Unsustainable public sector pensions

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Green energy, Farm commodities, Transport (especially rail) just for starters past and present.

How much does that amount to?
(and you certainly won't find me supporting Green energy subsidies!). But the ones you mention provide benefits to the wider population not an isolated subgroup.

[johnxjsc1985]

sidicks said:

How much does that amount to?
(and you certainly won't find me supporting Green energy subsidies!). But the ones you mention provide benefits to the wider population not an isolated subgroup.

so you think public sectors employees provide no benefits.
and what about those £93billion tax subsidies.

[sidicks]

johnxjsc1985 said:

so you think public sectors employees provide no benefits.

I've said no such thing, no idea where you get that from.

johnxjsc1985 said:

and what about those £93billion tax subsidies.

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between 'tax breaks' and 'capital allowances'!

[johnxjsc1985]

sidicks said:

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between 'tax breaks' and 'capital allowances'!

what about the almost £100mil to Nissan Sunderland you can call it what you want but business and lots of it depends on Government hand outs or a them turning a blind eye to corporation Tax evasion.

[sidicks]

johnxjsc1985 said:

what about the almost £100mil to Nissan Sunderland you can call it what you want but business and lots of it depends on Government hand outs or a them turning a blind eye to corporation Tax evasion.

Wow!

Suddenly we've gone from £98n to £100m!

And apparently you still don't understand what 'capital allowances' are!!

Where has the government turned a blind eye to tax evasion??

[vonuber]

he huge subsidy BT got for building broadband. Or look at the latest nuclear plant deals - taxpayers are ultimately subsidising that through higher fixed energy prices.

Unfortunately that contravenes the accepted wisdom on here that the private sector is the panacea to all ills - as long as you can afford it of course.
If not - well that's your fault.

[sidicks]

vonuber said:

The huge subsidy BT got for building broadband. Or look at the latest nuclear plant deals - taxpayers are ultimately subsidising that through higher fixed energy prices.

If only previous governments had made the investments some time ago (during a period of record tax receipts) rather than wasting the money on buying votes...

vonuber said:

Unfortunately that contravenes the accepted wisdom on here that the private sector is the panacea to all ills - as long as you can afford it of course.
If not - well that's your fault.

No idea who thinks that - I'd suggest it's another nonsense claim rather than address the issues!

[dave123456]

mph1977 said:

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 ...

Not sure if it is the awkward sentence construction or the content itself but that makes little sense to me.

[sidicks]

dave123456 said:

Not sure if it is the awkward sentence construction or the content itself but that makes little sense to me.

The sentence construction is the least of his problems - just a total lack of understanding about the funding of DB pensions.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Green energy, Farm commodities, Transport (especially rail) just for starters past and present.

How much does that amount to?
(and you certainly won't find me supporting Green energy subsidies!). But the ones you mention provide benefits to the wider population not an isolated subgroup.

Just these examples I refer or all of the subsidies available to private companies? One can offer personal opinions on any value of subsidies that Government offers, as you indeed have with Green subsidies. My own opinion on Green subsidies is at odds with your's, we could argue night and day on the merits or otherwise on any given subsidy. My opinion on rail subsidy for example is unprintable, I do not use rail transport and question why my taxes subsidise rail travel!(although the subsidy is being lowered over the past five years or so).

The sub group you mention is not how I would categorize the Public Service sector, for me they form the second backbone of Society for which we all pay a price. Not quite sure why it is that you judge the P.S. sector as not providing benefits for all. Not everybody will agree with my opinion of course.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

The sub group you mention is not how I would categorize the Public Service sector, for me they form the second backbone of Society for which we all pay a price. Not quite sure why it is that you judge the P.S. sector as not providing benefits for all. Not everybody will agree with my opinion of course.

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making (or I'm misunderstanding yours).

Subsidising green energy / rail etc provides benefits for the vast majority of the population. Subsidising public sector pensions benefits public sector workers only (and indeed takes money away from public services thus worsening the situation for taxpayers.

[crankedup]

vonuber said:

he huge subsidy BT got for building broadband. Or look at the latest nuclear plant deals - taxpayers are ultimately subsidising that through higher fixed energy prices.

Unfortunately that contravenes the accepted wisdom on here that the private sector is the panacea to all ills - as long as you can afford it of course.
If not - well that's your fault.

Indeed, no matter any of our personal politics it is a long established matter of fact regarding Government interventions in assisting private businesses, for the greater good of the Country. From the low income ratio and use of tax credits through to the hundreds of millions pounds to major National Companies. When the equations are taken into full consideration we all play a financial part in U.K. PLC, imo for one group to denigrate another group, within financial terms, is almost suggesting Capitalism and democracy are not working together. One supports the other and the same goes in P.S. and its productive counter part the Private Sector. Neither of which are perfect in themselves perhaps.

[dave123456]

sidicks said:

dave123456 said:

Not sure if it is the awkward sentence construction or the content itself but that makes little sense to me.

The sentence construction is the least of his problems - just a total lack of understanding about the funding of DB pensions.

I was trying to politely say it was utter codst...

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

The sub group you mention is not how I would categorize the Public Service sector, for me they form the second backbone of Society for which we all pay a price. Not quite sure why it is that you judge the P.S. sector as not providing benefits for all. Not everybody will agree with my opinion of course.

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making (or I'm misunderstanding yours).

Subsidising green energy / rail etc provides benefits for the vast majority of the population. Subsidising public sector pensions benefits public sector workers only (and indeed takes money away from public services thus worsening the situation for taxpayers.

Perhaps it's a question of perception of worth. Purely in monetary terms perhaps U.K. is overloaded with the Pensions deficient in the Public Sector, you are far more likely to be in a better position to judge taking into consideration your profession. However, in terms of worth and value I cannot separate the private sector and Public Sector as both play vital roles. Again worth and value come into play when we pay a maths teacher and a physical education teacher differing rewards. For some the maths take a higher value, but not all will agree. All I am trying to say is that not everything in life comes down to the bottom line, one mans priority is another's ball and chain.
Additionally I take the view that U.K. will be able to increase prosperity, with support from Government, in our fledgling but growing industries, in turn helping to promote good Public Services for all to benefit from.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

perhaps U.K. is overloaded with the Pensions deficit in the Public Sector

Would you please outline that to many from the public sector who have trouble understanding it?

[Downward]

sidicks said:

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making (or I'm misunderstanding yours).

Subsidising green energy / rail etc provides benefits for the vast majority of the population. Subsidising public sector pensions benefits public sector workers only (and indeed takes money away from public services thus worsening the situation for taxpayers.

How does subsidising the rail benefit the majority of folk ?

[Countdown]

sidicks said:

vonuber said:

The huge subsidy BT got for building broadband. Or look at the latest nuclear plant deals - taxpayers are ultimately subsidising that through higher fixed energy prices.

If only previous governments had made the investments some time ago (during a period of record tax receipts) rather than wasting the money on buying votes...

Why should any government have to subsidise BT make this investment? Why doesn't the private sector do it? Same applies to the new nuke plants....

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making (or I'm misunderstanding yours).

Subsidising green energy / rail etc provides benefits for the vast majority of the population. Subsidising public sector pensions benefits public sector workers only (and indeed takes money away from public services thus worsening the situation for taxpayers.

I'm not sure why you can't understand that the costs of pensions for public sector workers - whether that be in direct taxpayer funded partial contributions, or via an unfunded future provision assumed to cost 1.5-2% of future GDP (as it is today) - is PART OF THE COST OF PROVIDING THE PUBLIC SERVICE. It is amusing to see you condescendingly argue that some don't understand how they are funded, when it is quite simple.

Equally, you argue green energy and rail provides benefits for the majority of the population - but why when paying these companies do the govt give them enough money to allow them to pay their employees enough to have a pension? Should the grants/subsidies be cut to remove the part of the salary of these private workers that funds THEIR pension - it only benefits them so why should taxpayers subsidise it? That is no use to the majority of the population is it? Why don't we just cut all that - it is worsening the situation for taxpayers? And don't try and imply the private sector no longer has pensions, its not true, neither is it true they get paid the same.

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

Why should any government have to subsidise BT make this investment? Why doesn't the private sector do it? Same applies to the new nuke plants....

Obviously there is massive government risk with those projects. And we've seen with the last government that governments are often prepared to make retrospective changes when it suits them.

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

I'm not sure why you can't understand that the costs of pensions for public sector workers - whether that be in direct taxpayer funded partial contributions, or via an unfunded future provision assumed to cost 1.5-2% of future GDP (as it is today) - is PART OF THE COST OF PROVIDING THE PUBLIC SERVICE. It is amusing to see you condescendingly argue that some don't understand how they are funded, when it is quite simple.

Why is so special about public sector workers that pensions are essential for them to do their jobs, yet this same link doesn't exist for the vast majority of directly comparable roles in the private sector?

Time and time again threads like this demonstrate how little public sector employees understand about the value of their pensions or who is paying for them!

///adj said:

Equally, you argue green energy and rail provides benefits for the majority of the population - but why when paying these companies do the govt give them enough money to allow them to pay their employees enough to have a pension?

Should the grants/subsidies be cut to remove the part of the salary of these private workers that funds THEIR pension - it only benefits them so why should taxpayers subsidise it? That is no use to the majority of the population is it? Why don't we just cut all that - it is worsening the situation for taxpayers? [b{And don't try and imply the private sector no longer has pensions, its not true [/b]

Once again you are great and making up things so that you can immediately dismiss them!

What do you think is the average employer pension contribution in the private sector?
What proportion of the private sector still have DB schemes open to new members?
How about to new accrual?
Why you do think that is?

You don't half talk some nonsense.

///adj said:

neither is it true they get paid the same.

And yet the ONS dats would disagree with you, and they seem more trustworthy than your random anecdotes - we are talking about averages based on an extensive analysis!

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 29th November 19:18