and large regional providers be set up keep costs down.
Should the public sector be forced into a race to the bottom? I don't see how that would help the economy, and whilst councils can be frustrating and sluggish and inefficient, they are democratic bodies acting on behalf of their communities - including the retired. And typically most staff live in the borough they work in.
I can't help feel this is just a 'cut spend, cut taxes' argument that has been dressed up in another guise to try and gain credibility.
Ian
Ah, the 'race to the bottom' argument. I was wondering how long it would take for that ignorant nonsense to appear!And who pays for public sector remuneration? Society, as consumers of public services.
I'm sure you won't miss the point that it is the same "everyone" who is paying for both. You phrase it like there's a group funding the public sector, yet the private sector just get their cash from some completely unrelated group of people.
This idea of it not being "fair" is a bit meaningless. Is it "fair" a company rep gets a subsidised car that I have to pay for through their higher prices?
I used to allocate £250m of funding to schools,and listening to dozens of Head teachers moaning about what was "fair" quickly brought home how useless a concept it is, as its completey relative to whether someone is gaining or losing.
The fact that the public sector is hanging onto the idea of their staff's welfare in retirement is a good thing in my opinion.
The private sector could choose to do this - it would have to be paid for of course ( maybe renegotiate pay, as per opening thread).
But the private sector has taken another decision when deciding its business model - a much shorter term view.
Should they be forced to backtrack? Maybe. I think mandatory pensions should be introduced for those without provision, and large regional providers be set up keep costs down.
Should the public sector be forced into a race to the bottom? I don't see how that would help the economy, and whilst councils can be frustrating and sluggish and inefficient, they are democratic bodies acting on behalf of their communities - including the retired. And typically most staff live in the borough they work in.
I can't help feel this is just a 'cut spend, cut taxes' argument that has been dressed up in another guise to try and gain credibility.
Ian
tdog7 said:
Rovinghawk said:
The solution is not to become part of the problem.
Haha....yes, we've long suffered as a country for having too many teachers nurses and midwives!tdog7 said:
Why can't you admit you don't work in the public sector because working conditions are better for you in the private sector.
I work for myself- very few people who've ever done it would describe it as cushy.tdog7 said:
I accept that would kind of screw up your argument against public sector pensions, but at least you could step away with a little dignity.
My argument against the pensions is that they're unaffordable- no more, no less.Sidicks, why don't you work in the public sector. I've missed no point, you just can't answer that question without screwing up your argument.
I state that a decent pension is a small carrot to compensate public sector professionals. The ONS survey is not specific to professional roles and includes many 'more menial (for want of a better phrase) positions, which I accept pay little different in the private sector. But your average doctor/dentist/solicitor/economist/lawyer/acturist/teacher etc. Gets vastly better terms and conditions in the private sector. You know that's true, otherwise I imagine you would work in the public sector.
I believe those public sector workers should be compensated by having a decent pension. The pensions aren't unaffordable, it's just a question of whether you want to pay for them.
I state that a decent pension is a small carrot to compensate public sector professionals. The ONS survey is not specific to professional roles and includes many 'more menial (for want of a better phrase) positions, which I accept pay little different in the private sector. But your average doctor/dentist/solicitor/economist/lawyer/acturist/teacher etc. Gets vastly better terms and conditions in the private sector. You know that's true, otherwise I imagine you would work in the public sector.
I believe those public sector workers should be compensated by having a decent pension. The pensions aren't unaffordable, it's just a question of whether you want to pay for them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff