[Closed] Is Unemployment a "Price Worth Paying"?

If I want your services, I can pay for them!

I cant help thinking that if state education were to be removed I as, if I d say so myself, a bloody good teacher would be making more money.

[i]If I want your services, I can pay for them! [/i]

If you [i]need[/i] my services, you'll be glad that you don't have to pay for them...

Sorry, according to my payslip and the 'king big chunk called "deductions" I've already paid for them 🙄

So attacking my pension provision makes sense because?

It's a question of fairness. Can you explain to a private sector taxpayer why he is unable to pay into his own private pension (because he has no spare cash at the end of the month), but he can afford to fund guaranteed pension rights for the public sector? RIghts that he has absolutely no hope of ever enjoying and the cost of which will inexorably rise over the next 30 years due to an ageing population?

Private sector workers deserve better pensions, but they aren't going to get them because there is no-one to pay for them except themselves. Public sector workers deserve good pensions, but they don't deserve guaranteed final salary pensions at the current levels.

a bloody good teacher would be making more money.

I think the problem is that a good many of your colleagues realise that they'd be making a lot less 😉

I cant help thinking that if state education were to be removed I as, if I d say so myself, a bloody good teacher would be making more money.

So you're in favour of free schools then? Can't they set their own salary scales?

If you need my services, you'll be glad that you don't have to pay for them...

I appreciate your services, that's why I'm happy to pay for them through taxes. I'm just unhappy at what my taxes are paying for - better pension rights than I can afford for myself.

I as, if I d say so myself, a bloody good teacher would be making more money.

No one is stopping you from moving to work in the private sector. If you are as good as you say, I'm sure you'll have no trouble.

[i]Private sector workers deserve better pensions[/i]

I agree, but whatever has gone wrong with private sector pensions is what needs putting right, and attempting to dick over public sector workers is not the way to do it.

Zulu a communist, who'd a thought it?

Night boys..

It's so obvious that the austerity measures are going to make the economy worse that it is reinforcing my opinion that there is far more going on than the electorate ever hear about.

Secret deals with credit ratings agencies, mega companies and big banks is my guess.

whatever has gone wrong with private sector pensions is what needs putting right

Don't you get it? Whats gone wrong, is that some **** called Gordon crippled them, by taking the money and using it to pay for more public sector workers... who's been dicking who?

Secret deals with credit ratings agencies, mega companies and big banks is my guess.

Hmm. Secret deals of what nature?

He typed on his capitalist computer, using his capitalist broadband etc

and you called their comment 6th form politics 🙄

yes we should blame the public sector workers for this mess as it has nothing to do with capitalism or banking. Nice attempt at re writing history

The internet was not borne out of capitalism though was it as CERN was/is state operated/owned.

Too easy. CERN didn't invent the internet.

So, Junky, which state owned company made your laptop? Which state owned company provides your broadband?

Jesus wept flash the internet arose from a state [ international as well] owned organisation Was I educated by capitalism? I rather thought that in a mixed economy it is a mixture that leads to the situation we have here.
Obviously you can look at only one half [ shall we call this supply side ] if you wish but it leads to an incomplete picture and a skewed view.

Private sector workers deserve better pensions, but they aren't going to get them because there is no-one to pay for them except themselves.

We. Are. ****ed. (unless you are one of them...)

Hmmm. Does this make me a neocommunist?

Arpanet/Internet (essentially, data packet switching communications) was an American cold-war military project to make a nuclear war resilient electronic communications network.

It's general usefulness derives from it's decentralized, scale-able packet switching protocol. Like the wheel, it was an original idea that will keep on giving. Thank you for your gift to mankind Mr Licklider.

I cant help thinking that if state education were to be removed I as, if I d say so myself, a bloody good teacher would be making more money.

So you're in favour of free schools then? Can't they set their own salary scales?

No they are a bloody stupid idea on many levels which I dont have time to go into now.

No one is stopping you from moving to work in the private sector. If you are as good as you say, I'm sure you'll have no trouble.

true, and I could do very easily but I have a moral and ethical make up which would prevent me from doing it unless I really had too. Intrestingly someone was tellng me a whileago that you can carry on with the Teachers Pension scheme in most non-state schools too... now that doesnt seem right to me.

It's a question of fairness. Can you explain to a private sector taxpayer why he is unable to pay into his own private pension (because he has no spare cash at the end of the month), but he can afford to fund guaranteed pension rights for the public sector? RIghts that he has absolutely no hope of ever enjoying and the cost of which will inexorably rise over the next 30 years due to an ageing population?

Well, I suppose those in the private sector could form a union and fight for thei rights to good pensions, but they made their beds elsewhere, now they have to lie in them. But of course that doesn't stop them of trying to bring others down to their level, because they are pecieved to be doing better.

Its keeping up with the joneses, but in reverse.

Sixth form politics strikes again.

Considering your contributions to political debates, you should know, Say hi to you fellow students for me when you see them flashy.

RIghts that he has absolutely no hope of ever enjoying and the cost of which will inexorably rise over the next 30 years due to an ageing population?

The notion that things can get better without getting worse first is absurd given the combination of factors that have resulted in the current economic mess. Going cold turkey is never a pleasant experience. In the same way, the idea that public sector pensions will survive in their current form is equally absurd.

Of course, no one is going to welcome being told that they have to work longer and to pay more in order to receive less. That is obvious. But as unpleasant a prospect as this is - this will happen in the public sector in the same way as it has already happened in the private. Harsh but true. In the same vein, on BBC's QT last night there was a guy complaining that his income was not going up in real terms. Hello? Welcome the the real world mate!

There is a real problem in this debate, that the real issues will be obscured by deliberate mis-information from both sides and the failure to prepare public sector workers for the difficult analysis and choices that they will need to make whether they like it or not.

From my understanding the cost argument is a bit of a red-herring. Yes the costs have risen very sharply but in absolute terms the overall cost in not overly onerous. But here again the cost/GDP analysis is complicated and one always has to take LT projections with a pinch of salt.

Surely the issue is one of having two-tier structures. Again my understanding is the difference between the public and private sector pensions is that the former is funded differently to the latter. In effect, it isn't funded (enough/at all, I'm not sure?) from the earnings of the workers who are the direct beneficiaries. So current pensions are paid out of payments made from current workers not the contributions of the retirees over their lifetime.

If this is the case, then this is the crux of the fairness issue surely and why there is less sympathy from the private sector. Future private sector workers will fund a future public sector pension fund system that is more attractive that any that they will be able to access in the private sector. There is interesting analysis comparing the pensions of teachers in both sectors that shows this.

Pensions are a very difficult subject that few of us understand. There was some very disturbing analysis indicating the level of misunderstanding in the public sector and I guess the same could be said of the private. But relatively low earners need education and they need to understand why it makes sense for them to contribute (however, hard this may be) as they have access to a system that most private sector workers crave but will never have access to. Education on the realities of this will be of more value that dogmatic resistance that will not succeed. But I fear that this education will not happen. Why not? Because the real losers here are the leaders of the unions and the higher paid members of the public sector. They are far more affected by the proposals than low income workers. They are of course the most vocal and represented - but are they really representing the interests of their lower paid colleagues properly. I am not sure?

What I am sure is that there will continue to be deliberate mis-representation on both sides.

On the original question or non-question. No one sets out with a deliberate objective of higher unemployment.

On the original question or non-question. No one sets out with a deliberate objective of higher unemployment

The original question was is it worth having high unemployment to make the electorate think again come 2015
Not whether or not high unemployment was a policy/agenda

Thanks, sorry I mis-read it. Again surely a non-question.

Surely the issue is one of having two-tier structures. Again my understanding is the difference between the public and private sector pensions is that the former is funded differently to the latter. In effect, it isn't funded (enough/at all, I'm not sure?) from the earnings of the workers who are the direct beneficiaries. So current pensions are paid out of payments made from current workers not the contributions of the retirees over their lifetime.

Oddly it has become a race to the bottom not a race to the top. It is not unaffordable but the Tories/right wing press do seem to have done well at making sure the private sectors despise the better pension of the public sector so rather that their being pressure to create good pensions for all we have pressure for poor ones for all - except the board of the private sector companies obviously they have better pensions than either ...bosses are not daft but they are ruthless.

the real losers here are the leaders of the unions

OK - JY, I accept that there are different pension fund arrangements in both sectors and I was probably/possibly sloppy in my comments on 'leaders of the unions". What I should have said is the higher paid public sector employees, who by definition will lose more than lower paid employees.

Three facts that we sill probably agree on re pensions (1) they are very difficult for most of us to fully understand, (2) messing about with private and public sector pensions makes people mad (hence current public sector unrest versus private sector anger of Brown's raid) and (3) the provision of pensions in both sectors needs reform.

Again as in other threads, don't assume my political allegiance either way. My real worry is the lack of education on the process and hence the lack of preparation that individuals will have to make. As a union rep, I hope that this is near the top of your agenda. Like it or not, things will change and everyone needs to be prepared.

I agree it is highly likely that we have a winter of discontent and I also agree that the unions may have already lost the debate. I guess there is a real perception issue here. People will have sympathy to the problems caused by changes and whether or not proper negotiations have/are taking place but will have far less sympathy to any notion that the public sector should be immune to the pressures facing their peers in the private sector. None of this will be easy to sort out.

Union rep ...figues. The voice oif reason!

Peniosns as a whole are unsustainable at the moment it not about a race to the bottom or top ...its ensuring that the pension system as a whole remains sustainable for the long term. At the moment there are too many workers thinking about me me me and not about what will happen to the future generations who will be paying their pensions at thier own expense.

Time for a reality check.

You have to take your hats off to Alex Salmond though for his bare-faced cheek. Is he canny enough to pull the wool over enough people's eyes?

It was criminal of Gordon Brown to raid private pension funds to expand the public sector....private pensions in this country were pretty good and the public sector had some shortages but nothing on the scale that Brown/Blair reacted to....Police Community Support Officers?...what were they a solution to exactly?....the masses that were recruited are largely uselss and possess no actual policing powers....i cant help but feel that a huge amount of job creation went on during Labour's tenure just so they could trot out figures about investment, how many extra nurses they've bought etc etc....governing by press release if you will.

....it also had the effect of shrinking the number of unemployed but is it really a job if its not needed and the state pay for it?....there are some towns/cities where close to 50% of the working population are in the public sector, did that not strike anybody in government as being just a teeny bit unsustainable?

For most of Labour's time in power they paid out more than they were recieving in taxation....and then borrowed on top of that too....its really not rocket science is it?.....its staggering that political ideals and vanity can cloud the reality of the balance sheet to such an extent....i was brought up to live within my means, old fashioned i know but i cant help but think if the treasury operated in the same way then we'd all be in a far better situation.

Alex Salmond is running rings around everyone at the moment. Gleefully sticking two fingers up and baring his hairy Scots arse at all the main political parties

Which just goes to show how utterly dim-witted and clueless the present crop actually are.

Can anyone think of a single politician, of any hue, who'd they'd actually trust to sort out the present mess? I wouldn't trust any of them to run a bath!

deviant - Member

It was criminal of Gordon Brown to raid private pension funds to expand the public sector....private pensions in this country were pretty good and the public sector had some shortages but nothing on the scale

You cannot lay the blame for the demise of private pensions at Gordon Browns door. The main reason was contribution holidays by the companies during the boom years.

Most public sector pensions have been reformed and are perfectly sustainable.

I can place plenty of blame on Brown, this is the 'iron chancellor' who spent like a teenage girl without a thought about what may happen in the not too distant future....sold gold at record low prices....enjoyed massive tax reciepts but didnt think to build a surplus....then borrowed on a scale we've not seen since the second world war.

The man is a spastic.

Its worse than that. The man who is now shadow chancellor is.... FFS .... Ed Balls!!

I mean... WTF?!! Gordon Browns right hand man while he steared the ship onto the rocks. Are the labour party that *ing clueless that they think they can be considered anything other than a laughing stock while that half-wit is in charge (I use the term loosly) of economic policy

Its frankly unbelievable that Ed Milliband is so *ing clueless that he can't see that Ed Balls is the least credible man in the country (with the possible exception of Norman Lamont) to be talking about economics.

We're absolutely ****ed if that's the judgment of the leader of the 'opposition'

Great posts Teamhurtmore, better than I could explain.

that is factually incorrect- see if a picture helps

Junkyard, if you are a union rep you owe it to your members to understand the issues. That graph proves nothing, as I have said already:

1. Projections over a period that long are meaningless, the forecasting methodology includes so many hundreds of estimated variables that it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty what the outcome will be. What if GDP doesn't grow as they expect? What if mortality/longevity rates differ to expected? What if population growth rates and other demographics change?

2. Projected payments as a proportion of GDP isn't the issue - it's about the unfunded future liability. It also doesn't change the fact that taxpayers will be funding inequitable final salary pensions in 60 years time, whilst not having the same rights themselves.

3. Most importantly, isn't that graph the projected outcome IF the unions accept the terms of the Hutton report??? See here:

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/15/unions-and-hutton-exchange-angry-words-over-pensions ]Busted[/url]

TJ - are you serious, or merely trying to flame a debate to liven up a Friday?

Seriously, do you really believe that the Brown/Balls (yes, him!) idea to scrap tax relief on pension fund dividends in 1997 was sound economics? Are you not aware of how much damage that did to the pension fund system?

What has largely turned me off politics is that nothing seems to change, you just know that despite the current problems nothing will be learned and the next Labour government will spunk money away like they did last time on some ridiculous idealistic crusade and then act dumb when the debts have to repaid and the economy is shafted.

Unfortunately the Labour party tries to apply 6th form socialist politics to the real world and they still havent learned that it just deoesnt work.

FWIW:

""We shouldn't rely on that 50-year bet that overall these pensions are sustainable in their current form."

Lord Hutton (!)

deviant:

The man is a spastic.

Brown may be a useless politician (like all of the gits) but is there any need for this?

Seriously, do you really believe that the Brown/Balls (yes, him!) idea to scrap tax relief on pension fund dividends in 1997 was sound economics? Are you not aware of how much damage that did to the pension fund system?

Are you unaware of the fact that this source of taxation was originally done by the Conservatives when they were in power? I'm not defending Gordon Browns decision to extend it but it was the Conservatives who initiated it.

Actually it wasn't that significant anyway. Granted it was directionally wrong but the stuff the TJ has mentioned had far more of an impact on private pensions than this tax did.

TBH,

You do trot out some rubbish.

Future private sector workers will fund a future public sector pension fund system that is more attractive that any that they will be able to access in the private sector.

You have this completely Ar$e about face.

You keep trying to persuade us how brilliant market mechanism are and pension provision in the private sector is governed by a market - that's why bosses in the private sector have such amazing pensions (because they are irreplaceable, have to be paid the market rate etc etc.). You can't have it both ways. 20 years ago when my wife started teaching I'm sure the whole pensions debate was very different. At that point private companies weren't taking years off from making any contributions, or using their own pension funds to support their share prices. Just because the private sector has f****ed up it's own pension arrangements doesn't make it reasonable to hammer the public sector.

Far from the private sector being asked to unreasonably fund the public sector, what is actually happening is that the public sector is being asked to give up their agreed benefits to bail out the private sector.

I mean... WTF?!! Gordon Browns right hand man while he steared the ship onto the rocks

I wonder who Norman Lamont's Special Advisor and right hand man was the day he lost £3 bn and raised interest rates from 10 to 15% ?

.
.
.
.

[img] [/img]

My point is that labour can't for one second expect to be taken seriously with Ed Balls as shadow chancellor

I don't think anyone in their right mind would look at the smarmy grinning mugs of George Osborne and David Cameron and think "Yip. I can sleep easy tonight. The economy is in safe hands. Recovery here we come"

I personally think that the damage they're in the process of doing will prove to be cataclysmic to this country - well [b]most[/b] of this country. Not them and their friends obviously

AT PMQ's last week Ed Milliband asked not one single question about the economy. Not like its anything important. Why not? Because Ed Balls is sat next to him. Its inexcusable

Both the Tories and Labour's plans for the economic 'recovery' appear to be two different versions of 'cross your fingers and hope for the best'

Its pathetic!!!

At the moment there are too many workers thinking about me me me and not about what will happen to the future generations who will be paying their pensions at thier own expense.

Time for a reality check.

For most of Labour's time in power they paid out more than they were recieving in taxation....and then borrowed on top of that too....its really not rocket science is it?.

if you are a union rep you owe it to your members to understand the issues.

But Strutton said a similar chart on payments as a proportion of GDP also appeared in Hutton's interim report and also cited the figure of 1.4% by 2059-60. That chart included the switch in pension inflation from the RPI measure to the lower CPI measure, a two-year pay freeze and reductions in public sector jobs, but it did not appear to include increased contributions or an extended retirement age, Strutton said.

"In fact the graph covers assumed cost savings already in existence at the time and shows these were already on track to ensure public sector pensions costs are steady and then slightly falling as a proportion of GDP," said Strutton.

AT PMQ's last week Ed Milliband asked not one single question

Edward Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman and his Government are the byword for complacency in this country on the issue of unemployment. Youth unemployment was falling at the general election, and it has risen on his watch; it is his responsibility. Women’s unemployment, too, is at its highest level since 1988, and he is making the situation worse by cutting the child care tax credit. How does it make sense, when unemployment is rising for women, to cut the support that helps them back into work?

Edward Miliband: What an insult to the people up and down this country who have lost their jobs! The right hon. Gentleman does not even try to answer the question about his central economic strategy to cut the public sector and make the private sector make up the difference. It is not happening, and the truth is, look at what has happened over the past year: Britain has grown slower than any other EU country, apart from Portugal and Romania. Now can the Prime Minister tell the country and the people who have lost their jobs what he is going to do differently over the next year compared with what he did over the last year?

ah you get the point
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110914/debtext/110914-0001.htm#11091475000031

WoW! I bet that had Call-me-Dave quaking in his boots

Thing is JY - What percentage of the people of this country would regard Ed Balls as a safe pair of hands to be chancellor? If Milliband is so clueless that he doesn't realise how appointing Ed Balls makes him look, then there's no hope

Binners take a break and have a listen to a great Parliamentarian at work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8195000/8195545.stm

tbh Balls look competent next to milliband but so would almost anyone he is like the lord of bland a man you can only go mleh at ...quite nice face to face/in person to be fair but yes poor choice.
There is little hope
EDIT: Link above i hoped it was that what a superb piece it is as well

The Tory right is behaving as if it won a stonking great majority at the election.

I can place plenty of blame on Brown...The man is a spastic.

RPRT

How strange that the ability that you credit me with is equivalent to your ability to misquote and misrepresent. Funny that!

Who did I misquote?

I'm not sure that graph shows quite what you think it does Junkyard... from [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/15/unions-and-hutton-exchange-angry-words-over-pensions?INTCMP=SRCH ]The Guardian[/url]:

The row broke out after Hutton disputed union claims that his report confirms that public sector pension costs will fall, relative to GDP, over the next 50 years. Unions have referred to a chart in Hutton's final document that shows benefit payments falling to around 1.4% of GDP by 2059-60 compared with a 2011 peak of 1.9%.

Hutton told the Guardian the chart assumed that reforms agreed with the previous government would be implemented. Those changes include a "cap and share" system that set a ceiling on pension costs. [b]If that ceiling is reached, unions would accept increases in contributions or working longer – issues that are now the subject of deadlocked discussions[/b]. [my emphasis]

Reference the Coalition, The Lib Dems always said they would try to form a coalition with the largest party first - and the Conservatives were thought the most likely to win the most seats.

The Lib Dems always said

always?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/14/liberal-democrats-coalition-hung-parliament

rightplacerighttime:

TBH,

You do trot out some rubbish.

Future private sector workers will fund a future public sector pension fund system that is more attractive that any that they will be able to access in the private sector.

You have this completely Ar$e about face.

You keep trying to persuade us how brilliant market mechanism are and pension provision in the private sector is governed by a market - that's why bosses in the private sector have such amazing pensions (because they are irreplaceable, have to be paid the market rate etc etc.). You can't have it both ways.

You quoted my post but then accuse me of trying to persuade you of how brilliant market mechanisms are etc. I have done nothing of the sort in this thread - if you wish to argue then please engage me on something I actually said.

As one of my previous posts made clear in the context of board level salaries:

I do agree though that the disparity between board level pay and the rest of the workforce is becoming a disgrace- something I think is unsustainable and the fault of shareholders more than anything else.

Junkyard:

1. I dont see how we can discuss pensions and the future burden without predictions the issue would be are they accurate ones
2. depends on the scheme FFS some have enough money to fund - it is a gross oversimplification or distortion of reality there by you. It also appears you are making a prediction about the future ....is that not unsafe for all the reasons you previously mentioned? You cant have it both ways here.

1. Agreed, forecasts are useful. However, this forecast does nothing at all to deal with the key issues, being; unfunded liabilities, a decreasing proportion of private sector taxpayers funding public sector pensions, and basic issues of equity. The unions have attached themselves to that graph as some sort of smoking gun, but it's almost entirely irrelevant.

The linked guardian 'fact check' at [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/14/reality-check-public-sector-affordability ]Link[/url] is quite interesting

2. Some schemes are funded, most aren't. Not sure of your point here. Even the funded ones will likely require increased contributions from members (or more likely the taxpayer) to deal with demographic changes in future.

Anyway, here are my questions for you:

1. Even assuming the graph is correct, why is it fair and equitable that x% of GDP is spent on public sector pensions by the private sector taxpayer, pensions which confer better rights than those tax payers can enjoy?

2. Assuming everyone thinks private sector pensions are pretty rubbish (which they are by and large compared to public sector), do you think it is realistic to bring the private sector up to the level of the public sector? Do you have any idea where the money for that will come from (and don't tell me it will come from cutting the pensions of the c300 FTSE100 executive directors)

3. Assuming everyone agrees that public sector workers should retain some sort of final salary pension, do you think it is reasonable that they should retain final salary pension rights that were set when people died 10 years after retirement (now easily 20 odd depending on cohort), and the Western World was in a post war boom (now not)?

4. Given how much the world has changed demographically and economically, why is it fundamentally unreasonable for public sector workers to work longer, and pay more into their pension schemes?

5. Why is a career average rather than final salary scheme worse for anyone other than the highly paid, or those who get kicked onto unreasonably high salaries just pre retirement? Low paid public sector workers are low paid throughout their entire career, therefore career average versus final salary has very little impact on them.

Thanks

Wow... it was always in my head! Apologies for that.

Unable in quickly scanning the Guardian archives to even find an article suggesting it was ever what the Lib Dems thought :/ in fact, [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/11/labour-liberal-democrat-coalition-michael-white ]mostly the opposite[/url]:

My hunch remains that Cameron will have to form a minority government without the cabinet seats and formal two-year coalition he (or was that Brown?) has offered Clegg. Why? Because the Lib Dems know they will be electorally damaged by a deal with the Tories, more badly than with Labour – which would be bad enough.

bainbridge,

Wwwhaaaaattttttt?

I didn't quote you at all. I quoted THM (admittedly I accidentally refered to him as TBH) from about 3 hours ago.

Don't you remember what you said yourself? 😀

Quite ironic n'est pas?

:lol:I thought this was what I'd said!

Future private sector workers will fund a future public sector pension fund system that is more attractive that any that they will be able to access in the private sector

But it wasn't...

My point still stands though (except the accusation of misquoting for which I apologise).

Who's point?

There was a point?

Its interesting reading the comments to the fact check in the Gurdian. It simply appears that many of the unions and public sector workers just do not 'get it?'

dah62

It is unfair. Simple.

houses

Of course they're affordable.

This is a neo-con Government reneging on contracts, responsibility and morality. It's a descent into lawlessness and anything goes.

Ponkbutler

Reality check: this is about what sort of values we have and what sort of a society we are prepared to (re)build.

Pensions provisions in this country are inadequate apart from where the very wealthy are concerned. We should be bringing private sector pensions into line with public sector pensions, not justifying these cuts because the latter are now so woefully inadequate.

Quality of life and quality of society and community are worth sacrificing the baubles and trickets bought through low taxation.

There is a crucial difference in affordability and sustainabiility. If more of a poporion of GDP is spent on pensions then we will need to cut services in other areas.

Come on wake up and smell the coffee.

Maybe we can afford to maintain these pensions ...but only at the expence of the rest of society.

Werthers Originals on prescription. That should do it!

The one about board level salaries, on which we agree.

Here's another point. Margaret Thatcher's point (to paraphrase):

"Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples' money"

Which probably should replace all of my previous posts.

Binners - perhaps you could post an amusing picture or something? It might help illuminate all the salient points people have made so far.

Certainly.

Sit back, relax, private or public sector, your retirement will be fine. There's always.....

[img] [/img]

Hard boiled sweets and pedophilia 😀

Me and my wife are both nurses so will have a double whammy of pay freeze and increased pension contributions.

Given that when we made the contract to enter the pension scheme it was for current terms and not the proposed onces, I think it would be fairest if we were offered the amounts we have put in back and then we could leave the scheme completely.

That way I could enjoy all my money now whilst reasonably healthy and let the state pick up the tab in benefits when I'm too old/ill to work, which seems to be the plan of many in the private sector.

Given that when we made the contract to enter the pension scheme it was for current terms and not the proposed onces, I think it would be fairest if we were offered the amounts we have put in back and then we could leave the scheme completely.

DB - there are few people who argue against that!!

That way I could enjoy all my money now whilst reasonably healthy and let the state pick up the tab in benefits when I'm too old/ill to work,[b] which seems to be the plan of many in the private sector[/b].

Do you mean the frightening number of people in the private sector who are making no (either through choice, ignorance or inability) pension provision at all?

There was a point?

I was thinking more about friends of mine who, on the whole, earn significantly more than me but think 'sod it, I'm enjoying my money now'. I couldn't speak for others in the public or private sector cos I don't know them.

Its a dangerous game unless you croak it before your 65! The state pension is a minimum means to live so if you want to enjoy retirement start saving now. I think I can speak of a large proportion of society in saying I've had a pay freeze for about five years!

According to the IFS were looking at a decade of reduced living standards. Its no good saying its not fair were all (well most of us) in the same position. Accept this and accept that your retirement will be comfortable.

I stopped paying into my private pension 2 years ago when i lost my business. No choice really. I was staggered by how little it was worth considering the percentage of my income I'd been paying in for years. I now earn significantly less than I did. Pension payments? I should coco.

When our generation reaches what people now regard as 'pension age' I think the whole concept will be a quaint thing they used to do back in the 20th Century. You'll be working til you drop!

I'm planning developing a smack habit and taking up base jumping when I hit 60. Yes - both at the same time 😀

skim read the fact file score draw??

1. Even assuming the graph is correct, why is it fair and equitable that x% of GDP is spent on public sector pensions by the private sector taxpayer, pensions which confer better rights than those tax payers can enjoy?

It is not fair that private sectors workers get really poor pensions. I agree
Public sector workers are taxpayers as well.

2. Assuming everyone thinks private sector pensions are pretty rubbish (which they are by and large compared to public sector), do you think it is realistic to bring the private sector up to the level of the public sector? Do you have any idea where the money for that will come from (and don't tell me it will come from cutting the pensions of the c300 FTSE100 executive directors)

we are a g7 country If wished to do it we could. I think it is unrealistic to expect a fully costed proposal on an internet forum.

3. Assuming everyone agrees that public sector workers should retain some sort of final salary pension, do you think it is reasonable that they should retain final salary pension rights that were set when people died 10 years after retirement (now easily 20 odd depending on cohort), and the Western World was in a post war boom (now not)?

Part of this issue is you have a contract of employment. Imagine an employer [private sector]asked for all the car or other perks to be repaid after 20 years employment or your mortgage payments said no sorry our mistake you need to pay an extra 5 years ..would this be fair? Personally I think it is reasonable to expect all workers get a reasonable pension scheme. C
4. Given how much the world has changed demographically and economically, why is it fundamentally unreasonable for public sector workers to work longer, and pay more into their pension schemes?

It probably is not and may well be accepted. However they have been asked to do this and also get less. I suspect your proposal could be achieved with only grumbling from the workforce but work longer , pay more ,get less is not a catchy slogan now is it.

5. Why is a career average rather than final salary scheme worse for anyone other than the highly paid, or those who get kicked onto unreasonably high salaries just pre retirement? Low paid public sector workers are low paid throughout their entire career, therefore career average versus final salary has very little impact on them.

Obviously it saves money or it would not be being proposed - it saves by paying out less - very little nice words for worse off. Not even worth debating that it's purpose [ like the change in inflation measure] is purely to reduce payments.

Personally i agree the [very]high paid do best and I would cap the payments at some level.

 

Lets take, as a hypothesis, the idea that public sector pensions as a %age of GDP stays the same - it might rise by a bit it might fall by a bit...

State spending this year is [b]one hundred and fifty billion quid[/b] more than government receipts. If we stopped paying all public sector pensions tomorrow, AND we stopped paying the army, AND we stopped paying the police- would [b]still[/b] be spending more than we take in.

Its irrelevant that the cost of public sector pensions might fall fractionally - the public sector is SO big, and SO expensive, that it is completely unsustainable in its current fashion - pensions are a minor, minor side factor and a diversion from the fact that the sheer size and expanse of the public sector is bleeding the rest of us dry

Junkyard - Your basically saying as a country we need to spend a greater proportion of our GDP on pensions, yes?

and make ourselves even less competitive internationally ❓

With every pound more spent on wages and benefits, One wonders why an employer, who could choose to manufacture anywhere in the world, would choose to produce in the UK... (oh, sorry, they're not are they!)

because we lead the world in punctuation.

On the pensions thing. The govt are constantly telling people they should save more for old age. Yet at the same time they then tell a significant proportion of the population who are employed in the public sector, that they are now going to have to pay more now, for less later. It's hardly going to encourage anyone is it? Why would anyone pay a significant chunk of their current earnings into a pension when they have no guarantee of getting it back later, or when they run the significant risk of the rules being changed halfway through?

Also, in terms of saving money, all that will result is that people will work longer, increasing youth unemployment, which the government will have to pay for through benefits. Either way the govt has to pay, and the pension defecits will increase due to people opting out of increasingly sh*tty schemes.

It seems to me that most, if not all, developed nations pay out more than they take in, and economists seem to not have a problem with this most of the time - doesn't make much sense to me but there you go.

If, as Z11 says, we have reached a point where our total lifestyle and structure are unsustainable, then perhaps we should disband all public services immediately.

You want your bins emptying, do it yourself or pay someone. You want the roads fixed - get on with it. You want a doctor - cough up the cash.

Pure capitalism - job fixed. If it needs doing then it will get done and paid for by those who want it.

Why would anyone pay a significant chunk of their current earnings into a pension when they have no guarantee of getting it back later, or when they run the significant risk of the rules being changed halfway through?

Isn't that exactly what happens with private pensions?

Zulu - that's nail/head time.

Government spending has to be cut back to something sustainable, we need to live within our means...I'd like a new bike and could buy a fancy one tmw but know that bills/savings etc. are more important than bling so I'll enjoy what I've got.

The UK population need to deal with the fact that the state (i.e. taxpayers) shouldn't be doing everything it is. It's time the country grew up and started paying its way rather than living off debt.

You want your bins emptying, do it yourself

Now that is an interesting example to choose??????

DB - this is very black and white?

You want your bins emptying, do it yourself

I have a large garden and a fire bin, no problem