Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
sidicks said:
Toaster said:
Its not about people owning dividends or being payed for those dividends. Its about paying appropriate dividends and keeping the pension payments going the latter being part of the employees deferred pay. Only after all costs including, taxes and pensions should the companies then pay a dividend.
Its about time companies went for short and long term planning and sustainability rather than the perpetual global domination and growth.
I don’t think you understand how business (or pension funds) work. Long-term planning and sustainability isn’t about building up massive pension liabilities.Its about time companies went for short and long term planning and sustainability rather than the perpetual global domination and growth.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 21st March 17:28
I recal being told a few years back, when markets were racing ahead, that my employer was taking a 'contributions holiday' which I was not invited on.
Acturarial predictions for changes in life spans of the scheme's present and future beneficiaries were reasonably good and available at this point in time. The employers failed to use this data to forecast changes in demands to be made on the scheme.
Since then they have borrowed and borrowed, and spent like crazy on a building boom, whilst holding down salaries of most staff.
This is poor long term planning.
sidicks said:
911newbie said:
You've had some good answers about where the money comes from. I don't know why you don't believe these answers.
Why not write to your nearest university and ask them ? I'm sure they will be able to give a clear answer with numbers etc.
Pensions are part of the remuneration package. They are subject to negotiation between employer and employee, which is what is happening right now.
And lecturers appear not to understand the issues around pensions and seek to make false claims on here, which I have responded to.Why not write to your nearest university and ask them ? I'm sure they will be able to give a clear answer with numbers etc.
Pensions are part of the remuneration package. They are subject to negotiation between employer and employee, which is what is happening right now.
911newbie said:
You seem to think there is a moral problem with having a pension from a university ... yes ? Or at least you clearly don't like the idea of me having a pension.
Why ?
I've said no such thing. More straw man nonsense. How dull.Why ?
911newbie said:
My employer only takes a small fraction of its income from the state. Ergo my pension is not really funded by your taxes.
Imagine you worked for a company like G4S or Balfour Beatty. They are private sector right ? I guarentee these companies receive more money from the UK state than my university does.
Are the people working for them allowed to have pensions in your world ?
Where have I said people aren't allowed pensions?Imagine you worked for a company like G4S or Balfour Beatty. They are private sector right ? I guarentee these companies receive more money from the UK state than my university does.
Are the people working for them allowed to have pensions in your world ?
Maybe you don't understand that no-one is proposing that you shouldn't have a pension. Is that where your misunderstanding lies?
911newbie said:
Do these people now go on to your hate list, and do you want them to live in poverty in their retirement for some kind of henous moral sin ?
I've said no such thing. Straw man nonsense and ignorant emotive rhetoric in one sentence? Well done.Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 21st March 21:38
I don't want to appear to use strawman arguments.
For the sake of clarity - I just dislike you intensely.
911newbie said:
Sidicks - you are misreading my posts.
I don't want to appear to use strawman arguments.
And yet you are doing exactly that. Do you really not understand the issues or is your only defence to pretend I’ve said things a million miles away from what I’ve actually said?I don't want to appear to use strawman arguments.
911newbie said:
For the sake of clarity - I just dislike you intensely.
For the sake of clarity, I couldn’t care less if you want you make irrational emotional judgements about someone on the Internet, based on your misreading of what they’ve actually said. However, it’s hardly the actions of an intelligent and rational person.Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 21st March 21:56
911newbie said:
My employer only takes a small fraction of its income from the state. Ergo my pension is not really funded by your taxes.
What percentage is state money & what percentage from elsewhere? Please state what fraction the 'small fraction' is.911newbie said:
Do these people now go on to your hate list
Really? Is this what passes for debate amongst university staff?911newbie said:
do you want them to live in poverty in their retirement
Nobody is talking even vaguely about poverty- the suggestion is a DB pension scheme on generous terms that most of the population would envy. My problem with the current system is that my wealth will be drained and my future made more onerous in order for others to have unreasonable ( ie unsustainable) provision for theirs.Rovinghawk said:
Nobody is talking even vaguely about poverty- the suggestion is a DB pension scheme on generous terms that most of the population would envy. My problem with the current system is that my wealth will be drained and my future made more onerous in order for others to have unreasonable ( ie unsustainable) provision for theirs.
You mean DC?!
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 21st March 22:17
'Most population' should work harder at school, or make different career choices, if 'most population' want better pensions.
You'd think that with such generous conditions you'd have a surplus of, lets say, doctors. Or that the government wouldn't have to run adds on the radio for teachers. The whole public/private sector argument is beyond stupid.
The whole notion that DB doesn't exist in private sector is demonstrably false. Not that it'll stop people repeating what order-order and daily mail told them to.
You'd think that with such generous conditions you'd have a surplus of, lets say, doctors. Or that the government wouldn't have to run adds on the radio for teachers. The whole public/private sector argument is beyond stupid.
The whole notion that DB doesn't exist in private sector is demonstrably false. Not that it'll stop people repeating what order-order and daily mail told them to.
jjlynn27 said:
'Most population' should work harder at school, or make different career choices, if 'most population' want better pensions.
You'd think that with such generous conditions you'd have a surplus of, lets say, doctors. Or that the government wouldn't have to run adds on the radio for teachers. The whole public/private sector argument is beyond stupid.
The whole notion that DB doesn't exist in private sector is demonstrably false. Not that it'll stop people repeating what order-order and daily mail told them to.
Who has claimed that “DB doesn’t exist in the private sector”? You'd think that with such generous conditions you'd have a surplus of, lets say, doctors. Or that the government wouldn't have to run adds on the radio for teachers. The whole public/private sector argument is beyond stupid.
The whole notion that DB doesn't exist in private sector is demonstrably false. Not that it'll stop people repeating what order-order and daily mail told them to.
Rovinghawk said:
911newbie said:
do you want them to live in poverty in their retirement
Nobody is talking even vaguely about poverty- the suggestion is a DC pension scheme on generous terms that most of the population would envy. My problem with the current system is that my wealth will be drained and my future made more onerous in order for others to have unreasonable ( ie unsustainable) provision for theirs.sidicks said:
So the obvious conclusion is that, despite your rhetoric, you don’t actually practice what you preach.
Not so matey,I am not here to share personal details but support the idea of fair pensions that will help all in retirement, conversely you seem to resent the notion of DB DC pensions which after life time of toil most would welcome.Toaster said:
sidicks said:
So the obvious conclusion is that, despite your rhetoric, you don’t actually practice what you preach.
Not so matey,I am not here to share personal details but support the idea of fair pensions that will help all in retirement, conversely you seem to resent the notion of DB DC pensions which after life time of toil most would welcome.Toaster said:
Not so matey,I am not here to share personal details
Whether you operate a DB scheme is hardly invasive ‘personal details’. But I’m pretty sure we know the answer already, ‘matey’.I also doubt that you pay significantly more into the DC scheme than the minimum - most employers don’t.
Toaster said:
but support the idea of fair pensions that will help all in retirement,
1. Define ‘fair’3. Explain how a small subset of workers having large pensions subsidised by the wider population will help ‘all’ in retirement.
Toaster said:
conversely you seem to resent the notion of DB DC pensions which after life time of toil most would welcome.
You seem unable to differentiate between an expert in this area who understands the costs involved in DB pensions and someone who ‘resents the notion of DB DC pensions’ which is just nonsense. Never mind.Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 09:25
crankedup said:
Sidicks has a good knowledge of pension scheme tech’ well he should as he works in the industry. I’m hoping he may ‘advise’ the cost of administration to the contributor of the money into the scheme. Also be interesting to read of ‘market averages’ earns by the investment companies before these costs are deducted.
Investment management costs are generally between 0.02% and 1.5% depending on investment strategy.[/quote]1. Define ‘fair’3. Explain how a small subset of workers having large pensions subsidised by the wider population will help ‘all’ in retirement.
[/quote]
1. Fair being one that means bills are covered food and general living costs, so that there are no financial worries. Anything else is a bonus
2. I cant answer as your question is missing
3. Im beginning to see your slightly bitter as you may not have a reasonable pension and if so you have my sincere sympathies. Do tell what you define as a 'large' pension ? £7k? £10K £20K? £30K and what portion of the workforce would get which. Just to note you say these are subsidised by the wider population I take it you mean public workers, if so just remember consider these as deferred wages (both what the worker has put in and the organisation). I will again point out that a contractor is provided with a significantly higher payment compared to an employee with benefits.
Toaster said:
What sort of annual contribution rate would you say would be necessary to achieve that?
Toaster said:
2. I cant answer as your question is missing
Fair point.Toaster said:
3. Im beginning to see your slightly bitter as you may not have a reasonable pension and if so you have my sincere sympathies.
Still wrong in both cases.Toaster said:
Do tell what you define as a 'large' pension ? £7k? £10K £20K? £30K and what portion of the workforce would get which.
Just to note you say these are subsidised by the wider population I take it you mean public workers if so just remember consider these as deferred wages (both what the worker has put in and the organisation).
I mean private sector workers through taxation.Just to note you say these are subsidised by the wider population I take it you mean public workers if so just remember consider these as deferred wages (both what the worker has put in and the organisation).
Toaster said:
I will again point out that a contractor is provided with a significantly higher payment compared to an employee with benefits.
True, but irrelevant to the topic under discussion. And (falsely) trying to insinuate that I believe that people shouldn’t have pensions is pretty pathetic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff