Unsustainable public sector pensions

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

Some services are, some aren't (and the jobs that go with them).

I'm confusing nothing at all, you, once again you are disagreeing with my opinion, that is all.
In your opinion some services are, some services are not, IN YOUR OPINION. Which services are which are not very much depends upon different peoples different perspectives. You are no more right or wrong with your opinion than anybody else, including mine.

edit to add, the UK is fortunate to have a system of public services free in the most part, at point of delivery. To whinge on about the cost is a National pastime for some, like I whinge on about CEO pay

Edited by crankedup on Thursday 19th January 10:01

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

An endless list of public service worth every single penny for me.

Home Office advisors on transgender affairs? 5-a-day coordinators? et cetera ad nauseam.

As my reply to sidicks, very much depends upon circumstances of individuals. I'm personally not overly concerned with the minority public service providers which in the grand scheme of things cost a pittence in the tax taks and miniscule amount of my taxes each year. Its not worth getting hung up on.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

I'm personally not overly concerned with the minority public service providers which in the grand scheme of things cost a pittence in the tax taks and miniscule amount of my taxes each year. Its not worth getting hung up on.

I notice you didn't actually say that the transgender advisors et al are actually worth every penny as per your previous assertion.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

As my reply to sidicks, very much depends upon circumstances of individuals. I'm personally not overly concerned with the minority public service providers which in the grand scheme of things cost a pittence in the tax taks and miniscule amount of my taxes each year. Its not worth getting hung up on.

Paying 30% more than necessary / fair for a significant number of people within a £200bn annual wage bill does not represent a 'minority' of tax or 'minsicule' amount...

HTH

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

I'm personally not overly concerned with the minority public service providers which in the grand scheme of things cost a pittence in the tax taks and miniscule amount of my taxes each year. Its not worth getting hung up on.

I notice you didn't actually say that the transgender advisors et al are actually worth every penny as per your previous assertion.

You likely didn't notice that I refered to the 'minority public service providers' bu this I am talking of those providers that are relatively miniscule departments. Wether I agree with thier being available within the public purse payments I have mentioned, it amounts to such a tiny percentage within the overal grand scheme of public service I wouldn't even consider it as a problem.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

As my reply to sidicks, very much depends upon circumstances of individuals. I'm personally not overly concerned with the minority public service providers which in the grand scheme of things cost a pittence in the tax taks and miniscule amount of my taxes each year. Its not worth getting hung up on.

Paying 30% more than necessary / fair for a significant number of people within a £200bn annual wage bill does not represent a 'minority' of tax or 'minsicule' amount...

HTH

For me it does, for the overall services provided. That is the difference in your opinion and mine.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

For me it does, for the overall services provided. That is the difference in your opinion and mine.

I think very few people would argue that potentially billions of pounds is 'minuscule', particularly when there are claims (see the other thread) that the NHS is in crisis and needs increased funding!

[MTech535]

I think part of the problem when comparing public sector and private sector salaries is down to regional variations.

For example, in the NHS, a particular role will be paid the same across the country whereas in the private sector there will be a significant regional variations. Therefore the public sector salaries are not as attractive compared to private sector in areas where the cost of living is higher. On average they may be comparable, but in the southeast, the generous pension is needed to compensate for the salary.

[Type R Tom]

MTech535 said:

I think part of the problem when comparing public sector and private sector salaries is down to regional variations.

For example, in the NHS, a particular role will be paid the same across the country whereas in the private sector there will be a significant regional variations. Therefore the public sector salaries are not as attractive compared to private sector in areas where the cost of living is higher. On average they may be comparable, but in the southeast, the generous pension is needed to compensate for the salary.

Definitely an element of that, live in Thanet and your house costs about half it would in Tunbridge Wells. You'd get the same money working in the public sector regardless of what part of the county you live in.

[sidicks]

MTech535 said:

I think part of the problem when comparing public sector and private sector salaries is down to regional variations.

For example, in the NHS, a particular role will be paid the same across the country whereas in the private sector there will be a significant regional variations. Therefore the public sector salaries are not as attractive compared to private sector in areas where the cost of living is higher..\ On average they may be comparable, but in the southeast, the generous pension is needed to compensate for the salary.

And by construct they are therefore much more attractive where the cost of living is lower and there is even less justification for the pension!

[Moonhawk]

Type R Tom said:

Definitely an element of that, live in Thanet and your house costs about half it would in Tunbridge Wells. You'd get the same money working in the public sector regardless of what part of the county you live in.

The same does happen in the private sector too though.

For any company paying minimum wage - their employees will get the same regardless of where they live.

I had a job in central London a couple of years back - pretty much the same job as i'm doing now in the North West - and the salary was pretty much the same accounting for inflation.

[Type R Tom]

Moonhawk said:

The same does happen in the private sector too though.

Any company that pays minimum wage - their employees will get the same regardless of where they live.

I had a job in central London a couple of years back - pretty much the same job as i'm doing now in the North West - and the salary was pretty much the same accounting for inflation.

Yep, that's why people push the living wage

[Rovinghawk]

MTech535 said:

in the southeast, the generous pension is needed to compensate for the salary.

What about the rest of the country, ie the majority of it?

[MTech535]

Rovinghawk said:

MTech535 said:

in the southeast, the generous pension is needed to compensate for the salary.

What about the rest of the country, ie the majority of it?

Sorry, don't know, I don't live in the rest of the country.

I do see your point and broadly agree. It is a problem having nationally negotiated pay scales and powerful unions.

The only thing I would say is that public sector salaries are much closer to private sector now than they have been historically. I do think that they should be changed, but the existing terms should remain for those that have been in it for a long time.

[sidicks]

MTech535 said:

Sorry, don't know, I don't live in the rest of the country.

I do see your point and broadly agree. It is a problem having nationally negotiated pay scales and powerful unions.

The only thing I would say is that public sector salaries are much closer to private sector now than they have been historically. I do think that they should be changed, but the existing terms should remain for those that have been in it for a long time.

Why?

[MTech535]

Because those people will have put up with a lower salary for a long time on the understanding that they would receive a generous pension.

[anonymous-user]

MTech535 said:

Because those people will have put up with a lower salary for a long time on the understanding that they would receive a generous pension.

Which is fair and why no one is talking about removing previously earned entitlements; it would be morally wrong and almost certainly not legally possible. There is no reason however for any employee public or private to expect to continue to accrue entitlements at the same rate as they did previously, especially if they are no longer 'putting up' with lower salaries. Previous and future accrual has been covered many, many times.

IMO public sector pensions should be fully funded, like the MP's scheme. (No public sector worker can complain about that!). That would make the value of the employer/employee contribution transparent to all. It would make todays government/tax payer responsible for the real cost of employing the public sector workers that they benefit from and not kick the can onto another generation. And it would stop irresponsible governments like Blair racking up collosal unfunded liabilities. (Unfunded public sector pension liability rose under Blair from 270bn to well over 900bn) Won't happen though, cos theres no money left. Doh.

[sidicks]

MTech535 said:

Because those people will have put up with a lower salary for a long time on the understanding that they would receive a generous pension.

That's already covered in the accrued pension received to date. There's zero justification for retaining these benefits for future accrual.

[Rovinghawk]

fblm said:

There is no reason however for any employee public or private to expect to continue to accrue entitlements at the same rate as they did previously, especially if they are no longer 'putting up' with lower salaries.

They're living longer in retirement, too.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

For me it does, for the overall services provided. That is the difference in your opinion and mine.

I think very few people would argue that potentially billions of pounds is 'minuscule', particularly when there are claims (see the other thread) that the NHS is in crisis and needs increased funding!

We elect a Government every five years, its the Governments problem how to best distribute cash a available. The odd few billions nere or there are small beer in the grand scheme of it all. You bring in NHS funding, I want to see the foriegn aid money diverted from waste to the NHS. I'm sure many will disagree with me, but thats democracy working.