Dear University lecturers - get back to work

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

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.

No, you're struggling with the calculations and the cost impact for the taxpayer. No surprise there - stick to aircraft or whatever it is you do.

Gloria Slap said:

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).

:boring:

[Gloria Slap]

sidicks said:

Gloria Slap said:

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.

No, you're struggling with the calculations and the cost impact for the taxpayer. No surprise there - stick to aircraft or whatever it is you do.

So that's a "No you don't understand the link between GDP and paying for services".

Mmm.

Well I can hardly say "stick to pensions", given it seems some of the basics seem to be a struggle for you. Can't say "stick to trains" either as that didn't go well.

Very interesting.

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

So that's a "No you don't understand the link between GDP and paying for services".

Mmm.

No, it really isn't. But of course your modus operandi is to pretend people have some something entirely different to what they actually said. So I shouldn't be surprised.

Gloria Slap said:

Well I can hardly say "stick to pensions", given it seems some of the basics seem to be a struggle for you. Can't say "stick to trains" either as that didn't go well.
Very interesting.

What is the expected cost to the taxpayer of the typical public sector pension, as discussed on this thread?

[travel is dangerous]

This thread is about private pension schemes, cause that's the kind of pension that the strikes are about.

[sidicks]

travel is dangerous said:

This thread is about private pension schemes, cause that's the kind of pension that the strikes are about.

Private (but in the main funded by the taxpayer) schemes, you mean?

[travel is dangerous]

It's not a typical public sector pension scheme, is it?

[Gloria Slap]

sidicks said:

The cost of the public sector needs to be fairly recognised from year to year.....It shouldn't be controversial and it has nothing to do with GDP growth.

Public sector pensions are paid for - in the main - by contributions from existing public servants. E.g. quick google shows contributions from salaries - e.g. 5-8%, though it varies.

As public servants are paid for from the government funds, these "contributions" from civil servants actually come from government funds which pay the salaries of the civil servants in the first place. So it is all taxpayer funded at the end of the day.

Hence the government effectively pays for public pensions as part of the cost of civil service salaries via taxpayers. There are some variations on this, with investments applying in some areas (as in the university case I understand), but this is a key aspect of how they are funded.

One of the principle mechanisms for the government to raise funding to pay for these pensions. This is principally done through tax income.

There is of course a very close correlation between GDP and tax income. Hence growth in GDP directly impacts what tax is available to pay for public services, including the pensions as outlined above.

Not sure what part of the above you can fundamentally say is wrong.

So, coming back to you assertion:

sidicks said:

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

I think the above conclusively shows that your statement is false and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of even rather basic mechanisms of funding public services and their pensions.

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

I think the above conclusively shows that your statement is false and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of even rather basic mechanisms of funding public services and their pensions.

I commented on the costs, not the funding source. Are you being deliberately disingenuous or do you not understand the difference? You appear to be confusing the cost of these pensions with how they are funded.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 18:05

[sidicks]

travel is dangerous said:

It's not a typical public sector pension scheme, is it?

Funded or unfunded doesn't affect the cost / value of the benefit received.

[Gloria Slap]

sidicks said:

You are confusing the cost of these pensions with how they are funded.

No I think you are trying to deflect to avoid the fact I've proved that GDP growth is directly related to the funds available to fund many public sector pensions.

Even though you said it wasn't.

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

sidicks said:

You are confusing the cost of these pensions with how they are funded.

No I think you are trying to deflect to avoid the fact I've proved that GDP growth is directly related to the funds available to fund many public sector pensions.

Even though you said it wasn't.

Except I never said any such thing. Of course you tried to pretend I'd said something different to what I actually said by editing my quote, but why I actually said was:

sidicks said:

The cost of the public sector needs to be fairly recognised from year to year.....It shouldn't be controversial and it has nothing to do with GDP growth.

HTH

[Gloria Slap]

sidicks said:

Gloria Slap said:

sidicks said:

You are confusing the cost of these pensions with how they are funded.

No I think you are trying to deflect to avoid the fact I've proved that GDP growth is directly related to the funds available to fund many public sector pensions.

Even though you said it wasn't.

Except I never said any such thing. Of course you tried to pretend I'd said something different to what I actually said by editing my quote, but why I actually said was:

sidicks said:

The cost of the public sector needs to be fairly recognised from year to year.....It shouldn't be controversial and it has nothing to do with GDP growth.

HTH

It does help a lot. It proves many things to many readers, beyond all doubt.

A most fruitful exchange.

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

It does help a lot. It proves many things to many readers, beyond all doubt.

A most fruitful exchange.

It proves you're a liar.

[markcoznottz]

Gloria Slap said:

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

Post crash GDP has been raised by increasing the population. It 'works' for the civil service who don't seem to look further ahead than next week, why should they, safe as house job with, great pension. There is however one group of losers, casualised labour market and reduced GDP/capita leads to disenfranchised voters doing things like voting for Brexit. The more cynical workers may now think that there won't be a state pension for them in future, and there won't be an NHS as they know it. They may be right as well.

[Murph7355]

Gloria Slap said:

...
Public sector pensions are paid for - in the main - by contributions from existing public servants. E.g. quick google shows contributions from salaries - e.g. 5-8%, though it varies.
....

"In the main"? Seriously??

You really have no clue what DB schemes really cost, do you.

[sidicks]

Murph7355 said:

"In the main"? Seriously??

You really have no clue what DB schemes really cost, do you.

Careful, he'll twist your words and pretend you said something entirely different (see above for details!)

[alfie2244]

sidicks said:

Careful, he'll twist your words and pretend you said something entirely different (see above for details!)

That's our slasher for you.

[Gloria Slap]

Murph7355 said:

Gloria Slap said:

...
Public sector pensions are paid for - in the main - by contributions from existing public servants. E.g. quick google shows contributions from salaries - e.g. 5-8%, though it varies.
....

"In the main"? Seriously??

You really have no clue what DB schemes really cost, do you.

I think you are confusing how the pensions of those currently taking a pension are paid by those being paid now - but their salary comes from taxpayers.

I did not say those contributions pay for the pensions of those working now - these will be in turn paid for by the taxpayers in the future. I'm not mixing these things up, though it seems you are assuming I am.

I mentioned "in the main", as there are exceptions in the public sector to this general principle.

I have not said these contributions are paid into a pot and invested, which I think is where most get confused when trying to compare the public and private systems - sidicks seems to like doing this to ram his hatred of public workers getting any sort of reasonable pension down peoples throat. They are funded quite differently - in the main - and rely on the future tax income of future generations. This is not as silly as it sounds as it means the govt doesn't have to waste money paying people to "manage a pension fund" on their behalf. The government already manages an "economy" anyway, so they can cut out the leeching layers of pension management.

I fully understand that the contributions don't fully address future liabilities.

In fact this further shows how important GDP growth is to help cover the growing costs of pensions in the future with such a model. This alone won't do it of course, extending retirement age and reducing the level of benefit will still probably be required to some degree as the population ages.

[sidicks]

Gloria Slap said:

I think you are confusing how the pensions of those currently taking a pension are paid by those being paid now - but their salary comes from taxpayers.

I did not say those contributions pay for the pensions of those working now - these will be in turn paid for by the taxpayers in the future. I'm not mixing these things up, though it seems you are assuming I am.

I mentioned "in the main", as there are exceptions in the public sector to this general principle.

Squirm all you like, but these pensions are not ‘in the main’ paid from the contributions of employees and are ‘in the main’ paid by the contributions of the employer I.e the taxpayer. Which is exactly the point being discussed.

Gloria Slap said:

I have not said these contributions are paid into a pot and invested, which I think is where most get confused when trying to compare the public and private systems - sidicks seems to like doing this to ram his hatred of public workers getting any sort of reasonable pension down peoples throat.

More lies from you. How predictable.

Gloria Slap said:

They are funded quite differently - in the main - and rely on the future tax income of future generations. This is not as silly as it sounds as it means the govt doesn't have to waste money paying people to "manage a pension fund" on their behalf. The government already manages an "economy" anyway, so they can cut out the leeching layers of pension management.

I fully understand that the contributions don't fully address future liabilities.

Which means that we are deceiving ourselves about the true costs of public spending and building in further liabilities for future generations to pick up - not sure why you think that is fair or reasonable?

Gloria Slap said:

In fact this further shows how important GDP growth is to help cover the growing costs of pensions in the future with such a model. This alone won't do it of course, extending retirement age and reducing the level of benefit will still probably be required to some degree as the population ages.

Has been required for 10-20 years and will continue to be required given the minimal changes made to date, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

[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.

Right’O that’s OK then. At least the Government is looking at what the cash could be used for that would be more useful than it lying around gathering market average growth. I’m all for that as I’m sure you will be. It’s a positive move but I remain very surprised that you, a professional person, knew nothing of the proposals, Do you not keep abreast of what’s on the horizons? I note you fail to address this question which I have asked on several posts.