Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
Type R Tom said:
MTech535 said:
I think part of the problem when comparing public sector and private sector salaries is down to regional variations.
For example, in the NHS, a particular role will be paid the same across the country whereas in the private sector there will be a significant regional variations. Therefore the public sector salaries are not as attractive compared to private sector in areas where the cost of living is higher. On average they may be comparable, but in the southeast, the generous pension is needed to compensate for the salary.
Definitely an element of that, live in Thanet and your house costs about half it would in Tunbridge Wells. You'd get the same money working in the public sector regardless of what part of the county you live in.For example, in the NHS, a particular role will be paid the same across the country whereas in the private sector there will be a significant regional variations. Therefore the public sector salaries are not as attractive compared to private sector in areas where the cost of living is higher. On average they may be comparable, but in the southeast, the generous pension is needed to compensate for the salary.
fblm said:
Which is fair and why no one is talking about removing previously earned entitlements; it would be morally wrong and almost certainly not legally possible.
I agree but there’s a BUT. The Government has made a whole range of changes to the taxation of private pensions. While the changes where not retrospective they did have a negative effect on the accrued benefit.
So if the Government wanted to reduce the costs of public sector pensions it could do so by changing how they are taxed.
Mrr T said:
I agree but there’s a BUT.
The Government has made a whole range of changes to the taxation of private pensions. While the changes where not retrospective they did have a negative effect on the accrued benefit.
Which changes are you referring to? What changes apply to pensions in payment? Do you mean the lifetime limits?The Government has made a whole range of changes to the taxation of private pensions. While the changes where not retrospective they did have a negative effect on the accrued benefit.
Mrr T said:
So if the Government wanted to reduce the costs of public sector pensions it could do so by changing how they are taxed.
Once accrued benefits start being changed then the whole system is broken.Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 17:53
sidicks said:
Mrr T said:
I agree but there’s a BUT.
The Government has made a whole range of changes to the taxation of private pensions. While the changes where not retrospective they did have a negative effect on the accrued benefit.
Which changes are you referring to? What changes apply to pensions in payment? Do you mean the lifetime limits?The Government has made a whole range of changes to the taxation of private pensions. While the changes where not retrospective they did have a negative effect on the accrued benefit.
Mrr T said:
So if the Government wanted to reduce the costs of public sector pensions it could do so by changing how they are taxed.
Once accrued benefits start being changed then the whole system is broken.Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 17:53
I am not suggesting changing benefits just the way the income is taxed.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
The obfuscation and overanalysis of post dissection descends once more, fantastic.
To summarise, you've stated that it's acceptable for a legal system to permit conflicts of interest, and that an alternative system would be too expensive, but you can't provide costs for the expensive alternative system.
My view is that this particular dispute should never have been heard in front of a judge, thus avoiding any suggestion of a conflict of interest. The detail of the alternative dispute resolution process (where there can be no suggestion of a conflict of interest) is for the gubmint / parliament to determine because that's what the gubmint / parliament are paid to do by the taxpayer.
My primary objection is the fundamental changes and wider negative implications such a change would have vs your perceived benefit in this one atypical case. You've not really presented an accurate summary since you conveniently omitted that objection. To summarise, you've stated that it's acceptable for a legal system to permit conflicts of interest, and that an alternative system would be too expensive, but you can't provide costs for the expensive alternative system.
My view is that this particular dispute should never have been heard in front of a judge, thus avoiding any suggestion of a conflict of interest. The detail of the alternative dispute resolution process (where there can be no suggestion of a conflict of interest) is for the gubmint / parliament to determine because that's what the gubmint / parliament are paid to do by the taxpayer.
Your understanding (or lack of) only serves for you to comprehend why your non-solution won't occur. Not that your understanding or point of view has any relevance, as the people who do know and are relevant understand it.
You best get to work and generate more wealth. Those pensions aren't going to pay for themselves
The low-cost answer to the nonsense of the unaffordable public sector pensions is on page one post one of this thread:
Dixy said:
All public sector pensions should be closed today and current contributions protected. Salaries should be renegotiated accordingly and all should make their own arrangements from now on.
I'd add one of them winky smiley things, but I'm busy trying to earn an honest shekel to pay my latest tax bill.
Mrr T said:
I agree but there’s a BUT.
The Government has made a whole range of changes to the taxation of private pensions. While the changes where not retrospective they did have a negative effect on the accrued benefit.
So if the Government wanted to reduce the costs of public sector pensions it could do so by changing how they are taxed.
It's a fair point. The lifetime limits are a fvcking disgrace but if the rest of us are subject to them then public sector FS schemes should be subject to the same treatment with realistic valuations. It's one thing having gold plated pensions quite another giving them a massive tax break too. The Government has made a whole range of changes to the taxation of private pensions. While the changes where not retrospective they did have a negative effect on the accrued benefit.
So if the Government wanted to reduce the costs of public sector pensions it could do so by changing how they are taxed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff