Brown backs out of deal with civil service over pensions
Discussion
This mornings tTimes is saying that Goprdon Brown will not acept the deal they did to allow civil seervants to continue to retire at 60.
If light of the fact the rest of us are having to work until we are 67 and then draw only the pensions we have paid rather than final salary schemes in the public sector he gets my vote for doing that.
Its strange that tax revenues can fund politicians with nice fat pensions, that council tax can fund police, firemen and teachers with nice fat pensions...but the vast majority of the people who are paying for them can only expect a much inferior non earnings linked pension for themselves. I think we should all campaign for equality in pensions, lets all have the same deal.I would be happy knowing that my tax revenues were going to pay for a realistic pension, as I see it theres less chance of corruption and missuse. If the goverment had to cut back on its spending everywhere else theres less room for millenium domes , Scottish parliment buildings etc etc etc, all dreamt up and commisioned by our elected rerpresentatives and all way way over budget, strikes me its making statements with our tax revenues.The health of the nation and its well being in old age will depend on being able to eat and heat.So a decent pension FOR ALL is the foundation for a healthy aging population...
More generous pension schemes could perhaps be justified when pay in the public sector was lower than the private, but now the public sector has both higher wages AND more generous pension benefits.
Did anyone expect any different from Labour?, they are in the pocket of the unions and the public sector unions wield great power in the party.
Did anyone expect any different from Labour?, they are in the pocket of the unions and the public sector unions wield great power in the party.
Well, we have taken out our own private pensions and health insurance because we firmly believe that by the time we are of a pensionable age, there will be no state pension. I for one am not too happy about my taxes and NI contributions being squandered NOW by this government, I was brought up to believe my contributions was for MY future, not somebody elses. If there was such a thing as legal robbery, this would fit the bill like a glove!
leftie said:
This mornings tTimes is saying that Goprdon Brown will not acept the deal they did to allow civil seervants to continue to retire at 60.
If light of the fact the rest of us are having to work until we are 67 and then draw only the pensions we have paid rather than final salary schemes in the public sector he gets my vote for doing that.
You are actually at liberty to make your own arrangements and receive a pension when you are 60. The ball is in your court - it won't be compulsory to work until any particular age.
Odd sequence of events really.
- Labour caves in over public sector pensions. Papers report this and media generally starts to talk about the huge fiscal cost.
- Labour then leaks it's own commissioned report proposing a fiscally suicidal restoration of the earnings link for private sector pensioners which was never seriously on the table.
- Que Tony and Gordon both banging on about how this government would never do anything wreckless or inprudent with the economy ( having just done precisely that )and certainly won't restore the earnings link because it's 'unaffordable'
- Message to plebians 'the economy is in safe hands'
Straight out of 'Yes Minister' IMO
- Labour caves in over public sector pensions. Papers report this and media generally starts to talk about the huge fiscal cost.
- Labour then leaks it's own commissioned report proposing a fiscally suicidal restoration of the earnings link for private sector pensioners which was never seriously on the table.
- Que Tony and Gordon both banging on about how this government would never do anything wreckless or inprudent with the economy ( having just done precisely that )and certainly won't restore the earnings link because it's 'unaffordable'
- Message to plebians 'the economy is in safe hands'
Straight out of 'Yes Minister' IMO
Current NI funds CURRENT expenditure and ENTITLES you to a FUTURE pension.
What is forgotten (or deliberately left out by some parties, no doubt) is that virtually ALL Civil Servants pay an additional compulsory Superannuation Amount every month into their pension schemes. In effect, a large part of their contributions is run very like s commercial personal pension scheme. Some of the extra entitlemnts they receive on retirement have been "purchased", in effect.
I would also hazard a guess that a lot of the "Brown Era" additions to the Civil Service are not treated as normal "Civil Servants" for pension purposes. Many of these new intake people work for government agencies rather than government departments and ministries and probably have far less in the way of perks compared to traditional Civil Servants.
What is forgotten (or deliberately left out by some parties, no doubt) is that virtually ALL Civil Servants pay an additional compulsory Superannuation Amount every month into their pension schemes. In effect, a large part of their contributions is run very like s commercial personal pension scheme. Some of the extra entitlemnts they receive on retirement have been "purchased", in effect.
I would also hazard a guess that a lot of the "Brown Era" additions to the Civil Service are not treated as normal "Civil Servants" for pension purposes. Many of these new intake people work for government agencies rather than government departments and ministries and probably have far less in the way of perks compared to traditional Civil Servants.
Eric Mc said:
Many of these new intake people work for government agencies rather than government departments and ministries.
I believe I am right in saying that this is done in order to keep the number of new Government jobs to around 1 million, rather than the 2.2 million that have actually been employed in new goverment jobs since Labour came to power.
Jaglover said:
More generous pension schemes could perhaps be justified when pay in the public sector was lower than the private, but now the public sector has both higher wages AND more generous pension benefits.
Did anyone expect any different from Labour?, they are in the pocket of the unions and the public sector unions wield great power in the party.
The big difference is that you actually have to do some work in the private sector. The union power is definitely a case of the emperor's new clothes. All the government agencies could largely be closed down anyway. It is true though that the public sector workers are led by communist sandalists who are hell bent on destroying the economy.
Not always. Lots of public service areas have dedicated hard working staff - the NHS for example. Of course there are slackers - they exist everywhere. What ruins government work is not the workers, but the crushing bureaurocracy and inbuilt inefficiencies.
You could wish to live in that haven of sanctity and security where you needn't worry about your future ever (unless you're poor, unlucky, really ill, undereductated etc etc etc,)I refer of course, to the US.
You could wish to live in that haven of sanctity and security where you needn't worry about your future ever (unless you're poor, unlucky, really ill, undereductated etc etc etc,)I refer of course, to the US.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
NI has simply become a tax under another name and with the proposal to scrap SERPS and set up a citizen’s pension it would get even worse.
This should warn us as to what is at stake if any compulsory private savings bill is introduced. At first we may be able to opt out, then we won't, tax relief on pension savings will be withdrawn and then you will loose control over your own pension pot in the sake of fairness.
Look at how NI was initially justified compared with how it operates now.
I've got to admit that I find it hard to be surprised about anything this bunch of low life street trash we call politicians try to sell to us these days. They won't be happy until we're all on the minimum wage (zero disposable income). Let's face it, why settle for inheritance tax when they can take you kids inheritance off of them under guise of caring for you in your old age, because they won't be able to, they'll be too busy working themselves into the ground to try and stay above water. Cynic? I don't think so.
TeamD said:
I've got to admit that I find it hard to be surprised about anything this bunch of low life street trash we call politicians try to sell to us these days. They won't be happy until we're all on the minimum wage (zero disposable income). Let's face it, why settle for inheritance tax when they can take you kids inheritance off of them under guise of caring for you in your old age, because they won't be able to, they'll be too busy working themselves into the ground to try and stay above water. Cynic? I don't think so.
We are truly being reamed from both ends...with a cactus.
james_j said:
I've got to admit that I find it hard to be surprised about anything this bunch of low life street trash we call politicians try to sell to us these days. They won't be happy until we're all on the minimum wage (zero disposable income). Let's face it, why settle for inheritance tax when they can take you kids inheritance off of them under guise of caring for you in your old age, because they won't be able to, they'll be too busy working themselves into the ground to try and stay above water. Cynic? I don't think so.
We are truly being reamed from both ends...with a cactus.
LOL
Not the most informative post but I agree profusely with the sentiment
As someone who is only 2 years into their career, it is something that worries me (not to the point of waking up in cold sweats but you get the idea).
If I reach retirement age I want to enjoy the fruits of a lifetimes hard graft. Is it really asking too much? I presume this problem will be made much worse by the baby-boom generation reaching retirement...
>> Edited by polus on Monday 28th November 16:40
>> Edited by polus on Monday 28th November 16:40
polus said:
I've got to admit that I find it hard to be surprised about anything this bunch of low life street trash we call politicians try to sell to us these days. They won't be happy until we're all on the minimum wage (zero disposable income). Let's face it, why settle for inheritance tax when they can take you kids inheritance off of them under guise of caring for you in your old age, because they won't be able to, they'll be too busy working themselves into the ground to try and stay above water. Cynic? I don't think so.
We are truly being reamed from both ends...with a cactus.
LOL
Not the most informative post but I agree profusely with the sentiment
As someone who is only 2 years into their career, it is something that worries me (not to the point of waking up in cold sweats but you get the idea).
If I reach retirement age I want to enjoy the fruits of a lifetimes hard graft. Is it really asking too much? I presume this problem will be made much worse by the baby-boom generation reaching retirement...
>> Edited by polus on Monday 28th November 16:40
>> Edited by polus on Monday 28th November 16:40
One thing that's made things worse (there are many others) is the massive increase in the size of the public sector workforce. It costs, as do their pensions. Labour's made their bed, now they're having to lie in it.
minicity said:
This mornings tTimes is saying that Goprdon Brown will not acept the deal they did to allow civil seervants to continue to retire at 60.
If light of the fact the rest of us are having to work until we are 67 and then draw only the pensions we have paid rather than final salary schemes in the public sector he gets my vote for doing that.
You are actually at liberty to make your own arrangements and receive a pension when you are 60. The ball is in your court - it won't be compulsory to work until any particular age.
but I wil have to pay for it, not the tax payer.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff