Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
tdog7 said:
I believe those public sector workers should be compensated by having a decent pension.
I can accept that but my definition of decent is not as generous as yours.tdog7 said:
The pensions aren't unaffordable, it's just a question of whether you want to pay for them.
I don't want to go short in my old age to pay for someone else's extravagant pension. They cannot be afforded hence they are unaffordable.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.
Let's put all those things plus public servants keeping their gold plated pensions in a manifesto and see which the public go for 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.
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
Very much in agreement with your POV, however some posters have deep seated issues regarding the public sector which normally boils down to 'well I pay for it' mentality. Having said that it is a tiny minority who actually express a negative pov regarding the public sector and those that do are misguided, imo.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
Our public services form an important and integral part of our Social makeup, for example I can wander into anypunlic library for a read or take a further educational course or ask for assistance from our fire services following a rta. An endless list of public service worth every single penny for me.
tdog7 said:
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.
Except of course I can - my job doesn't exist in the public sector! But it wouldn't matter if it did.Why should a public sector worker get the equivalent of 30% higher remuneration for doing exactly the same job? If it's not affordable in the private sector, it's not affordable in the public sector - contrary to what you believe there isn't a magic money tree.
tdog7 said:
I state that a decent pension is a small carrot to compensate public sector professionals.
A decent pensions is quite different to a gold-plated one. HTH.tdig7 said:
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.
So you would accept that for the 'more menial' roles there is no justification for the pension, but for certain other roles there might be?tdiy7 said:
I believe those public sector workers should be compensated by having a decent pension.
You use an interesting definition of the word 'decent'...tdog7 said:
The pensions aren't unaffordable, it's just a question of whether you want to pay for them.
That's just such a s
t nonsense argument. By the same logic, it's affordable to give a new Porsche to every person each year, "it's just a question of whether you want to pay for it'.A simple question for you, why do you think that defined benefit pension schemes were basically phased out in the private sector 10-15 years ago?
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 18th January 23:29
crankedup said:
Very much in agreement with your POV, however some posters have deep seated issues regarding the public sector which normally boils down to 'well I pay for it' mentality. Having said that it is a tiny minority who actually express a negative pov regarding the public sector and those that do are misguided, imo.
Once again your confusing an opinion about the 'public sector' which covers such a range of different jobs, skill levels and importance that such a generalisation is ridiculous, with concern about the affordability of pensions for certain occupations within the public sector.crankedup said:
Our public services form an important and integral part of our Social makeup, for example I can wander into anypunlic library for a read or take a further educational course or ask for assistance from our fire services following a rta. An endless list of public service worth every single penny for me.
Some services are, some aren't (and the jobs that go with them).They were never affordable, but due to sleight of hand and pure luck the can was kicked until 2007. Now we have a real problem. In the real world, things change. This is the elephant in the room, would any government risk civil unrest to default on these pensions, where will the money come from, how will people afford council tax in the future? In 5 years time council tax will be 25% higher than it is now, it can't not be, and the treasury know this, but darent speak it.
markcoznottz said:
They were never affordable, but due to sleight of hand and pure luck the can was kicked until 2007. Now we have a real problem. In the real world, things change. This is the elephant in the room, would any government risk civil unrest to default on these pensions, where will the money come from, how will people afford council tax in the future? In 5 years time council tax will be 25% higher than it is now, it can't not be, and the treasury know this, but darent speak it.
They certainly were affordable when interest rates were high, people lived just 5-10 years in retirement and employees were happy sharing the costs roughly 50:50 with the taxpayer.When interest rates are much lower, people are living 25+ years in retirement and employees want to pay the same contributions leading to a 20:80 split then they are not affordable.
The private sector realised this 10-15 years ago - plenty in the public sector are still struggling with the economics!
La Liga said:
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.
To summarise, you've stated that it's acceptable for a legal system to permit conflicts of interest, and that an alternative system would be too expensive, but you can't provide costs for the expensive alternative system.
My view is that this particular dispute should never have been heard in front of a judge, thus avoiding any suggestion of a conflict of interest. The detail of the alternative dispute resolution process (where there can be no suggestion of a conflict of interest) is for the gubmint / parliament to determine because that's what the gubmint / parliament are paid to do by the taxpayer.
V8 Fettler said:
The obfuscation and overanalysis of post dissection descends once more, fantastic.
To summarise, you've stated that it's acceptable for a legal system to permit conflicts of interest, and that an alternative system would be too expensive, but you can't provide costs for the expensive alternative system.
My view is that this particular dispute should never have been heard in front of a judge, thus avoiding any suggestion of a conflict of interest. The detail of the alternative dispute resolution process (where there can be no suggestion of a conflict of interest) is for the gubmint / parliament to determine because that's what the gubmint / parliament are paid to do by the taxpayer.
My primary objection is the fundamental changes and wider negative implications such a change would have vs your perceived benefit in this one atypical case. You've not really presented an accurate summary since you conveniently omitted that objection. To summarise, you've stated that it's acceptable for a legal system to permit conflicts of interest, and that an alternative system would be too expensive, but you can't provide costs for the expensive alternative system.
My view is that this particular dispute should never have been heard in front of a judge, thus avoiding any suggestion of a conflict of interest. The detail of the alternative dispute resolution process (where there can be no suggestion of a conflict of interest) is for the gubmint / parliament to determine because that's what the gubmint / parliament are paid to do by the taxpayer.
Your understanding (or lack of) only serves for you to comprehend why your non-solution won't occur. Not that your understanding or point of view has any relevance, as the people who do know and are relevant understand it.
You best get to work and generate more wealth. Those pensions aren't going to pay for themselves
Defcon5 said:
Because the companies valued profits more than their staff?
Has profitability increased accordingly in the last 10-15 years?How profitable do you think most businesses would be after a 30% increase in staff costs...?
(you seem to be unaware that private sector businesses which don't make profit don't tend to last very long, so decisions have to be made that take into account economic reality - there's no magic money tree to support them!)
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 07:56
sidicks said:
Except of course I can - my job doesn't exist in the public sector! But it wouldn't matter if it did.
Why should a public sector worker get the equivalent of 30% higher remuneration for doing exactly the same job? If it's not affordable in the private sector, it's not affordable in the public sector - contrary to what you believe there isn't a magic money tree.
I don't care if your job exists in the public sector. Why not re-train as a teacher if the pay and conditions are so fabulous. They clearly aren't enough to tempt you even with the 'gold plated' pensions, yet not only do you expect others to accept the same pay and conditions you would refuse, you think it reasonable to worsen them by devaluing the pension. Bit hypocritical don't you think?Why should a public sector worker get the equivalent of 30% higher remuneration for doing exactly the same job? If it's not affordable in the private sector, it's not affordable in the public sector - contrary to what you believe there isn't a magic money tree.
sidicks said:
So you would accept that for the 'more menial' roles there is no justification for the pension, but for certain other roles there might be?
Yes,I would accept that for positions/roles where we don't need to incentivise people to work in the public sector, no additional incentive is needed.sidicks said:
The pensions aren't unaffordable, it's just a question of whether you want to pay for them.
That's just such a st nonsense argument. By the same logic, it's affordable to give a new Porsche to every person each year, "it's just a question of whether you want to pay for it'.
A simple question for you, why do you think that defined benefit pension schemes were basically phased out in the private sector 10-15 years ago?
It isn't a sThat's just such a s
t nonsense argument. By the same logic, it's affordable to give a new Porsche to every person each year, "it's just a question of whether you want to pay for it'.A simple question for you, why do you think that defined benefit pension schemes were basically phased out in the private sector 10-15 years ago?
t argument. Its perfectly valid, just inconvenient for you and your hatred of the public sector in general. You choose what you pay for. Do I believe we should pay for everyone to have a new porsche. No. Do I think we should pay to incentivise intelligent hard working people to work in our schools, hospitals, police forces, yes I do. You clearly don't. You are entitled to that opinion, but at least admit to having it, instead of hiding behind your unaffordability argument.sidicks said:
Defcon5 said:
Because the companies valued profits more than their staff?
Has profitability increased accordingly in the last 10-15 years?How profitable do you think most businesses would be after a 30% increase in staff costs...?
(you seem to be unaware that private sector businesses which don't make profit don't tend to last very long, so decisions have to be made that take into account economic reality - there's no magic money tree to support them!)
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 07:56
tdog7 said:
I don't care if your job exists in the public sector.
That was the question you asked - sort you don't like the answer!tdog7 said:
Why not re-train as a teacher if the pay and conditions are so fabulous. They clearly aren't enough to tempt you even with the 'gold plated' pensions, yet not only do you expect others to accept the same pay and conditions you would refuse, you think it reasonable to worsen them by devaluing the pension. Bit hypocritical don't you think?
Not in the slightest - I don't expect other people to subsidise my career choices - why should I unnecessarily subsidies theirs (particularly when the available evidence shows they are already paid a fair rate?Countdown said:
Yes,I would accept that for positions/roles where we don't need to incentivise people to work in the public sector, no additional incentive is needed.
"Where we don't need to incentivise people"?? - isn't getting paid 'incentivisation' enough for most people? I thought teaching was supposedly a 'vocation'?Regardless, maybe we are getting somewhere (finally). Do you think it might be desirable to retain DB pensions for those in certain jobs - maybe nurses, doctors, teachers (albeit not necessarily at the current level) but remove them for those other staff that simply undertake support jobs that do not require specialist skills, are not suffering from supply issues and which have directly comparable roles in the private sector, where those jobs can be demonstrated to be paying equivalent to private sector salaries?
sidicks said:
It isn't a st argument.
It has no basis in reality! Are the public sector immune from basic economics?t argument. By your reckoning, it would be 'affordable' for us to triple public sector pensions. If it is so affordable, then why don't we grant exactly the same terms to the private sector?
sidicks said:
Its perfectly valid, just inconvenient for you and your hatred of the public sector in general.
Ah, more nonsense - trying to make the public sector sustainable so more funds can be available for public services and less is spent on unnecessarily gold-plated pensions amounts to 'hatred of the public sector?!
sidicks said:
You choose what you pay for. Do I believe we should pay for everyone to have a new porsche.
But you think it is entirely affordable?tdog7 said:
No. Do I think we should pay to incentivise intelligent hard working people to work in our schools, hospitals, police forces, yes I do. You clearly don't. You are entitled to that opinion, but at least admit to having it, instead of hiding behind your unaffordability argument.
Please don't misrepresent my opinion - I guess that's what you have to resort to when you don't have an economic one?!)You seem to struggle with the concept that the public sector consists not only of teachers, nurses, police etc, some of which may well be intelligent and hard working. It also contains a vats number of people who are neither of the above (but that of course doesn't suit the emotional rhetoric).
Why do we need to 'incentivise' public sector workers 30% more for doing exactly the same job as someone in the private sector?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 09:00
tdog7 said:
Now you really are being funny! Half the city of London is propped up on the 'magic money tree' of a 450billion odd taxpayer bail out. If thats not a magic money tree what is!
Really? What £450bn would this be? Would that be the QE that is required to support the economy following a decade of excessive public spending under a previous Labour government?Just as with pensions, it would seem you are getting outside of your area of expertise!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 08:55
sidicks said:
tdog7 said:
Now you really are being funny! Half the city of London is propped up on the 'magic money tree' of a 450billion odd taxpayer bail out. If thats not a magic money tree what is!
Really? What £450bn would this be? Would that be the QE that is required to support the economy following a decade of excessive public spending under a previous Labour government?Just as with pensions, it would seem you are getting outside of your area of expertise!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 08:55
We clearly won't agree, and no pensions aren't my area of expertise, the sad thing is I think they might be yours.
tdog7 said:
No, as you well no, and are being deliberately obtuse, it is one estimate of the sum of taxpayer money used to support a number of private companies that would have failed without it. A direct response to your comment that there was no magic money tree for private companies and they fail if they don't make profit.
Whose estimate, someone that knows what they are talking about? Money acting as financial support (for which banks are charged) is quite different than real cash that is paid away (to public sector workers). You do understand the difference?You didn't answer the question - would tripling public sector salaries / pensions be 'affordable'?
tdog7 said:
We clearly won't agree, and no pensions aren't my area of expertise, the sad thing is I think they might be yours.
Why is it sad that I know what I'm talking about?Surely it's more sad that you'll seek to argue about something you clearly don't understand properly?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 09:09
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff