Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
r11co said:
My point was to shoot a hole through your earlier altruism.
Your ridiculous strawman argument proves nothing, unless you are suggesting that the majority of the low paid don't deserve financial support?Otherwise, the fact that a small minority of 'undeserving' poor might benefit alongside the 'deserving' poor is an insignificant issue.
r11co said:
Your reply proves my point - you don't care who else benefits as long as your bogey of the public sector worker stops benefiting. This is a single issue argument for you, and the point has been made all along that you ignore connected issues.
Nonsense, but I wasn't expecting anything less.It shouldn't be much of a surprise that in any sensible government policy there will be a number of anomalies.
Perhaps you might to like to highlight some government policies that aim to support the poorest in society but which differentiate between the 'deserving' poor and the 'undeserving' poor??
Edited by sidicks on Monday 30th November 19:48
sidicks said:
If the pension is low that's because they've not worked for very long in the public sector I.e. few years of accrual and therefore minimal contributions!
The issue is the pension received compared to the contributions made.
no it's the function of the fact for many of the female dominated roles in the public sector the proprtion of people who have the chance to achieve full contribution history is small taking into account part time working, career breaks and so on ... The issue is the pension received compared to the contributions made.
also it seems ot be forgotten that there are large numbers of Public sector employees paid little more than the 'living wage' e.g. most ancillary staff who are still employed directly or where they are still eligible to remain i nthe pension schemes.
fblm said:
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!I do not envisage the existing situation becoming much more entrenched in the financial mud than it already is. The gradual privatisation of services will erode the numbers of workers that will have the opportunity to be included in a worthy while pension scheme. Ultimately hundreds of thousands of workers within both sectors will end up with a very basic humble pot of money to live on in their golden years. Meanwhile the fat cats will be getting even fatter, all I can say is thank you that I am not part of any of it.
r11co said:
dave123456 said:
someone who feels entitled to my taxes.. 
The point has been made - you want the same level of public service but to pay less for it.TankRizzo said:
r11co said:
The converse of which is you want to enjoy the same level of public service but to pay less for it.
There is nothing wrong with that unless you fail to accept there are any efficiencies to be implemented.mph1977 said:
no it's the function of the fact for many of the female dominated roles in the public sector the proprtion of people who have the chance to achieve full contribution history is small taking into account part time working, career breaks and so on ...
So part time workers and people taking career breaks have less accrual and have paid lower contributions so receive less pension - surely that's blatantly obvious and sensible.Of course what's relevant is the pension received relative to the contributions made, and that's basically the same for someone receiving a full pension for 40 years service or 40 people each receiving 1/40th of a full pension for working for 1 year of service.
Thus, as explained earlier, the average pension is irrelevant and meaningless in the overall discussion about the cost of the scheme for the taxpayer.
mph1977 said:
also it seems ot be forgotten that there are large numbers of Public sector employees paid little more than the 'living wage' e.g. most ancillary staff who are still employed directly or where they are still eligible to remain i nthe pension schemes.
There are plenty of low paid people in the private sector too - does the government subsidies their pensions? Those on the lowest wages are getting an even better deal on their contributions as they pay the lowest rate and receive the same terms!!
ATG said:
r11co said:
dave123456 said:
someone who feels entitled to my taxes..
The point has been made - you want the same level of public service but to pay less for it.This can be applied across the board both to both sectors.
ATG said:
r11co said:
dave123456 said:
someone who feels entitled to my taxes..
The point has been made - you want the same level of public service but to pay less for it.are you in the union per chance?!
crankedup said:
ATG said:
r11co said:
dave123456 said:
someone who feels entitled to my taxes..
The point has been made - you want the same level of public service but to pay less for it.This can be applied across the board both to both sectors.
Tesco are going bust because there is competition in the marketplace- they stopped being efficient and now other players are cutting them off at the knees. The public are quite happy- no one is sad that this massive organisation is disappearing. Quite a few of us enjoy shoppping at Aldi and Lidl.
The NHS can be as inefficient and as bad as it likes and it will never go bust, no one will lose their jobs and no will actually put any pressure on the owners. The staff will never have the option to work elsewhere if (and when) the NHS starts treating them like crap.
Free at the point of delivery does NOT equal free. For something as important as health there shouldn't be a problem with asking people to take financial or moral responsibility.
mph1977 said:
and there are far more efficiencies to be adopted than assualting the TaCoS of frontline staff .
I made that point in the last iteration of this thread. Sidicks initially failed to even acknowledge the point had been made then proceeded to demean me and others for being not as clever as him rather than concede the point when he couldn't actually counter it. A blindness to other solutions and the bigger picture because of an obsession with what he perceives to be an injustice, but he argues it is purely a technocratic issue.Then he wonders why he gets peoples' backs up.
Edited by r11co on Monday 30th November 22:03
r11co said:
I made that point in the last iteration of this thread. Sidicks initially failed to even acknowledge the point had been made then proceeded to demean me and others for being not as clever as him rather than concede the point when he couldn't actually counter it. A blindness to other solutions and the bigger picture because of an obsession with what he perceives to be an injustice, but he argues it is purely a technocratic issue.
You're getting obsessive now - i don't have to respond to every post you make, however wrong I think you are - i realise you are a sensitive soul.As I said before, two wrongs don't make a right - let's address inefficiencies AND resolve the situation with pensions. Of course I've no knowledge about the scope for efficiency savings, so I'm not best placed to suggest what possibilities are available. I like to stick to things I know a lot about - more value can be added that way. Unfortunately, plenty of people appear to take a different approach....
By the way, I never said you weren't as clever as me, I said you had no training or experience in the field of pensions, which is after all what this thread is about. I've no doubt that if there was a thread relevant to whatever your job is, you'd be particularly frustrated if someone with next to no knowledge of the topic kept on telling you were wrong when you knew 100% that you were correct...
What is your area of expertise, by the way?
Edited by sidicks on Monday 30th November 22:25
PugwasHDJ80 said:
The NHS can be as inefficient and as bad as it likes and it will never go bust, no one will lose their jobs and no will actually put any pressure on the owners. The staff will never have the option to work elsewhere if (and when) the NHS starts treating them like crap.
The last two parts of that aren't true. And an NHS Trust has been put into administration.Sheepshanks said:
The last two parts of that aren't true. And an NHS Trust has been put into administration.
also 'special measures' may as well be adminstration ... the biggest problem is the way in which the rest of the NHS views senior managers from problem trusts when they are 'encouraged to move on' ... it appears integrity , decency and compliance with professional codes of conduct are entirely optionalat or above band 8a and in some cases at band 7 integrity and decency go and compliance with professional codes of conduct is achieved by throwing junior staff under the bandwagon .there are many things that need to be reformed in the nHS without attacking the TaCoS of frontline staff or even all staff ...
sidicks said:
Of course I've no knowledge about the scope for efficiency savings, so I'm not best placed to suggest what possibilities are available. I like to stick to things I know a lot about....
...which is only one prong in a wide fork.If by your own admission you are not aware of the bigger picture then perhaps it is unwise to make absolute claims what the biggest problem is and to propose with such conviction and total assuredness what you think to be the correct and highest priority solution?
That is not to question your expertise, just your judgement!
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 1st December 06:58
r11co said:
...which is only one prong in a wide fork.
If by your own admission you are not aware of the bigger picture then perhaps it is unwise to make absolute claims what the biggest problem is and to propose with such conviction and total assuredness what you think to be the correct and highest priority solution?
Where did I say I'm not aware of the 'bigger problem' ? As I previously said, my wife used to work in the NHS and from her comments it is quite clear that at that time there was plenty of scope for efficiency savings. However the NHS has already agreed to £22bn of savings (which plenty of people dispute are achievable) so it's hard for me to determine what additional scope there is.If by your own admission you are not aware of the bigger picture then perhaps it is unwise to make absolute claims what the biggest problem is and to propose with such conviction and total assuredness what you think to be the correct and highest priority solution?
Further, certain people on here who work in the NHS get very exasperated when those outside try and comment on the issues!
Where did I say pensions was the 'biggest' problem?
I have said no such thing. It is of course a significant issue both from a cost perspective and from the perspective of equality between private and public sector.
r11co said:
That is not to question your expertise, just your judgement!
This is to question your reading ability...Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 1st December 07:51
mph1977 said:
Sheepshanks said:
The last two parts of that aren't true. And an NHS Trust has been put into administration.
also 'special measures' may as well be adminstration ... the biggest problem is the way in which the rest of the NHS views senior managers from problem trusts when they are 'encouraged to move on' ... it appears integrity , decency and compliance with professional codes of conduct are entirely optionalat or above band 8a and in some cases at band 7 integrity and decency go and compliance with professional codes of conduct is achieved by throwing junior staff under the bandwagon .there are many things that need to be reformed in the nHS without attacking the TaCoS of frontline staff or even all staff ...
all that happened was the 3 hospitals were transferred to other trusts. As far as i can see no one actually lost their jobs- there was no sanction from ending up in administration.
As you say senior execs don't really lose their jobs.#
As ever its the people that actually do the work that get stiffed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff