Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
sidicks said:
Downward said:
How does subsidising the rail benefit the majority of folk ?
You really don't understand the importance of the rail system for London (in particular) which drives the whole economy? crankedup said:
I see the Public Sector salaries as a reasonable price to pay for that which is delivered.
Opinions vary but I accept the general point.Many don't see PS pensions in the same light, however. In short, they are unaffordable, partly because folks are living longer than originally envisaged.
Regardless of any changes to date, a few more changes are necessary & sticking heads in the sand won't change that position.
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
and completely ignores the employers contribution ...
This is still taxpayer funded, regardless of any mechanisms by which the money is shunted around.Jesus bloody wept- where else do huge amounts of money enter the NHS system but from the goddamn taxpayers?
crankedup said:
lets not over-look just how much of our tax paying money finds itself in the hands of private Companies. Those that supply all of the wonderful equipment and medicines, helps the money -go - round!
There is an element of choice & competition there, plus the money those firms plough into R&D. The same can't be said of the pensions.
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
I see the Public Sector salaries as a reasonable price to pay for that which is delivered.
Opinions vary but I accept the general point.Many don't see PS pensions in the same light, however. In short, they are unaffordable, partly because folks are living longer than originally envisaged.
Regardless of any changes to date, a few more changes are necessary & sticking heads in the sand won't change that position.
crankedup said:
I mentioned earlier in this thread that U.K. prosperity may continue to recover and improve to a point allowing the pensions within both sectors to be re-visited with a positive outcome for workers. I doubt any person wants to see poor pensioners in future years which will only continue to widen the wealth gap.
We'd all like the situation to be better & nobody wants paupers.However, even with improved UK prosperity there will IMO be an imbalance between the positions of those in receipt of VERY generous pensions & those who will be taxed to the hilt to pay for them (I understand the partial overlap between the two groups).
We can see the problem ahead- the best time to deal with it is before it's too late, ie now.
crankedup said:
Agreed, changes to the pension system are being made. The sustainability of the pensions forces the issue, however, I mentioned earlier in this thread that U.K. prosperity may continue to recover and improve to a point allowing the pensions within both sectors to be re-visited with a positive outcome for workers. I doubt any person wants to see poor pensioners in future years which will only continue to widen the wealth gap.
Isn't that just the 'race to the bottom' argument?We won't make private sector pensions any better by forcing higher and higher taxes on the private sector to fund fantastic pensions for the public sector. Quite the opposite in fact!
woowahwoo said:
That's ironic since the 'reporting' saga above is terrible projection on your part. Your strategy, both here and on other threads I have seen, is based in attacking the poster. Have you got anything to say on the subject which isn't loaded with ad homs or signed-off with such snarks and personally-directed barbs?
Notwithstanding the above is conjecture, how does it justify your 'sense of entitlement' comment?It's a problem that only a very brave Government is going to change.
The cost to them will be massive Public Sector disquiet and strikes.
The value to them will be millions of Public Sector voting the other way at election time. Most public sector workers are the middle ground that the parties need. It's only the vocal few that are the rabid socialists that you see on the picket lines.
It is something that should be taken out of the Government's hands, given to an independent cross-party body with the proviso that the findings are to be implemented by the NEXT Government after the report is published and agreed, regardless of political colour.
This means that the sitting Government will only be associated with setting up the body, not with the result.
The future Government will be associated with the report's implementation, but not with the result.
Not a political "win-win", but more a "no lose-no lose".
It's not rocket science. If it were, I'd probably understand it better
.
They either need to work longer, live shorter, or pay in more.
The cost to them will be massive Public Sector disquiet and strikes.
The value to them will be millions of Public Sector voting the other way at election time. Most public sector workers are the middle ground that the parties need. It's only the vocal few that are the rabid socialists that you see on the picket lines.
It is something that should be taken out of the Government's hands, given to an independent cross-party body with the proviso that the findings are to be implemented by the NEXT Government after the report is published and agreed, regardless of political colour.
This means that the sitting Government will only be associated with setting up the body, not with the result.
The future Government will be associated with the report's implementation, but not with the result.
Not a political "win-win", but more a "no lose-no lose".
It's not rocket science. If it were, I'd probably understand it better
.They either need to work longer, live shorter, or pay in more.
PRTVR said:
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.
a number of factors 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.
'contribution holidays' from employers thjanks to ill-advised/ hugely over optimisitic professional advice
attitude of shareholders towards the cost - as displayed by the likes of sidicks with regard to the PS schemes
in some cases unrealistic accrual and retirement ages compared to even the Public sector pensions
some PS schemes are funded schemes
some PS schemes are PAYG and consequently their surpluses have been returned to the exchequer to be re spent rather than building a fund which may subsequently be lent ...
mph1977 said:
a number of factors
'contribution holidays' from employers thjanks to ill-advised/ hugely over optimisitic professional advice
You mean Contributions holidays impose by HMRC?'contribution holidays' from employers thjanks to ill-advised/ hugely over optimisitic professional advice
mph1977 said:
attitude of shareholders towards the cost - as displayed by the likes of sidicks with regard to the PS schemes
You mean an understanding of the massive and unaffordable liability being built up?mph1977 said:
in some cases unrealistic accrual and retirement ages compared to even the Public sector pensions
Except the vast majority of private sector DB schemes are materially worse than the public sector schemes under discussion.mph1977 said:
some PS schemes are funded schemes
mph1977 said:
some PS schemes are PAYG and consequently their surpluses have been returned to the exchequer to be re spent rather than building a fund which may subsequently be lent ...
Except it's not a surplus in the proper pension scheme definition of the word, and hence is irrelevant in this context.sidicks said:
crankedup said:
I doubt any person wants to see poor pensioners in future years which will only continue to widen the wealth gap.
Isn't that just the 'race to the bottom' argument?r11co said:
How exactly does that square up with your invoking of the 'poorest in society' justification earlier in the thread?
Very easily, given that the 'poorest in society' are unlikely to be in receipt of public sector final salary DB scheme pensions...Making poor private sector workers even less well off by increasing taxes or reducing the benefits and services they receive (so that we can direct more taxpayer funds into gold-plated pensions for public sector workers) is clearly the wrong approach.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 30th November 13:42
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Agreed, changes to the pension system are being made. The sustainability of the pensions forces the issue, however, I mentioned earlier in this thread that U.K. prosperity may continue to recover and improve to a point allowing the pensions within both sectors to be re-visited with a positive outcome for workers. I doubt any person wants to see poor pensioners in future years which will only continue to widen the wealth gap.
Isn't that just the 'race to the bottom' argument?We won't make private sector pensions any better by forcing higher and higher taxes on the private sector to fund fantastic pensions for the public sector. Quite the opposite in fact!
We were talking about Government subsidies to Private Companies earlier in the thread, I am not convinced that these subsidies offer good value for tax payers and suggested that perhaps, given the importance of the rail service, this should be brought back into Public ownership, rather than continuous of subsidises that benefit shareholders. Just saying that there are two sides to a coin.
Are Public Service pensions fantastic, or are they part and parcel of the overall remuneration package. Remove the pension scheme to new entrants but increase the basic salaries?
The other point I would like to make is that since the private sector have suffered the loss of worthwhile pension scheme's we have witnessed the huge growth in 'Buy to Let' housing. Seems to me that the two issues are linked with many new landlords buying into the 'Buy to let' industry as a means of securing a decent pension for themselves. The downside is those young people now cannot compete with landlords in securing low cost housing, Just another side issue relating to our changing Social Status and this issue directly related to 'affordability' of pensions by Public and Private sector employers. This my appear convoluted perhaps, but I believe it to be relevant.
sidicks said:
r11co said:
How exactly does that square up with your invoking of the 'poorest in society' justification earlier in the thread?
Very easily, given that the 'poorest in society' are unlikely to be in receipt of public sector final salary DB scheme pensions...Making poor private sector workers even less well off by increasing taxes or reducing the benefits and services they receive (so that we can direct more taxpayer funds into gold-plated pensions for public sector workers) is clearly the wrong approach.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 30th November 13:42
crankedup said:
But isn't it a matter of priority choice for the Government, instead of pouring billions of pounds into foreign hands pour some of it into the public sector pensions. The Government has an obligation to meet the past agreements made regarding these current pensions. Sure, lower the expectations of new employee's regarding a pension, I see no other solution, although I hate 'race to the bottom' solutions. Lowering the overall T& C of Public Sector jobs and vocations could result in our best workers being lost to other employers though, ultimately reducing or eroding the quality of services provided.
the terms and conditions of local Gov employees have changed massively over the last 5 years as has their work load.but the avg pension is between £5k and £7k not £50k these are not people in the main who will be off to their Villa in Tuscany.Dinner ladies, Teachers assistants, Social Workers are not earning huge salaries and will not be leaving with a bug fat pension.
the days of Local Gov staff retiring at 50 with a nice pay off and a good pension a rightly long gone its a different world out there.
crankedup said:
The Government has an obligation to meet the past agreements made regarding these current pensions. Sure, lower the expectations of new employee's regarding a pension, I see no other solution...
I don't think Sidicks (or any one here for that matter) has ever advocated anything else. Earned entitlements are just that; earned, the government agreed to those terms and they should and most likely will stick to that. Obviously that does not mean future entitlement accrual should, or can, stay the same. It won't be very long before children being born will expect to live past 100. The problem for those resisting further change now is that the longer the situation is allowed to get worse the more likely future governments will be forced to default on those previous earned entitlements. They really will squeal then!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff