Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
dave123456 said:
I don't think some people on here understand the cost of defined benefit pension schemes. This surplus repaid to the treasury nonsense is a load of rubbish... Have they thought of the age demographic of the scheme participants. What is being suggested here is the public sector move to a defined contribution scheme... And the benefits they receive on retirement are not guaranteed. This means they have the same deal as private sector workers.
What is wrong with this suggestion?
Nothing, but those who are in line for the DB pensions are happy for the taxpayer to foot the, ever increasing, cost so will do everything to resist that. What is wrong with this suggestion?
REALIST123 said:
Nothing, but those who are in line for the DB pensions are happy for the taxpayer to foot the, ever increasing, cost so will do everything to resist that.
the 'ever increasing'cost that people only seem to be able to prove with man maths you mean ( such as lcaiming that 5 % is paid into the scheme rather ca 25 -30 % depending on the scheme and making assumptions that the majority of people in the scheme will have full pensions , or finally comparisions to ponzi schemes mph1977 said:
the 'ever increasing'cost that people only seem to be able to prove with man maths you mean ( such as lcaiming that 5 % is paid into the scheme rather ca 25 -30 % depending on the scheme and making assumptions that the majority of people in the scheme will have full pensions , or finally comparisions to ponzi schemes
No such assumptions are made - you are wrong. The liabilities my is best on that accrued to date and ignores future accrual.'Man maths' is actually the mathematics of professionals who have years of training in this area, rather than 'nurse maths' which ignores basic economics.
sidicks said:
'Man maths' is actually the mathematics of professionals who have years of training in this area, rather than 'nurse maths' which ignores basic economics.
There goes that assertion again. You are correct, everyone else is wrong.You are a sociopath and a prig (and don't ever send emails directly to my personal address again).
You assert that things should follow your path, but in reality they don't. That is enough evidence that your theories may be flawed and your viewpoint is opinion rather than fact, and casting aspersions about my or anyone else's abilities to understand the issue does not change that because (and here's a statistic you cannot argue with) - two wrongs do not make a right.
I find you personally irritating and it annoys me that someone as highly-functioning as yourself can invoke emotive language yet be so insensitive.
Enjoy your trusts, glow in the self satisfaction of your charitable donations, and if you feel this issue needs reform then put yourself in the space that will allow you to do so and see how you get on instead of soapboxing on here every time the discussion crops up.
Edited by r11co on Monday 30th November 09:38
r11co said:
There goes that assertion again. You are correct, everyone else is wrong.
A decade of training and 20+ years of expertise is why I'm right. And you'll see from this thread that those that agree with me are those with similar training.Those that do not are those with zero training in this area.
r11co said:
You are a sociopath and a prig (and don't ever send emails directly to my personal address again).
Laughable, seriously laughable.YOU contacted me to tell me you'd reported me for 'offensive remarks' (which is laughable in itself given the related insults and abuse you have hurled at me in this thread and others) yet you would not explain what I'd said that was so offensive.
All I did was to reply and explained my situation and asked you to clarify what the problem was, as I felt there was a misunderstanding, yet you refused to do so.
So either put up and explain what the issue is or go away. And certainly stop being such a hypocrite.
r11co said:
You assert that things should follow your path, but in reality they don't. That is enough evidence that your theories may be flawed and your viewpoint is opinion rather than fact, and casting aspersions about my or anyone else's abilities to understand the issue does not change that because (and here's a statistic you cannot argue with) - two wrongs do not make a right.
In reality they do - the economics doesn't lie.r11co said:
I find you personally irritating and it annoys me that someone as highly-functioning as yourself can invoke emotive language yet be so insensitive.
Why don't you explain what your issue is rather than vague accusations?r11co said:
Enjoy your trusts, glow in the self satisfaction of your charitable donations, and if you feel this issue needs reform then put yourself in the space that will allow you to do so instead of soapboxing on here every time the discussion crops up.
When the issue crops up, it's helpful to have some people who actually understand what is actually going on, so I'll continue to contribute as i see fit, regardless of what you would like.Edited by sidicks on Monday 30th November 09:46
sidicks said:
A decade of training and 20+ years of expertise is why I'm right.
How frustrating it must be for you then that things don't follow your righteous path.
sidicks said:
r11co said:
You are a sociopath and a prig.
Laughable, seriously laughable.r11co said:
Anyone who knows what those two words actually mean will find ample evidence in this thread to suggest you fit both categories. I don't need to explain myself - your behaviour does the talking.
So you insult me and then complain to the mods about me being offensive, yet won't explain why?!
sidicks said:
YOU contacted me to tell me you'd reported me for 'offensive remarks'...
All I did was to reply and explained my situation and asked you to clarify what the problem was, as I felt there was a misunderstanding, yet you refused to do so.
I did contact you by PM through the PH site (which forwards to your email address which I get no knowledge of) to (as I said in the PM) be 'sporting' and let you know I had reported you for your inflammatory comments regarding charitable donations and your snobbish dismissal of my involvement in cancer charities (which I explained to you is a particularly personal issue to me).All I did was to reply and explained my situation and asked you to clarify what the problem was, as I felt there was a misunderstanding, yet you refused to do so.
I did not, as you say, 'refuse' to reply. I simply didn't reply to the two emails you sent back to my personal address as they did not warrant a reply and were an attempt to salve your conscience.
This is the thing with you sidicks - you embellish and add emotive adjuncts to your comments about other people in order to diminish them. There are dozens of examples of you doing it in this one thread alone. It is not a necessary part of debate, but it is an activity that defines you.
Your superiority complex is palpable, and the sycophants who stroke your ego are nauseating.
I haven't insulted you - I have defined your behaviour using words that fit, appropriately.
Edited by r11co on Monday 30th November 10:18
Just a quick question, to those who do not see the problem with the Public pension scheme, why is it not subjected to the same problems that have befallen most private pension schemes ? as I pointed out the scheme I was in was paying in massive amount of money just to keep it open, but everybody could see it could not keep on doing that, this has happened to many companies,
last year I believe shell a massively rich oil company shut its scheme to new starters, its simple, the costs are unsustainable going forward,
why are not the public sector having the same problems, somebody must be picking up the Tab, they do not have a magic money tree.
last year I believe shell a massively rich oil company shut its scheme to new starters, its simple, the costs are unsustainable going forward,
why are not the public sector having the same problems, somebody must be picking up the Tab, they do not have a magic money tree.
r11co said:
I did contact you by PM through the PH site (which forwards to your email address which I get no knowledge of) to (as I said in the PM) be 'sporting' and let you know I had reported you for your inflammatory comments regarding charitable donations and your snobbish dismissal of my involvement in cancer charities (which I explained to you is a particularly personal issue to me).
Inflammatory comments regarding charitable donations?!All I said (in response to your claims that I don't care about anyone apart from myself (or words to that effect)) was that I do a lot for charity in numerous ways, both financial and practical, which contradicts your claims.
I also made no 'dismissal' about your involvement in cancer charities - I simply started that the charities I am involved with are likely to be grateful for my support.
r11co said:
I did not, as you say, 'refuse' to reply. I simply didn't reply to the two emails you sent back to my personal address as they did not warrant a reply and were an attempt to salve your conscience.
I simply replied to the email I was sent, with the genuine intention of trying to understand the issue and clear up what was seemingly a misunderstanding.In trying to explain the situation, I revealed some personal information about how cancer has affected me and my family to help you understand that there has been a clear misunderstanding, yet you've chosen to ignore it.
The fact that no-one else has commented on my post that seems to have upset you so much suggests that everyone else took it the way it was intended.
r11co said:
This is the thing with you sidicks - you embellish and add emotive adjuncts to your comments about other people in order to diminish them. There are dozens of examples of you doing it in this one thread alone.
I don't insult you - I define your behaviour using words that fit, appropriately
Please stop now.I don't insult you - I define your behaviour using words that fit, appropriately
sidicks said:
r11co said:
This is the thing with you sidicks - you embellish and add emotive adjuncts to your comments about other people in order to diminish them. There are dozens of examples of you doing it in this one thread alone.
I don't insult you - I define your behaviour using words that fit, appropriately
Please stop now.I don't insult you - I define your behaviour using words that fit, appropriately
sidicks said:
Please go away, or I'll report you...
Can't take it when it is being dished out.You are now a liar as well. Your dismissal of my charitable involvement is visible in this thread for all to see (unless you choose now to edit it) and I never once said you only cared about yourself.
Pathetic.
You are exposing yourself now sidicks. I'll leave you to it.
Edited by r11co on Monday 30th November 10:31
sidicks said:
r11co said:
Can't take it when it is being dished out.
Pathetic.
You are exposing yourself now sidicks. I'll leave you to it.
Pathetic.
You are exposing yourself now sidicks. I'll leave you to it.
No wonder people stay out of some of these threads. It's just you pompously calling other posters stupid. It doesn't make you look clever or particularly endearing.
el stovey said:
I'm not sure what you are laughing at, you do actually look pathetic.
No wonder people stay out of some of these threads. It's just you pompously calling other posters stupid. It doesn't make you look clever or particularly endearing.
I've called one person stupid, who repeatedly refers to 'Chicken little', 'lies and statistics' etc and others who dismiss the facts simply because I must be envious of public sector workers...No wonder people stay out of some of these threads. It's just you pompously calling other posters stupid. It doesn't make you look clever or particularly endearing.
No idea what you do for a job, but I'd be surprised if you reacted positively to a thread with people claiming you didn't know how to do your job...
[/footnote]
Edited by sidicks on Monday 30th November 12:03
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff