Dear University lecturers - get back to work
Discussion
sidicks said:
. And (falsely) trying to insinuate that I believe that people shouldn’t have pensions is pretty pathetic.
Then use your time to argue why pensions could be for all rather than defending why they cant........its rather pathetic matey Just to be clear we cant clear up all the injustices in the world on PH but looking and discussing/arguing how things could be better for all would be far more positive or people will just go with the status quo and that is not acceptable for any of us. sidicks said:
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.I just want to get a sense of the value for money that pensions fund investments offer to thier clients.
911newbie said:
It is a private pension paid for out of contributions from universities and their workers.
This fact alone might cause Sidicks and Co some tumescence problems. Sorry tax payers are not paying for my pension.
(My employer, a university, does take some money from the state but no where near 100% of income).
Just to follow up on this, according to the 2016 ‘Universities UK’ document on funding:This fact alone might cause Sidicks and Co some tumescence problems. Sorry tax payers are not paying for my pension.
(My employer, a university, does take some money from the state but no where near 100% of income).
In 2014-15, over 25% of funding was from government.
2/3rds of research funding is direct from UK government.
11% of funding is from the EU (which is really just recycled UK government spending)
In terms of teaching income (44%), 18% of this amount came directly from the UK government and over 50% was from student fees, where the majority are loaned by the government and a signficant proportion are not repaid.
The document itself highlights the high costs of DB pensions and the significant existing deficit (£8.3billion in 2014/15), which the lecturers on here appear determined to ignore.
Not quite the independent private entity some would like to portray!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 10:32
crankedup said:
That seems very reasonable, can you advise of the ‘market average’ earnings on the investment over a given period of the past five years or so?
I just want to get a sense of the value for money that pensions fund investments offer to thier clients.
Average of what strategy? I’m sure that you can google market returns.I just want to get a sense of the value for money that pensions fund investments offer to thier clients.
sidicks said:
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.
Toaster said:
Rovinghawk said:
One very simple question- where would the money for this come from?
A simples answer: it comes from the renumeration package paid to workers and thats both private and public all of whom pay tax on earned income. 
Why don’t you provide a DB pension for your employees?
jjlynn27 said:
Does it matter? Is that statement true?
Of course it’s not true. Open DB schemes are of course very rare in the private sector, which is exactly the point.Does it matter? Why would you invent this ‘notion’ only to claim that it isn’t true? And then pretend that this originated from the Daily Mail or Order Order?
Likewise I could claim that “The whole notion that millions of Public sector workers would starve to death if their DB pension schemes were made slightly less generous” is denonstrably false.
I’m sure you’d be the first to take issue that no one had actually made that claim in the first place...
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Does it matter? Is that statement true?
Of course it’s not true. Open DB schemes are of course very rare in the private sector, which is exactly the point.Does it matter? Why would you invent this ‘notion’ only to claim that it isn’t true? And then pretend that this originated from the Daily Mail or Order Order?
Likewise I could claim that “The whole notion that millions of Public sector workers would starve to death if their DB pension schemes were made slightly less generous” is denonstrably false.
I’m sure you’d be the first to take issue that no one had actually made that claim in the first place...
jjlynn27 said:
So your issue is that DB schemes are available to public sector workers as well, is because they are public workers?
That makes no sense. As ever.But please continue to invent your silly ‘notions’, simply to claim they are false. Then you can be mocked accordingly!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 11:35
Toaster said:
Rovinghawk said:
One very simple question- where would the money for this come from?
A simples answer: it comes from the renumeration package paid to workers and thats both private and public all of whom pay tax on earned income. Remuneration does not just exist - it has to come from somewhere.
In the case of public sector it could be a) increase in taxes b) increase in borrowing, c) reduce expenditure on other areas etc
In the case of private then it could come from a) an increase in prices. b) a decrease in profit (or increase in losses)
c) increase in productivity etc etc
The answer in most of these cases for those receiving any increased benefit is "As long as it comes from someone else, I do't care where it comes from"
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
That seems very reasonable, can you advise of the ‘market average’ earnings on the investment over a given period of the past five years or so?
I just want to get a sense of the value for money that pensions fund investments offer to thier clients.
Average of what strategy? I’m sure that you can google market returns.I just want to get a sense of the value for money that pensions fund investments offer to thier clients.
sidicks said:
That makes no sense. As ever.
But please continue to invent your silly ‘notions’, simply to claim they are false. Then you can be mocked accordingly!
It's a very simple question. You take your time. As usual, feel free to consult order-order.But please continue to invent your silly ‘notions’, simply to claim they are false. Then you can be mocked accordingly!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 11:35
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 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.
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?
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Market averages of basic low risk strategy. Yes I could google but I would like to read what you have to say about the performance levels within your industry.
Average performance would have been in line with the market.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.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff