Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
You seem to have left out the important part of your answer, in terms of % market average, there must be an a erage market performance from which judgements can be made regarding value of investment to the client. If I want to invest a sum of money each month I need to see how the market performs as an average on which to base my decision making
Your question is far too vague.jjlynn27 said:
sidicks said:
As usual, feel free to invent things that aren’t true to try and score points. Failing, as ever.
Only one of us uses order-order as a source on financial matters. And only one of us flounces. I asked you a question, you've chosen, as is your right, not to answer it. Not the first, not the last time.
crankedup said:
you need more i formation in my question. I will try again, what average rate of return on my pension investment can I expect based upon market averages. Being as pensions advisors guide us to various products, so let’s say that I want an investment portfolio that will be secure so far as my capital is concerned ie low risk. A half decent stab at a guide will do.
Current 5-year gilt rate is 1.2%sidicks said:
crankedup said:
All this talk about ‘where does the money come from’ more accurately perhaps we should ask
what value we put on public services. As previously mentioned the public services receive. pension as part of thier overal remnumeration, if we include that as a monthly cost for the labour element of the service provision I feel it’s not that bad a cost to the public.
It’s a backbone of our democratic Society that we can all enjoy public service sector provision which should be valued for what it gives rather than what it costs. Government of any colour have the responsibility of ensuring these costs are managed correctly and we all have a vote as to who that Government is.
Yes I would like to pay less tax but I. house to live in the U.K. and accept the costs associated.
What is the level of cost that you think is ‘not bad’? what value we put on public services. As previously mentioned the public services receive. pension as part of thier overal remnumeration, if we include that as a monthly cost for the labour element of the service provision I feel it’s not that bad a cost to the public.
It’s a backbone of our democratic Society that we can all enjoy public service sector provision which should be valued for what it gives rather than what it costs. Government of any colour have the responsibility of ensuring these costs are managed correctly and we all have a vote as to who that Government is.
Yes I would like to pay less tax but I. house to live in the U.K. and accept the costs associated.
What if the cost was double that amount, would that still be ‘not bad’?
If the cost was 20% less would then still be fair?
In adjudicating it is part of the rules of the game that the referees decision is the only decision that must be adhered to by all players including Managers and assistants. Being democratic a referees decision can be challaged during a game by players but not changed or discounted.
Therefore all players and Managers have the same set of rules to which they must adhere, in essence it offers ‘fairness’ to all players and sets the boundaries of play.
That is how I define fairness, a set of rules and regulations set down and understood by all participants. In my anology this fairness also applies to all spectators of the game and ultimately respected as such. For those that do not accept the rules or wish to challenge the rules various avenues are open for exploration, however changing rules that set the foundations of fairness is often a long winded process that would possibly demand Committees or public bodies to agree before implementation.
So your asking me about my thoughts regarding your imaginary 20% being fair, imo, or not, is
not relevant and impossible to answer.
Edited by crankedup on Thursday 22 March 15:27
crankedup said:
Fairness I always use my anology to a game of football. That is a set of rules laid out for all to understand and accept as being part of the game. This applies to all aspects of the game and to ensure fairness a referee and two assistant referees take part in the game adjudicating.
In adjudicating it is part of the rules of t
So you think that this is a ‘fair’ price but you have no idea how much that price actually is?In adjudicating it is part of the rules of t
I’m sure that makes perfect sense to someone.
markcoznottz said:
travel is dangerous said:
Public sector workers should not be allowed nice cars, why shouldn't we pay them less? an old banger is just as good and it's not right that tax payers money shouldn't be allowing people to drive around shiny cars that many people can't have themselves.
Infantile s
t. "university lecturers are funded by public money, therefore its not appropriate to use that money to fund a pension that is better than* what most people can afford. We should therefore reduce the value of their pension."
and one that goes:
"university lecturers are funded by public money, therefore its not appropriate to use that money to fund discretionary expenditure that is better than what most people can afford. We should therefore reduce the value of their salary."
*though in my (not unbiased) view not excessive.
travel is dangerous said:
there's no logical difference between an argument that goes:
"university lecturers are funded by public money, therefore its not appropriate to use that money to fund a pension that is better than* what most people can afford. We should therefore reduce the value of their pension."
and one that goes:
"university lecturers are funded by public money, therefore its not appropriate to use that money to fund discretionary expenditure that is better than what most people can afford. We should therefore reduce the value of their salary."
*though in my (not unbiased) view not excessive.
Neither of those choices are related to the argument being made. But the fact that you and newbie911 have to respond with similar nonsense is telling."university lecturers are funded by public money, therefore its not appropriate to use that money to fund a pension that is better than* what most people can afford. We should therefore reduce the value of their pension."
and one that goes:
"university lecturers are funded by public money, therefore its not appropriate to use that money to fund discretionary expenditure that is better than what most people can afford. We should therefore reduce the value of their salary."
*though in my (not unbiased) view not excessive.
IJWS15 said:
No final salary pension is guaranteed - remember Mirror Group?
The scheme (and I have some that were originally government backed that have these provisions) can generally reduce pension before it is paid but once in payment the pensioners rights are stronger. Won't be in the short booklet but will be in the full scheme rules. It is rare the powers are used but they are there to protect the scheme.
If the scheme fails a DB pension is worth no more than a DC pension - nothing.
I have had one DB scheme close to existing members while I was a contributing member - the company made it very clear that they could not afford to support the scheme.
Why should university lecturers be treated any differently to the rest of us.
Why not? You likely enjoy other benefits not afforded to uni lecturers or do you want every worker to wear the same attire and hours of work like robots.The scheme (and I have some that were originally government backed that have these provisions) can generally reduce pension before it is paid but once in payment the pensioners rights are stronger. Won't be in the short booklet but will be in the full scheme rules. It is rare the powers are used but they are there to protect the scheme.
If the scheme fails a DB pension is worth no more than a DC pension - nothing.
I have had one DB scheme close to existing members while I was a contributing member - the company made it very clear that they could not afford to support the scheme.
Why should university lecturers be treated any differently to the rest of us.
crankedup said:
Why not? You likely enjoy other benefits not afforded to uni lecturers or do you want every worker to wear the same attire and hours of work like robots.
Yes, that’s definitely the logical conclusion of what has been said.Surely there is absolutely recognition that there might be a good reason as to why they should be treated differently - what is up for debate is how differently that should be and whether that should be totally divorced from economics.
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 15:44
200Plus Club said:
i find it astounding one person can spend all their time going on about pensions like this on a forum. There is more to life than arguing on 'tinternet about the same thing, 24/7 surely? If it annoys you so much Siddicks, why dont you lobby an MP or do something proactive perhaps, and have a little rest from reminding everyone you are a "pensions expert"?
My wife is in this scheme and will get close to sod all out of it, being part time. thats the reality. The only people doing well are the vice chancellors on £300-400k pa plus their pension pot, and it appears no one on here is able to change that.
What astounds me is how the heck some posters finds the time to spend on forums, somebody pays for a days work might be disappointed that work includes time wasting on forums.My wife is in this scheme and will get close to sod all out of it, being part time. thats the reality. The only people doing well are the vice chancellors on £300-400k pa plus their pension pot, and it appears no one on here is able to change that.
crankedup said:
What astounds me is how the heck some posters finds the time to spend on forums, somebody pays for a days work might be disappointed that work includes time wasting on forums.
I get paid for what I deliver, not the number of hours worked (which are many more than ‘normal’).
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Fairness I always use my anology to a game of football. That is a set of rules laid out for all to understand and accept as being part of the game. This applies to all aspects of the game and to ensure fairness a referee and two assistant referees take part in the game adjudicating.
In adjudicating it is part of the rules of t
So you think that this is a ‘fair’ price but you have no idea how much that price actually is?In adjudicating it is part of the rules of t
I’m sure that makes perfect sense to someone.
crankedup said:
You have either not read my anology definition of fairness, unable to understand it or being obtuse. All three is more likely.
It is a lot of vague rambling which doesn’t cover the issue under discussion.To make a judgement about whether the cost of something is fair or reasonable you’d need to understand what that cost was. You’d also then have a feel for how much things could move either side of that before it would become unfair for one party or the other.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Why not? You likely enjoy other benefits not afforded to uni lecturers or do you want every worker to wear the same attire and hours of work like robots.
Yes, that’s definitely the logical conclusion of what has been said.Surely there is absolutely recognition that there might be a good reason as to why they should be treated differently - what is up for debate is how differently that should be and whether that should be totally divorced from economics.
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 15:44
Yes I agree that currently the economics of the scheme are failing the investors, the answer is to adjust the model not abandon it imo.
crankedup said:
Yes, lecturers are likely. onsidered to be in. better position to gain better T&C including pension, than others in different industries. If you refer back to my fairness definition it might help you to recognise where you are failing to grasp the reality of the situation in the real World.
Yes I agree that currently the economics of the scheme are failing the investors, the answer is to adjust the model not abandon it imo.
The economics of the situation IS the real world, which the lecturers appear to feel they should be immune to.Yes I agree that currently the economics of the scheme are failing the investors, the answer is to adjust the model not abandon it imo.
The proposal is to adjust the model, not abandon it. That is what the lecturers are trying to resist.
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 16:02
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
you need more i formation in my question. I will try again, what average rate of return on my pension investment can I expect based upon market averages. Being as pensions advisors guide us to various products, so let’s say that I want an investment portfolio that will be secure so far as my capital is concerned ie low risk. A half decent stab at a guide will do.
Current 5-year gilt rate is 1.2%crankedup said:
Yes I read somewhere or other that pensions funds amounting to £31 billion had been dumped into gilts. On the basis that the yields are poor and the pensions management fees are relatively high its little wonder people have had to be forced into pension schemes.
Once again, demonstrating a massive lack of understanding:Pension schemes haven’t ‘dumped’ anything, they’ve chosen to invest in government bonds as these are a good, low risk, match for their liabilities.
You make a claim about management fees on pensions being ‘relatively high’, but in conjunction with the above, what has this got to do with government bonds which are at the bottom end of the range I quoted - 0.02%?
Are you claiming that 0.02% is a high fee?!
No one has to be ‘forced’ into a DB scheme.
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 16:13
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff