Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
r11co said:
No more assumption required regarding your character sidicks. You have demonstrated it for all to see.
Given that you're the sort of person that makes nasty accusations and then criticises someone for defending themselves, you'll not be surprised that I don't care what you think!r11co said:
I'm departing this thread for the sake of my belief in humanity.
To be fair that's the best way for you to add value to the discussion!
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 28th November 22:48
r11co said:
No more assumption required regarding your character sidicks. You have demonstrated it for all to see.
Total lack of humility after causing grave offence.
I know you've reported me for being offensive (somewhat ironic given the insults you've thrown in my direction in the last few pages), but I fail to understand what I've said that is so offensive to you.Total lack of humility after causing grave offence.
I can only assume it's your incorrect interpretation (again).
PRTVR said:
A little story I heard the other day, man from council phones up my friend,informs him they are putting up the rent by 100%, friend explains he is just making ends meet and cannot afford it, after a few more phone calls with the same reply the council man turned up to get the new rent agreement signed, friend showed the man the closing down sign and that the building was empty, then handed over the keys, a few months latter he received a demand from the council for 10s thousands of pounds for repairs to the property , friend informed them the company was no more due to there actions, did they care ? Not one bit.
I am sure I am not alone in having a heart warming story from people who are dedicating themselves for the good of the country.
do you want some good stories about BT or SKY or British Gas I am sure I am not alone in having a heart warming story from people who are dedicating themselves for the good of the country.
Derek Smith said:
I’m one of those people who is a massive drain on the taxpayer. I got away with paying just a few pounds every month for my pension, a suggested 11% but in fact a fair bit more. Another advantage of being in the public sector was that when an independent enquiry awarded us a payrise the government cut a percentage off the rise (5% seems to ring a bell, but memory fades) because of the benefits of the pension. The one that the enquiry took into account when awarding the pay rise.
So just to clarify: I paid over 12% of gross into my pension. We were awarded a pay rise and the benefits of the pension agreement, such as the injury provisions, were taken into consideration with the award. The government then cut that still further.
The benefit to those of us on the ground was that cuts to pay meant cuts to overtime pay as well, but this wasn’t pensionable. At a time when I worked all but three days a month, and averaged a 10+ hr day, this amounted to lots of free money to the government.
Later, the government refused to comply with the agreement, the one forced on the police, citing ‘benefits’, presumably the pension.
We also got a 'grant', part of our pay, which wasn't pensionable, yet was taken into account when awarding pay rises.
Later a home secretary, the most stupid one I worked under in 30 years, then reduced the benefits of the pension as the stroke of a pen. So some of the benefits which had been taken into account in reducing pay were then reduced. This despite an independent enquiry saying that the pension payments were reasonable given the role. That’s without the reductions in benefits and the increase in pay.
I was offered a job in the private sector which would have given me more benefits, including shares and preferable loan rates, plus expenses systems which confused me, and hopefully HMIC, and a car. And an equivalent pension if I'd been promoted one level.
I put all this criticism of my pension down to left wing jealousy. This phenomenon has been discussed on many other threads.
What was the mythical job? Member of parliament? Il eat my hat if any private sector pension can get anywhere near the police one, you know we know, drop the nonsense. So just to clarify: I paid over 12% of gross into my pension. We were awarded a pay rise and the benefits of the pension agreement, such as the injury provisions, were taken into consideration with the award. The government then cut that still further.
The benefit to those of us on the ground was that cuts to pay meant cuts to overtime pay as well, but this wasn’t pensionable. At a time when I worked all but three days a month, and averaged a 10+ hr day, this amounted to lots of free money to the government.
Later, the government refused to comply with the agreement, the one forced on the police, citing ‘benefits’, presumably the pension.
We also got a 'grant', part of our pay, which wasn't pensionable, yet was taken into account when awarding pay rises.
Later a home secretary, the most stupid one I worked under in 30 years, then reduced the benefits of the pension as the stroke of a pen. So some of the benefits which had been taken into account in reducing pay were then reduced. This despite an independent enquiry saying that the pension payments were reasonable given the role. That’s without the reductions in benefits and the increase in pay.
I was offered a job in the private sector which would have given me more benefits, including shares and preferable loan rates, plus expenses systems which confused me, and hopefully HMIC, and a car. And an equivalent pension if I'd been promoted one level.
I put all this criticism of my pension down to left wing jealousy. This phenomenon has been discussed on many other threads.
markcoznottz said:
What was the mythical job? Member of parliament? Il eat my hat if any private sector pension can get anywhere near the police one, you know we know, drop the nonsense.
To be fair some private schemes might have been in broadly the same ballpark (although still less generous to those that understand the details) 20-30 years ago.However a lot has changed in that intervening period and the private sector has recognised that the numbers no longer stack up (and haven't done for some time).
Always surprises me how personal these topics get.
I'm of the view that the numbers simply don't stack up and I can see why recipients would resist any changes as I can't possibly believe that they can't see their worth. I don't know what the solution is that will keep everyone happy so I can only foresee a situation where the decision is forced rather than negotiated. Still we can all sleep easy as it will probably fall to my nephews generation.
I'm of the view that the numbers simply don't stack up and I can see why recipients would resist any changes as I can't possibly believe that they can't see their worth. I don't know what the solution is that will keep everyone happy so I can only foresee a situation where the decision is forced rather than negotiated. Still we can all sleep easy as it will probably fall to my nephews generation.
johnxjsc1985 said:
PRTVR said:
A little story I heard the other day, man from council phones up my friend,informs him they are putting up the rent by 100%, friend explains he is just making ends meet and cannot afford it, after a few more phone calls with the same reply the council man turned up to get the new rent agreement signed, friend showed the man the closing down sign and that the building was empty, then handed over the keys, a few months latter he received a demand from the council for 10s thousands of pounds for repairs to the property , friend informed them the company was no more due to there actions, did they care ? Not one bit.
I am sure I am not alone in having a heart warming story from people who are dedicating themselves for the good of the country.
do you want some good stories about BT or SKY or British Gas I am sure I am not alone in having a heart warming story from people who are dedicating themselves for the good of the country.
Do people have a choice when dealing with those companies? Unlike most dealings with the public sector, do not get me wrong there are a a lot of people doing a good job in the public sector, my wife worked for the NHS, but there a lot that are not, the question is can we afford to maintain the pension scheme in its present form, when most private pension schemes have had to change to reflect reality, perhaps the answer is to have new terms and conditions for new starters.
sidicks said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
already in place.
New joiners are still receiving hugely expensive defined benefit pensions which require massive taxpayer subsidy.sidicks said:
mph1977 said:
oh dear , ' donating 5 figures' to a charity is not hard if you have a moderately useful skill set ... 10 hours a week doing something which would cost 15 gbp/ hr wage + employer costs ...
never mind the nerfarious characters who use Charity work / trusteeship ( or more insidiously , executive board membersip but not a trustee of a charity) / NEDships and Lodge membership or even DL status to portray themselves as nice guys
As with most things in this forum, you appear to miss the point.never mind the nerfarious characters who use Charity work / trusteeship ( or more insidiously , executive board membersip but not a trustee of a charity) / NEDships and Lodge membership or even DL status to portray themselves as nice guys
Never mind.
i've met some utter psychopaths in senior roles for charities , their involvement is calculated to the nth degree to build influence in their 'real job' , to provide access to the great and good ( and enhance their standing in the community at large and The Lodge ) , and in some cases develop secondary incomes ...
A couple of points regarding share of state pensions as a percentage of GDP.
First of all I agree this is a valid method of measuring total costs. Though others may concentrate on the fairness aspect.
However there are some serious issues in claiming that based on this future public sector pensions are affordable.
Firstly, and most importantly, graphs showing stable or falling share of GDP assumed that the "cap and share" agreement would be followed and that future increases in longevity would be met by a later retirement age, higher employee contributions, lower pensions or a mixture of all three. Such graphs are not an argument against reform they are based on reform having taken place.
Secondly long term GDP forecasts are inherently unreliable, in the past few years the cost has grown as a percentage of GDP and is still forecast to grow for the next few years. Longer term forecasts may assume a return to long term average rates of GDP growth, but growth in GDP per head has been very poor since the early 2000s.
Finally even if the cost does indeed remain stable longer term (not a given as above) there are other areas of government spending which are going to grow as a percentage of the total. This includes Health care spending, the basic state pension and possibly in-work benefits in an increasingly low wage economy (if the Tories are unable to adequately reform this).
First of all I agree this is a valid method of measuring total costs. Though others may concentrate on the fairness aspect.
However there are some serious issues in claiming that based on this future public sector pensions are affordable.
Firstly, and most importantly, graphs showing stable or falling share of GDP assumed that the "cap and share" agreement would be followed and that future increases in longevity would be met by a later retirement age, higher employee contributions, lower pensions or a mixture of all three. Such graphs are not an argument against reform they are based on reform having taken place.
Secondly long term GDP forecasts are inherently unreliable, in the past few years the cost has grown as a percentage of GDP and is still forecast to grow for the next few years. Longer term forecasts may assume a return to long term average rates of GDP growth, but growth in GDP per head has been very poor since the early 2000s.
Finally even if the cost does indeed remain stable longer term (not a given as above) there are other areas of government spending which are going to grow as a percentage of the total. This includes Health care spending, the basic state pension and possibly in-work benefits in an increasingly low wage economy (if the Tories are unable to adequately reform this).
Edited by JagLover on Sunday 29th November 12:26
JagLover said:
Firstly, and most importantly, graphs showing stable or falling share of GDP assumed that the "cap and share" agreement would be followed and that future increases in longevity would be met by a later retirement age, higher employee contributions, lower pensions or a mixture of all three. Such graphs are not an argument against reform they are based on reform having taken place.
This is key - no way are the Unions just going to accept lower pensions, later retirement dates or increased employee contributions (the latter of which might to be affordable for employees either). If the government tries to implement what has already actually been agreed you can almost guarantee further strikes.JagLover said:
Secondly long term GDP forecasts are inherently unreliable, in the past few years the cost has grown as a percentage of GDP and is still forecast to grow for the next few years. Longer term forecasts may assume a return to long term average rates of GDP growth, but growth in GDP per head has been very poor since the early 2000s.
Finally even if the cost does indeed remain stable longer term (not a given as above) there are other areas of government spending which are going to grow as a percentage of the total. This includes Health care spending, the basic state pension and possibly in-work benefits in an increasingly low wage economy (if the Tories are unable to adequately reform this).
Agreed.Finally even if the cost does indeed remain stable longer term (not a given as above) there are other areas of government spending which are going to grow as a percentage of the total. This includes Health care spending, the basic state pension and possibly in-work benefits in an increasingly low wage economy (if the Tories are unable to adequately reform this).
mph1977 said:
you presented this as some great achievement ... it;s not really for anyone with a moderately useful professional skill set , and even at minimum wage someone who gives 10 hours a week (averaged) of their time to a charity makes a contribution of several thousand pounds a year ...
I presented it as no such thing, just a throw away response to the ignorant rhetoric of someone who doesn't understand the economic argument and hence has to resort to the 'envy' argument (claiming I don't care for the less well off in society etc).As i said, you miss the point - I wasn't talking about the cost of my time, I was purely talking about cash donations.
Of course I knew that you'd continue the personal snipes, having already lost the economic argument!
mph1977 said:
i've met some utter psychopaths in senior roles for charities , their involvement is calculated to the nth degree to build influence in their 'real job' , to provide access to the great and good ( and enhance their standing in the community at large and The Lodge ) , and in some cases develop secondary incomes ...
And?Edited by sidicks on Sunday 29th November 12:46
I am totally unable to fathom the ignorance of basic arithmetic and economics in this thread.
the overwhelming majority of government departments would not function as businesses in the private sector, the trading deficit they carry is huge, the pension deficit even bigger.
there are a few, for example the land registry, that 'generate' an income, but this is clearly off the back of a monopoly in an area, not as a result of being a well run business.
I accept public sector, but equally those who defend it as not being dependant on our taxes, how the hell do they believe it is funded? and who are these agencies financially answerable to?
the overwhelming majority of government departments would not function as businesses in the private sector, the trading deficit they carry is huge, the pension deficit even bigger.
there are a few, for example the land registry, that 'generate' an income, but this is clearly off the back of a monopoly in an area, not as a result of being a well run business.
I accept public sector, but equally those who defend it as not being dependant on our taxes, how the hell do they believe it is funded? and who are these agencies financially answerable to?
dave123456 said:
I accept public sector, but equally those who defend it as not being dependant on our taxes, how the hell do they believe it is funded? and who are these agencies financially answerable to?
the issue is with the way it is portrayed , when you have individuals implying that the pension schemes are requiring extensive tax payer support ( on top of the employers contribution) , when in fact they are and have done ( and will continue to in at least the short to medium term - hence the diminuation of benefits all ready coming in - contrary to the assertion of some recent posters) return surpluses to the exchequer - this being the trade off for their PAYG nature ... sidicks said:
Countdown said:
"Worse" for you, but "better" for the Shareholders and Senior managers, surely?
Better for the business to help avoid going bust, which means in some way better for the employee too!mph1977 said:
the issue is with the way it is portrayed , when you have individuals implying that the pension schemes are requiring extensive tax payer support ( on top of the employers contribution) , when in fact they are and have done ( and will continue to in at least the short to medium term - hence the diminuation of benefits all ready coming in - contrary to the assertion of some recent posters) return surpluses to the exchequer - this being the trade off for their PAYG nature ...
Do you have any evidence to back up your extraordinary claim that public sector DB schemes return surpluses to the exchequer?A quick google suggests that your claim is rubbish.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/934653...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff