Unsustainable public sector pensions
Discussion
markcoznottz said:
They were never affordable, but due to sleight of hand and pure luck the can was kicked until 2007. Now we have a real problem. In the real world, things change. This is the elephant in the room, would any government risk civil unrest to default on these pensions, where will the money come from, how will people afford council tax in the future? In 5 years time council tax will be 25% higher than it is now, it can't not be, and the treasury know this, but darent speak it.
They certainly were affordable when interest rates were high, people lived just 5-10 years in retirement and employees were happy sharing the costs roughly 50:50 with the taxpayer.When interest rates are much lower, people are living 25+ years in retirement and employees want to pay the same contributions leading to a 20:80 split then they are not affordable.
The private sector realised this 10-15 years ago - plenty in the public sector are still struggling with the economics!
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Is not the avoidance of conflicts of interest a cornerstone of any fair legal system? You appear to accept that conflicts of interest are acceptable.
I accept it's better than what your undefined, no-solution alternative is. 1) Do we allow a judge (who I don't think this has any impact on from what I can read about him) to make a judgement which will be publicly available and subject to potential appeals to make a judgement?
2) Do we make fundamental changes to the law where we have a currently unspecified person or persons replacing judges for one matter where there's a perceived conflict of interest?
V8 Fettler said:
Nothing magical about paying substantial amounts of tax each year to fund the legal system and expecting the legal system to operate without conflicts of interest.
We expect the legal system to make rational decisions. Changing fundamentals of the legal system based on one case of this nature isn't that. V8 Fettler said:
You have no costings for the "expensive" alternative, so how can you therefore state that an alternative is expensive?
Funnily enough, I don't have costings for all the variables of whether it's primary legislation or not, which house it may or may not go through, if it'll be challenged, then appealed etc etc. Whatever the theoretical cost, it's cheaper than your non-solution.
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.
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
Defcon5 said:
Because the companies valued profits more than their staff?
Has profitability increased accordingly in the last 10-15 years?How profitable do you think most businesses would be after a 30% increase in staff costs...?
(you seem to be unaware that private sector businesses which don't make profit don't tend to last very long, so decisions have to be made that take into account economic reality - there's no magic money tree to support them!)
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 07:56
sidicks said:
Except of course I can - my job doesn't exist in the public sector! But it wouldn't matter if it did.
Why should a public sector worker get the equivalent of 30% higher remuneration for doing exactly the same job? If it's not affordable in the private sector, it's not affordable in the public sector - contrary to what you believe there isn't a magic money tree.
I don't care if your job exists in the public sector. Why not re-train as a teacher if the pay and conditions are so fabulous. They clearly aren't enough to tempt you even with the 'gold plated' pensions, yet not only do you expect others to accept the same pay and conditions you would refuse, you think it reasonable to worsen them by devaluing the pension. Bit hypocritical don't you think?Why should a public sector worker get the equivalent of 30% higher remuneration for doing exactly the same job? If it's not affordable in the private sector, it's not affordable in the public sector - contrary to what you believe there isn't a magic money tree.
sidicks said:
So you would accept that for the 'more menial' roles there is no justification for the pension, but for certain other roles there might be?
Yes,I would accept that for positions/roles where we don't need to incentivise people to work in the public sector, no additional incentive is needed.sidicks said:
The pensions aren't unaffordable, it's just a question of whether you want to pay for them.
That's just such a s
t nonsense argument. By the same logic, it's affordable to give a new Porsche to every person each year, "it's just a question of whether you want to pay for it'.
A simple question for you, why do you think that defined benefit pension schemes were basically phased out in the private sector 10-15 years ago?
It isn't a sThat's just such a s
t nonsense argument. By the same logic, it's affordable to give a new Porsche to every person each year, "it's just a question of whether you want to pay for it'.A simple question for you, why do you think that defined benefit pension schemes were basically phased out in the private sector 10-15 years ago?
t argument. Its perfectly valid, just inconvenient for you and your hatred of the public sector in general. You choose what you pay for. Do I believe we should pay for everyone to have a new porsche. No. Do I think we should pay to incentivise intelligent hard working people to work in our schools, hospitals, police forces, yes I do. You clearly don't. You are entitled to that opinion, but at least admit to having it, instead of hiding behind your unaffordability argument.sidicks said:
Defcon5 said:
Because the companies valued profits more than their staff?
Has profitability increased accordingly in the last 10-15 years?How profitable do you think most businesses would be after a 30% increase in staff costs...?
(you seem to be unaware that private sector businesses which don't make profit don't tend to last very long, so decisions have to be made that take into account economic reality - there's no magic money tree to support them!)
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 07:56
tdog7 said:
I don't care if your job exists in the public sector.
That was the question you asked - sort you don't like the answer!tdog7 said:
Why not re-train as a teacher if the pay and conditions are so fabulous. They clearly aren't enough to tempt you even with the 'gold plated' pensions, yet not only do you expect others to accept the same pay and conditions you would refuse, you think it reasonable to worsen them by devaluing the pension. Bit hypocritical don't you think?
Not in the slightest - I don't expect other people to subsidise my career choices - why should I unnecessarily subsidies theirs (particularly when the available evidence shows they are already paid a fair rate?Countdown said:
Yes,I would accept that for positions/roles where we don't need to incentivise people to work in the public sector, no additional incentive is needed.
"Where we don't need to incentivise people"?? - isn't getting paid 'incentivisation' enough for most people? I thought teaching was supposedly a 'vocation'?Regardless, maybe we are getting somewhere (finally). Do you think it might be desirable to retain DB pensions for those in certain jobs - maybe nurses, doctors, teachers (albeit not necessarily at the current level) but remove them for those other staff that simply undertake support jobs that do not require specialist skills, are not suffering from supply issues and which have directly comparable roles in the private sector, where those jobs can be demonstrated to be paying equivalent to private sector salaries?
sidicks said:
It isn't a st argument.
It has no basis in reality! Are the public sector immune from basic economics?t argument. By your reckoning, it would be 'affordable' for us to triple public sector pensions. If it is so affordable, then why don't we grant exactly the same terms to the private sector?
sidicks said:
Its perfectly valid, just inconvenient for you and your hatred of the public sector in general.
Ah, more nonsense - trying to make the public sector sustainable so more funds can be available for public services and less is spent on unnecessarily gold-plated pensions amounts to 'hatred of the public sector?!
sidicks said:
You choose what you pay for. Do I believe we should pay for everyone to have a new porsche.
But you think it is entirely affordable?tdog7 said:
No. Do I think we should pay to incentivise intelligent hard working people to work in our schools, hospitals, police forces, yes I do. You clearly don't. You are entitled to that opinion, but at least admit to having it, instead of hiding behind your unaffordability argument.
Please don't misrepresent my opinion - I guess that's what you have to resort to when you don't have an economic one?!)You seem to struggle with the concept that the public sector consists not only of teachers, nurses, police etc, some of which may well be intelligent and hard working. It also contains a vats number of people who are neither of the above (but that of course doesn't suit the emotional rhetoric).
Why do we need to 'incentivise' public sector workers 30% more for doing exactly the same job as someone in the private sector?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 09:00
tdog7 said:
Now you really are being funny! Half the city of London is propped up on the 'magic money tree' of a 450billion odd taxpayer bail out. If thats not a magic money tree what is!
Really? What £450bn would this be? Would that be the QE that is required to support the economy following a decade of excessive public spending under a previous Labour government?Just as with pensions, it would seem you are getting outside of your area of expertise!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 08:55
sidicks said:
tdog7 said:
Now you really are being funny! Half the city of London is propped up on the 'magic money tree' of a 450billion odd taxpayer bail out. If thats not a magic money tree what is!
Really? What £450bn would this be? Would that be the QE that is required to support the economy following a decade of excessive public spending under a previous Labour government?Just as with pensions, it would seem you are getting outside of your area of expertise!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 08:55
We clearly won't agree, and no pensions aren't my area of expertise, the sad thing is I think they might be yours.
tdog7 said:
No, as you well no, and are being deliberately obtuse, it is one estimate of the sum of taxpayer money used to support a number of private companies that would have failed without it. A direct response to your comment that there was no magic money tree for private companies and they fail if they don't make profit.
Whose estimate, someone that knows what they are talking about? Money acting as financial support (for which banks are charged) is quite different than real cash that is paid away (to public sector workers). You do understand the difference?You didn't answer the question - would tripling public sector salaries / pensions be 'affordable'?
tdog7 said:
We clearly won't agree, and no pensions aren't my area of expertise, the sad thing is I think they might be yours.
Why is it sad that I know what I'm talking about?Surely it's more sad that you'll seek to argue about something you clearly don't understand properly?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 19th January 09:09
sidicks said:
Some services are, some aren't (and the jobs that go with them).
I'm confusing nothing at all, you, once again you are disagreeing with my opinion, that is all.In your opinion some services are, some services are not, IN YOUR OPINION. Which services are which are not very much depends upon different peoples different perspectives. You are no more right or wrong with your opinion than anybody else, including mine.
edit to add, the UK is fortunate to have a system of public services free in the most part, at point of delivery. To whinge on about the cost is a National pastime for some, like I whinge on about CEO pay
Edited by crankedup on Thursday 19th January 10:01
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
An endless list of public service worth every single penny for me.
Home Office advisors on transgender affairs? 5-a-day coordinators? et cetera ad nauseam.crankedup said:
I'm personally not overly concerned with the minority public service providers which in the grand scheme of things cost a pittence in the tax taks and miniscule amount of my taxes each year. Its not worth getting hung up on.
I notice you didn't actually say that the transgender advisors et al are actually worth every penny as per your previous assertion.crankedup said:
As my reply to sidicks, very much depends upon circumstances of individuals. I'm personally not overly concerned with the minority public service providers which in the grand scheme of things cost a pittence in the tax taks and miniscule amount of my taxes each year. Its not worth getting hung up on.
Paying 30% more than necessary / fair for a significant number of people within a £200bn annual wage bill does not represent a 'minority' of tax or 'minsicule' amount...HTH
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
I'm personally not overly concerned with the minority public service providers which in the grand scheme of things cost a pittence in the tax taks and miniscule amount of my taxes each year. Its not worth getting hung up on.
I notice you didn't actually say that the transgender advisors et al are actually worth every penny as per your previous assertion.sidicks said:
crankedup said:
As my reply to sidicks, very much depends upon circumstances of individuals. I'm personally not overly concerned with the minority public service providers which in the grand scheme of things cost a pittence in the tax taks and miniscule amount of my taxes each year. Its not worth getting hung up on.
Paying 30% more than necessary / fair for a significant number of people within a £200bn annual wage bill does not represent a 'minority' of tax or 'minsicule' amount...HTH
crankedup said:
For me it does, for the overall services provided. That is the difference in your opinion and mine.
I think very few people would argue that potentially billions of pounds is 'minuscule', particularly when there are claims (see the other thread) that the NHS is in crisis and needs increased funding!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff