[Closed] All those wingeing about public sector workers and pensions

Kenny Senior

The NHS pensions "fund"

At the moment and since the start of the NHS the workforce pay more in pension contributions than the nhs pensioner take out - by a very large amount.

If this money had been invested the NHS pension fund would be huge with more than enough in it to meet all future liabilities. Unfortunatly this money has been used as revenue and spent by successive governments.

In future using worst case scenarios the amount of money paid in per year might not cover the liabilities. This government wants to reduce pensions to make up for this

Of course what is also omitted is NHS pensions have already been rejigged to make them sustainable.

As for teachers - again the pensions have been rejigged and the taxpayer contributions capped. This government wants to take more in contributions which will not go into pensions but will be used to pay off the deficit.

the net result is that these employees "pension contributions" are actually being used as a tax to pay off the deficit.

Local authorities are different again - this actually has a fund that will pay almost all future liabilities even in a worst case scenario.

The governments case is based on lies, divide and conquer and an attempt to find the enemy within

The TUC site has a section on pensions which makes the case from the opposite side. I won't pretend is unbiased but take the two (government and TUC) together and the truth will lie somewhere inbetween

Cheers TJ

Kenny - I think the only thing TJ and I would agree on in the whole issue would be that the truth is likely to lie somewhere inbetween the unions and the governments position 😀

I think that the best thing you can do would be to read the independent Hutton report and draw your own conclusion, rather than relying on the spin of either side.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indreview_johnhutton_pensions.htm

Ban me, like I give a shit.

I'm amazed you haven't been - I've been banned for lesser misdemeanors.

I reckon the mods must like you. Or recognise your comic and entertainment value - it's probably that.

You think the pension arrangements were put in place in 1997?

There are people that sit on there arses in both sectors - generally though they get weeded out in the private sector, all i ever hear from mates who work for the council is how there are pointless jobs and people taking the piss and how much harder they work than so and so....

From experiance, when i worked in education (i wasnt an english teacher BTW) if we worked extra hours we were paid over time. i got a decent amount of holliday each year which was reflected in the wage. Now i've been in the private sector for 8 yrs, we used to get over time, doesnt happen any more, we used to get anual pay rises and bonuses, these dont happen any more. Yes, the company i work for is makeing money (alot of it).

I guess that your average joe in the private sector is just board of hearing all of the winging that the public sector do over stuff like 'we're only getting a 2.5 % pay rise, you promised 3% ' - i really does not help public relations hense threads like this which will go around and around in circles.

mokey boy - the pensions have been there for decades and have been revised in the last few years to make them sustainable.

There are a whole raft of differnt systems for different employers

YOu are being shafted - your company is making money -but you work unpaid overtinme. Just 'cos you allow yourself to be shafted doesn't mean everyone has to

the pensions have been there for decades and have been revised in the last few years to make them sustainable

Is it possible, just possible, that the [b]huge[/b] changes in the [b]worldwide[/b] financial position since 2007 might have made the settlement reached then, and the assumptions on which it was founded, somewhat out of date?

Is it [b]possible[/b] that what was thought to be sustainable in 2007, is no longer relevant?

For those who are interested in a counterpoint to teh relentless tory propaganda. Plenty to read and [ponder

http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-20320-f0.cfm

http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/index.cfm?mins=293&minors=278&majorsubjectID=4

YOu are being shafted - your company is making money -but you work unpaid overtinme.

teethgrinder - Member

I was ever so slightly anti-strike/whinging public sector/insult of choice before readinbg this thread.

Now...not so sure.

thegreatape - Member

You can read source after source after source of information, and you still don't know what the truth really is.

Forgetting 'figures' for the moment, there has been a concerted drive by the government and the right-wing press to vilify public sector employees.

And it's getting very nasty too, with the government declaring that they want to instil "fear and discipline" into public sector workers :

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/30/public-sector-jobs-oliver-letwin ]Public sector workers need 'discipline and fear', says Oliver Letwin[/url]

But as the PCSU union leader says :

[i]"Public sector workers are already working in fear – fear of cuts to their job, pension, living standards and of privatisation. Far from improving productivity, the cuts are creating chaos in vital public services."[/i]

And fear is very bad for productivity, no doubt about it :

[url= http://www.fph.org.uk/workplace_stress_costing_employers_billions ]Workplace Stress Costing Employers Billions[/url]

Quote :

[i]"Mental health problems like stress, anxiety and depression [b]caused or made worse by work[/b] are by far the biggest cause of sickness absence, costing an estimated £13bn in sickness pay and lost productivity, not to mention a further £12bn in public service spending and carers' time."[/i]

Public sector workers are portrayed as lazy, ****less, work-shy, and over paid, and yet they among the hardest working and often receive no extra reward for their commitment :

[url= http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2008/212017945348.html ]Public-sector workers do 120 million hours of unpaid overtime a year[/url]

Quote :

[i]"The data show that 46 per cent of employees in education, health and social care in the non-profit sector do some unpaid overtime, compared with 29 per cent of their counterparts in the private sector. They also do more hours of unpaid overtime a week (nine hours 35 minutes compared with eight hours 20 minutes). "[/i]

And if you doubt the campaign of vilification of public sector workers as overpaid and greedy, then look at this :

[url= http://www.****/home/search.html?sel=site&searchPhrase=public+sector ]Daily Mail - Public Sector[/url]

The driving force behind this campaign has nothing at all to do with economics, and everything to do with ideology - and idealogical hatred of the public sector.

Here's a nice quote :

[i]"It's also classic Tory divide-and-rule politics. Make low-paid call centre and supermarket workers resent nurses and firefighters, and you will destroy any potential unity on issues such as cuts, pensions and rights in the workplace."[/i]

The neo-liberal free-market fundamentalism experiment which got the world is this mess has failed miserably. The greedy incompetent bankers, spivs, and speculators which created this mess got a hammering. Battered, bruised, and humiliated, they are fighting back, And the way the Conservatives have transformed a crisis of the banks into a crisis of public spending is a stroke of political genius.

This an idealogical battle. Wake up.

TJ, you generally seem to have facts to back up your points but posting up TUC propaganda to counter Tory propaganda isn't really moving the discussion forward...

Not doing this to be provocative but as was said earlier, if we believe what our politicians tell us (and Union leaders are elected politicians just like our MPs are) and allow them to divide us, then we lose...

Did somebody mention the Hutton report? I thought there had been mention of balanced facts? Zulu you must sit somewhere to the right of General Pinochet if you think Hutton is independent!

If I was interested in something like privatising the NHS, I'd probably start by realising that the private providers I wanted to invite in would need to employ the skilled professionals the NHS currently trains and employs.

That would be a pretty big task at the outset, to do that and still retain a worthwhile profit margin.

Perhaps they could tempt some of those NHS employess away to be full employees of theirs, that would be simpler and less expensive.

But damn, a lot of those people have pretty decent employment conditions and pensions, partly in recognition of the fact the job is fundamentally necessary to an advanced society, hard, not terribly well-paid in the case of most employees, often thankless and with no additional financial incentive.

They're unlikely to go for that idea, especially as they'll all know people who work in the private sector and pay handsomely for worthless pensions.

Hmmm, what to do....

I know, we could use an entirely subjective projection to scare them into thinking their pensions are also likely to be worthless and make them pay a load more into their pension funds that we can take out and use for other stuff. This would make it seem a whole lot less attractive and maybe then some of them would figure that they may as well go work for a private healthcare provider, taking their years of training and experience with them. Several birds, one stone!

Just in case anyone else in the country feels sorry for them, lets spend plenty of time encouraging private sector workers to feel aggrieved that the pension funds of NHS workers and other uppity communists are not as shit as theirs are.

And if any nitpicker remembers that privatisation of the NHS was not in our election manifesto and we pointedly dodged all tricky questions at the time regarding the subject, we should just repeat the idea that competition ensures uninterrupted brilliance and that the market will sort it all out.

I love it when a plan comes together.

Broness 0- I quite clearly stated

The TUC site has a section on pensions which makes the case from the opposite side. I won't pretend is unbiased but take the two (government and TUC) together and the truth will lie somewhere inbetween

TJ - fair point - I haven't read all 11 pages!
The amount of mis-information we get fed (and often happily lap up) scares me... if we took a little more time to work stuff out for ourselves we'd be a lot better off IMO.
Monty Python Life of Brian springs to mind 🙂

The amount of mis-information we get fed [b][i][u]by TJ[/u][/i] [/b](and often happily lap up) scares me... if we took a little more time to work stuff out for ourselves we'd be a lot better off IMO.

Fixed that for you.

Apologies if [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/real-cost-of-public-sector-workers-strike-is-having-to-speak-to-them-201111254593/ ]this[/url] has been posted already

(Edit: LInk not working)

What misinformation pembo?

Well, we can start with the Tesco tax claims.

Plenty of evidence of Tesco avoiding tax

this is all I canbebothered to find it also hides exports profits adn imports losses to avoid tax.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/31/tesco.supermarkets

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/13/tesco-revives-jersey-vat-avoidance

We have now established that:

· On a property disposal programme totalling £5bn, the exchequer could be deprived of in the region of £100m of tax.

· Tesco has been involved in a game of cat and mouse with HM Revenue & Customs since 2003.

· On three occasions when the government has closed a loophole to prevent avoidance, Tesco has taken advantage of ingenious schemes to get around it.

· The firm's devices have centred on complex limited partnership arrangements and unit trust schemes based in Jersey, and have included offshore companies.

· Tesco still has 36 stores wrapped up in UK limited partnerships - with Cayman Islands registered partners - which were established in 2006 before the latest loophole was closed. These - called Tesco Blue, Tesco Fuchsia and Tesco Pink - are set up and ready to be used for large scale property deals, and would be free of the 4% SDLT.

On the day Tesco issued proceedings, a press release to the stock exchange from the company admitted tax "savings" on two deals already done (for the first time after months of protracted exchanges with the Guardian): "By structuring these transactions in this way Tesco expects to achieve savings of £23m in stamp duty-related taxes on the transactions completed to date. The maximum additional savings in stamp duty-related taxes that might be achieved from using these structures could be another £30m to £40m."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/03/tesco.medialaw

Oh go on -have some more

Via various schemes tesco has avoided a billion pounds in tax over ten years - thats enough to build two or three new district general hospitals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/31/tesco.supermarkets

The magazine Private Eye this week identified what it said was a Tesco tax avoidance operation involving a complex web of offshore operations centred on the Swiss canton of Zug. These arrangements involved an English limited liability partnership (LLP) called Cheshunt Overseas. Cheshunt is the name of the Hertfordshire town where Tesco has its headquarters.

The Cheshunt Overseas accounts provide grounds for believing that the structure may so far have assisted the international retailer in sheltering more than £66m in profit from UK tax.

The supermarket company is currently suing the Guardian over allegations about its corporation tax arrangements.

If the profits in Cheshunt Overseas accounts were subject to corporation tax in the UK, Tesco could have been liable for £20m corporation tax. Those accounts state that Cheshunt Overseas paid £4m of foreign taxes, a saving of £16m. Most of this saving comes from one single full year of Cheshunt's existence to February 2007. Cheshunt Overseas accounts for 2008 have not yet been published. Tesco's lawyers told the Guardian: "Tesco rely upon [an] entirely legitimate tax exemption."

Have a read of this

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/01/tescos-the-zug-deal-is-tax-avoidance/

Thats Ace - the [b]Guardian[/b] accusing people of Tax avoidance 😆

[img] [/img]

Oh go on -have some more

Via various schemes tesco has avoided a billion pounds in tax over ten years - thats enough to build two or three new district general hospitals

yet in the link you posted it says:

"The retailer launched a libel and malicious falsehood action against the Guardian when the paper incorrectly said Tesco was avoiding up to £1bn corporation tax on those land deals. Tesco described it as "a devastating attack on its integrity and ethics". The Guardian has already acknowledged its factual errors, has apologised, and has offered to do so again".

Do you see what I mean?

You want some more? Here you go -
[url= http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/846169/Guardian-apologises-pays-damages-settle-Tesco-tax-case/ ]null

And here's the information from the Guardian website you forgot to post 😀

Tesco - an apology

Tesco has accepted a formal offer of apology by the Guardian in relation to the reports "Tesco's £1bn tax avoiding plan - move to the Cayman Islands" and "Every little bit helps: tax free pot of gold at end of Tesco's rainbow" (pages 1 and 27, February 27) and a related editorial and podcast. In these articles we reported that Tesco had created an elaborate off-shore corporate structure to avoid paying up to £1bn in UK corporation tax on profits from the sale of its UK properties, and that it had already successfully avoided corporation tax on the £500m profit it made from its first two property sales. We also suggested that this corporation tax avoidance was hypocritical, having regard to Tesco's public stance on social responsibility, and that Tesco's response to the charge had been evasive.

We now accept that these damaging allegations were unfounded and should not have been published. All profits generated by this sale and leaseback arrangement were earned by UK tax-resident companies and have been or will be included in Tesco's UK tax returns. The use of Cayman Island companies in the scheme was for legitimate stamp duty savings purposes. We also accept that Tesco's responses to the charges were truthful.

We regret that we did not publish the letter from Tesco's tax adviser received on the day of publication of the original articles and accept that the correction published on May 3 was insufficient. We accept that Tesco was not hypocritical in its corporation tax planning of these transactions having regard to its public stance on social responsibility and has a legitimate interest in seeing the facts about its tax arrangements fairly and accurately reported. Furthermore, we accept that Tesco is a very significant taxpayer, having contributed over £1bn to the public purse for the year to February 2007. We are happy to put the record straight and apologise to Tesco. We have also agreed to pay a sum by way of damages to a charity of Tesco's choice and a payment by way of costs.

For the record and to make this clear to all Members.

I have not emailed enfht, as a I mod I would not do it but even as not as a mod I have never and would never email someone about something on a forum. Unless they requested our it was for buying something on classifieds.

Pembo - and one of the articles I linked to is after that correcting the mistakes

Tescos are a serial tax avoider - there is no doubt. The Guardian got a few minor details wrong in the original story.

Look up the Zug deal.

This quote is after the corrections on the minor details. Note tco did not sue - they only thretened to

We have now established that:

· On a property disposal programme totalling £5bn, the exchequer could be deprived of in the region of £100m of tax.

· Tesco has been involved in a game of cat and mouse with HM Revenue & Customs since 2003.

· On three occasions when the government has closed a loophole to prevent avoidance, Tesco has taken advantage of ingenious schemes to get around it.

· The firm's devices have centred on complex limited partnership arrangements and unit trust schemes based in Jersey, and have included offshore companies.

· Tesco still has 36 stores wrapped up in UK limited partnerships - with Cayman Islands registered partners - which were established in 2006 before the latest loophole was closed. These - called Tesco Blue, Tesco Fuchsia and Tesco Pink - are set up and ready to be used for large scale property deals, and would be free of the 4% SDLT.

On the day Tesco issued proceedings, a press release to the stock exchange from the [b]company admitted tax[/b] "savings" on two deals already done (for the first time after months of protracted exchanges with the Guardian): "By structuring these transactions in this way Tesco expects to achieve savings of [b]£23m[/b] in stamp duty-related taxes on the transactions completed to date. The maximum additional savings in stamp duty-related taxes that might be achieved from using these structures could be another [b]£30m to £40m.[/b]"

Told of Tesco's low-key return to Channel Islands VAT avoidance, Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vincent Cable said: "It seems to me absolutely extraordinary and seriously unwise for a leading British plc to be caught out dodging tax at a time when the country has a very serious fiscal crisis on its hands. I am sure if they are sufficiently aware of the importance of their reputation in this area that they will stop it immediately."

Told of Tesco's low-key return to Channel Islands VAT avoidance, Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vincent Cable said: "It seems to me absolutely extraordinary and seriously unwise for a leading British plc to be caught out dodging tax at a time when the country has a very serious fiscal crisis on its hands. I am sure if they are sufficiently aware of the importance of their reputation in this area that they will stop it immediately."

Pffffffttt.

The Guardian got a few [b]minor[/b] details wrong in the original story.

Yep, just a rounding error in the Guardian story as explained in the apology 🙄

"In these articles we reported that Tesco had created an elaborate off-shore corporate structure to avoid paying up to £1bn in UK corporation tax on profits from the sale of its UK properties, and that it had already successfully avoided corporation tax on the £500m profit it made from its first two property sales....
We now accept that these damaging allegations were unfounded and should not have been published. All profits generated by this sale and leaseback arrangement were earned by UK tax-resident companies and have been or will be included in Tesco's UK tax returns."

Explain to me again how, in your words:

Via various schemes tesco has avoided a billion pounds in tax over ten years - thats enough to build two or three new district general hospitals

Ok then Vodaphone....

Pembo = just read the links FFS man - Tescos are tax avoiders on a large
scale
Thats weasel words designed to appease lawyers - you need the rest of the context

Tescos does appear on this evidence to be a business that is avoiding UK tax. It has avoided stamp duty and corporation tax, and has set up immensely complex structures to do so. Which, incidentally, is exactly what the Guardian alleged.

The claim that Tescos pays a ‘disproportionately high amount of tax in the UK’ is also wrong in my opinion. It has not paid more than [b]£1 billion that might reasonably have been expected of it over the last 9 years.[/b]

Isn't it a moot point anyhow? There is not a single trade union in the country that makes a net contribution to the exchequer.

Thats weasel words designed to appease lawyers - you need the rest of the context

He also states when challenged in the blog comments:

"You’re right too – this is not the most outrageous example of tax avoidance ever. Far from it."

Pembo - just admit it - as I said tescos are large serial tax evaders - I have backed it up.

You said I was giving out misinformation - I am not.

Labour would be cutting 1% less

To get back on track...
Still looking forward to my gold plated pension of £4,200 which will require me to work an extra 6 years ,increase my contributions by 30% and will not rise with the rate on inflation as it should....all of which was in the pensions contract which I signed up to 25 years ago.
I wonder what all the naysayers on here would say if after paying their mortgages for 25 years were told sorry but you haven't actually paid your mortgage off like you thought you had and you will need to carry on paying for another 6 years ,increase your contributions by 30% etc etc
Divide and rule it's what the establisment has always done while quietly looking after their own.

I'd prefer it if the Tories had the stones to cut my pay, but they dont so we get all this crap instead

I wonder what all the naysayers on here would say if after paying their mortgages for 25 years were told sorry but you haven't actually paid your mortgage off like you thought you had and you will need to carry on paying for another 6 years ,increase your contributions by 30% etc etc

That's not whats happening though, is it? In the real world, the nearest analogy to the union protection racket would be someone taking out a cheap tracker mortgage, and then complaining when rates go up and insisting that their neighbours pay the extra.

Quite rightly, the neighbours would say get lost. Which is what the majority of the country are telling the union fatcats at the moment.

dmjb4 - Member

Not just about pensions, as already stated it is about the cuts being made elsewhere that have been introduced with 3 weeks notice in the case of my profession. The mistake they made was not just bringing the cuts to pensions in without any warning. Hence a strike.

I'd prefer it if the Tories had the stones to cut my pay, but they dont so we get all this crap instead

Same here. At least that can be increased again in future. Pension contribution increase is a 5% cut in take home pay for the rest of my life.

Not just about pensions, as already stated it is about the cuts being made elsewhere that have been introduced with 3 weeks notice in the case of my profession. The mistake they made was not just bringing the cuts to pensions in without any warning. Hence a strike.

There are cuts everywhere, as we are in a recession. In our factory we have had two rounds of redundancy, and no-one ever had a guaranteed pension. Not that a private company ever could guarantee a pension in any case, as companies can and do fail. Sales are down, budgets are getting cut.

Outside of the cushy public sector this has been the case since 2007, when you might recall queues outside Northern Rock.

Basically, you've had a lot more than three weeks warning that there may be cutbacks coming! Public sector workers have simply been living in laa-laa land pretending its all been nothing to do with them, just other people getting sacked... Yes, those other people that pay their wages and pensions...

although sad people are loosing jobs/pensions...

had too good for too long, the wife had a 3 month stint in the local council office in the tax department, out of an office of [b]21[/b] people (her mate was a manager), half were on the sick **** all wrong with them just it was so easy to do. the rest used to abuse the flexy time with the managers turning a blind eye. even the mrs mate said 5 people could have easily done the job of the 21!

not nice people loosing jobs but public sector has been taking the piss for years and they know it! people in private sector have been shafted for years!

monkeyboyjc - Member

true - however, that is the way it is and has been in the private sector for years / decades

See, this is really interesting- you're getting the shaft, which is a shame, but you're also assuming that everyone else is getting the same shaft. This seems to be pretty common among the shafted. (within my old office, one person worked a lot of unpaid overtime and naturally got no benefit of it, everyone else claimed- but she swore blind that "everyone does it" even when we were all telling her "no we don't".)

I have no idea why, but I suspect it's just another side of the fact that people don't like to see someone else do better than they are- one response is to try and drag them down to your level, another is to just close your eyes to it and imagine that they're in the same boat.

Outside of the cushy public sector this has been the case since 2007,

Well most of your so called cushy public sector are in threat of being tupe over
and your service is only held for a year.

Maybe you need to find a descent employer yourself and then we can moan at you ?

dmjb4 -
Not much point in arguing as you appear to have a firmly held view of the public sector which a few lines on a bike forum ain't gonna change.
However for the record
Our pay has been frozen for 3 years at least-also impacting on those due to retire on final salary pension schemes.I have never had a pay rise as high as the rate of inflation in all my career in the public sector
Redundancies are happening to public sector workers too even though we were always led to believe they wouldn't.
Our long held redunancy terms have been savaged and are still the case of an ongoing judicial review because the government broke the law in changing them.
Workers in the private sector with poor pay and conditions of service have my sympathy and support.Most would not choose to work there if they had the choice and move on when better opportunities arise....to jobs with better pay.pensions etc
The better parts of the private sector had a long term view and paid good salaries,had good pensions and lots of staff perks, cash bonuses,shares,social clubs etc and as a consequence recruited the best staff and the companies benefited in output ,creativity,quality etc. it's a whole other thread about why that's no longer the case.

What about business lunches,Xmas parties,putting it on expenses,kickbacks from suppliers,clocking in for one job and getting paid for the whole day on double time etc-Never seen it in all my years in the public sector but that's part of the private sector culture-perhaps explains it's demise......