Dear University lecturers - get back to work

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Silly me thinking the Government were perhaps looking at the long term future

The poor performance on current arrangements in the long-term future? What future poor performance would that be, were they using a crystal ball?

[Gloria Slap]

One of the benefits of Brexit is that the double digit growth Sid is quoting above will easily allow the government to afford defined benefit pension schemes, which of course rely on continuing strong GDP growth to be sustainable.

Brexit will be a massive success, so no worries here on GDP growing strongly in the future, let the academics have the pensions they were promised.

And as this is all predictions, surely all predictions that GDP might not grow are just experts talking horsepoo - so no reason at all to change pensions or anything. Heck we can't predict anything at all now so lets just plan the future based on emotion and a general dislike of foreign things etc.

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

One of the benefits of Brexit is that the double digit growth Sid is quoting above will easily allow the government to afford defined benefit pension schemes, which of course rely on continuing strong GDP growth to be sustainable.

Brexit will be a massive success, so no worries here on GDP growing strongly in the future, let the academics have the pensions they were promised.

And as this is all predictions, surely all predictions that GDP might not grow are just experts talking horsepoo - so no reason at all to change pensions or anything. Heck we can't predict anything at all now so lets just plan the future based on emotion and a general dislike of foreign things etc.

Back to the ignorant xenophobia claims, Slasher? How dull.

[Gloria Slap]

sidicks said:

Back to the ignorant xenophobia claims, Slasher? How dull.

But the rest is good, yes?

Choo choo!

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

But the rest is good, yes?

Choo choo!

If you think that GDP growth should be used to fund massive pensions for public sector workers (even though many of those workers already earn the same or more than equivalent roles in the private sector), rather than improve services and resourcing) to benefit the wider population, then some of what you say is partially accurate. I don't.

[Gloria Slap]

sidicks said:

If you think that GDP growth should be used to fund massive pensions for public sector workers (even though many of those workers already earn the same or more than equivalent roles in the private sector), rather than improve services and resourcing) to benefit the wider population, then some of what you say is partially accurate. I don't.

GDP growth and tax income has to be used for govt pensions as they don't use traditional mechanisms that a private company might. And it can also be argued this is the most efficient solution as they do not incur the costs of pension managers etc. to manage funds; this would a parasitic drag that is not necessary. It is similar to arguments about govt insurance; the govt is so big, it can self insure, so paying for insurance in some scenarios is technically a waste.

Tax income has to pay for services which of course has to include the pension costs of the people it employs delivering them. You can't have one and ignore the other. If you think you can fund services and just ignore the pension costs, that's unrealistic. Whether the pension is generous or not is another issue.

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

GDP growth and tax income has to be used for govt pensions as they don't use traditional mechanisms that a private company might.

Nothing to do with GDP growth. Just the fact that they are unfunded, meaning that existing benefits are paid from contributions.

Gloria Slap said:

And it can also be argued this is the most efficient solution as they do not incur the costs of pension managers etc. to manage funds; this would a parasitic drag that is not necessary. It is similar to arguments about govt insurance; the govt is so big, it can self insure, so paying for insurance in some scenarios is technically a waste.

Tax income has to pay for services which of course has to include the pension costs of the people it employs delivering them. You can't have one and ignore the other. If you think you can fund services and just ignore the pension costs, that's unrealistic. Whether the pension is generous or not is another issue.

It's exactly the issue.

If the government is so efficient at managing pensions, why doesn't it offer the same DB pensions for the private sector...

[Gloria Slap]

GDP growth is needed to cover the increase in liabilities as people live longer etc.

It is one mechanism that can soften the need to reduce pension benefits to counter aging population - its a balancing act.

I'm surprised you don't understand this.

You were bragging about high returns earlier, in relation to private schemes.

The government equivalent is GDP growth. Surely you can grasp this concept.

Shame Brexit is knocking that growth in the gonads; you voted to screw public pensions Sid, who knew you'd want to do that

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

GDP growth is needed to cover the increase in liabilities as people live longer etc.

Yes it is needed, that doesn't mean that it is fair to rely upon it, or that that growth is fairly allocated to public sector workers. GDP growth would be needed to fund many other things, to make promises that rely on it is not fair or sustainable.

Gloria Slap said:

It is one mechanism that can soften the need to reduce pension benefits to counter aging population - its a balancing act.

I'm surprised you don't understand this.

You were bragging about high returns earlier, in relation to private schemes.

The government equivalent is GDP growth. Surely you can grasp this concept.

Shame Brexit is knocking that growth in the gonads; you voted to screw public pensions Sid, who knew you'd want to do that

Public pensions were screwed well before Brexit.

[Gloria Slap]

GDP growth and tax income has to be used for govt pensions....

sidicks said:

Nothing to do with GDP growth.

GDP growth is needed to cover the increase in liabilities as people live longer etc.

sidicks said:

Yes it is.

Can we do arse and elbow next? This is fun

sidicks said:

Public pensions were screwed well before Brexit.

But Brexit has made the situation worse.

Edited by Gloria Slap on Sunday 25th February 16:26

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

sidicks said:

Nothing to do with GDP growth.

GDP growth is needed to cover the increase in liabilities as people live longer etc.

The cost of the public sector needs to be fairly recognised from year to year. This is not currently the case as the assumed cost of their pensions is not being appropriately reflected, thus storing up problems for future generations.

It shouldn't be controversial and it has nothing to do with GDP growth.

[Gloria Slap]

sidicks said:

The cost of the public sector needs to be fairly recognised from year to year. This is not currently the case as the assumed cost of their pensions is not being appropriately reflected, thus storing up problems for future generations.

It shouldn't be controversial and it has nothing to do with GDP growth.

Do you understand the link between GDP and tax take, and hence the ability to pay for services (including pensions)?

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

Do you understand the link between GDP and tax take, and hence the ability to pay for services (including pensions)?

Do you understand the link between the cost of a pension promise and the contributions available to finance it?

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

here you go

gov.uk>publications>pensions

surprised you know zero about this, but then again.

There are numerous documents there. The most relevant (in terms of infrastructure) refers to:
"In November 2016, the government asked the Law Commission to look at how far pension funds may or should consider issues of social impact when making investment decisions."

What is the reference (or relevance) to assets 'lying around earring very little'?

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 15:40

Don’t know, which is why I asked if anybody knew of how far the Government had progressed,or not, regarding the proposal. The whole scenario has been prompted by the assets sitting around and could be put to more profitable use, which is being interrogated.
Do you have any pov professionally or personally regarding the Governments intervention proposal?

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Silly me thinking the Government were perhaps looking at the long term future

The poor performance on current arrangements in the long-term future? What future poor performance would that be, were they using a crystal ball?

see above remarks

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Don’t know, which is why I asked if anybody knew of how far the Government had progressed,or not, regarding the proposal. The whole scenario has been prompted by the assets sitting around and could be put to more profitable use, which is being interrogated.

Why do you think these assets are 'just sitting around'? These assets are invested.

crankedup said:

Do you have any pov professionally or personally regarding the Governments intervention proposal?

Making it easier for DB schemes to invest in assets that have attractive risk-return attributes but which also have societal benefit makes sense. Nothing to do with 'assets sitting around doing nothing' etc.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Silly me thinking the Government were perhaps looking at the long term future

The poor performance on current arrangements in the long-term future? What future poor performance would that be, were they using a crystal ball?

see above remarks

Still doesn't make any sense.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Don’t know, which is why I asked if anybody knew of how far the Government had progressed,or not, regarding the proposal. The whole scenario has been prompted by the assets sitting around and could be put to more profitable use, which is being interrogated.

Why do you think these assets are 'just sitting around'? These assets are invested.

crankedup said:

Do you have any pov professionally or personally regarding the Governments intervention proposal?

Making it easier for DB schemes to invest in assets that have attractive risk-return attributes but which also have societal benefit makes sense. Nothing to do with 'assets sitting around doing nothing' etc.

You keep asking me questions, I don’t know the answers to these questions, as I tell you once again, I am looking for the answers which is why I posted up my original question on the matterI would have thought that being in the pension industry you may have had an ear to this intervention. It seems the Government are concerned that the billions of pounds invested into pensions COULD be put to a more profitable use.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

You keep asking me questions, I don’t know the answers to these questions, as I tell you once again, I am looking for the answers which is why I posted up my original question on the matterI would have thought that being in the pension industry you may have had an ear to this intervention. It seems the Government are concerned that the billions of pounds invested into pensions COULD be put to a more profitable use.

I believe the consultation is in respect of future contributions, primarily relating to DC pensions. So nothing to do with poor performance or assets lying doing nothing or any other similar claims.

[Gloria Slap]

sidicks said:

Gloria Slap said:

Do you understand the link between GDP and tax take, and hence the ability to pay for services (including pensions)?

Do you understand the link between the cost of a pension promise and the contributions available to finance it?

Yes.

Where do you think the contributions actually come from ultimately to pay for public pensions? Do you understand how this is linked to GDP and hence why growth in GDP is important to fund contributions?

You seem to be struggling with this for some unknown reason.

Perhaps it is the direct link to negative impact of Brexit on GDP growth and the direct impact this has on how the government can fund public pensions that you find inconvenient.

It is certainly a reason to think again about Brexit, wasn't in the brochure, was it? Its on the new bus though, so that's grand. (Two grand £M/week).