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

: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

I think it is unrealistic to expect a fully costed proposal on an internet forum.

😆

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

...and end up like the US with crumbling roads, massive poverty, no healthcare for a huge chunk of the population and a totally polarised society. Sounds great!

Z11

Can you please go away and find out what GDP is, because you clearly haven't a clue.

GDP has sod all to do with national debt or balance of payments. In fact, it doesn't measure anything useful at all.

What country has the biggest GDP?

What country has the biggest national debt?

Notice anything?

There seems to be a strong vibe on here that capitalism is wonderful and the 'cure' for all ills. As such it is black or white.

I'm not saying it would be my personal choice (it wouldn't) but everyone calling for cuts so long as its not the bits they use that are cut is a ridiculous.

Either have public services or don't.

BTW, the country with the biggest national debt isn't a socialist country.

No i don't think so. What were trying to get through is the concept of living sustainably. Hence the position that pensions need to be paid for at a constant proportion of GDP. This has nothing to do with debt or austerity ...it is making the pension system sustainable otherwies there will be a much bigger problem in the future.

RPRT - the relevance of GDP here, is the fact that the only "proof" being posted that the public sector pension program is affordable, is the fact that a graph in the Hutton report showed that the cost as a proportion of GDP might fall a little bit... which I've already said is irrelevant because total government spending is [b]still[/b] completely and utterly unsustainable.

Once we've cut the public sector to the point whereby we can at least begin to [u]live within our means[/u], we can [b]start[/b] to worry about pensions liabilities forty years down the line

doesnt this all come back to recklessness and instability in the banking sector, certainly private pensions lost 10s of billions overnight in the last crash

which I've already said is irrelevant because total government spending is still completely and utterly unsustainable

By what measure? Less than Germany, France, Netherlands, etc etc.

Easily affordable and IMO desirable. I like good healthcare education and welfare

kimbers Nope,

Definately all the fault of socialist ideas and public sector workers.

Pure capitalism

...and end up like the US with crumbling roads, massive poverty, no healthcare for a huge chunk of the population and a totally polarised society.

Your heavens-to-Betsy characterisation of the country is so contextless as to be useless.

I predict a RIOT 😈

By what measure? Less than Germany, France, Netherlands, etc etc.

By the measure that its one hundred and fifty ****ing [b]billion[/b] quid more than total government income

expenditure more than income means debt, borrowing is, be definition, never a "sustainable" financial position, as, sooner or later, you have to pay it back.

As mentioned above - [i]The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money[/i]

DB - the calling for cuts is an interesting one, especially if we can step away from the dogma of the "its all the bankers" versus "its all the public sector' fault.

I think there is starting to be an important shift in economics/politics away from the initial focus on the deficit towards a more growth agenda at least in some countries.

I can understand why the debate started as it did (see this week's Economist) but equally Greece shows us what happens if you don't have growth. The primary fiscal surplus that is required to stabilise the public debt ratio is given by the following formula:

1/100 x public sector debt as % GDP x (Interest rate - nominal GDP)

The fallacy that Greece cn possibly survive is very simple maths:

They have PDR of 160%, and IR of 4% (did) but GDP of -5%. Put it into a spreadsheet and it quickly becomes apparent that the math doesn't work despite what the EU politicians were saying.

As economies elsewhere slow, the same maths starts to become troubling. Just play around with -ve GDP assumptions.

We can argue on here as to the cause of the problems depending on our persuasions but that matters not a jot. The simple fact is that EU governments of all parties are losing basic credibility.

This is why The Economist is arguing this week, that focus needs to start with growth. Without that they argue that credibility will not be restored. The next problem though is have we exhausted the traditional Keynesian and/or monetarist levels for growth?

The US is not a pure capitalist society.

And look at the state of it. Christ knows what it would be like if it was.

The problem I think is that people take public services for granted. Things like free education, healthcare, security etc have become so 'normal' that people forget what life would be like without them, or how much they would cost if purely private.

people forget what life would be like without them

At the moment we have Socialism for the bankers, capitalism for everyone else.

Oh the ironing

Dazh: "The problem I think is that people take public services for granted."

....'cos, it's free, innit? 😉

[Lovely afternoon BTW - anyone fancy a ride?]

Given that poverty is defined as a calculation of 60% of median income - do you think that it would be mathematically possible to eradicate poverty in the UK?

Think about that one for a minute...

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

No, it was because Darling's book came out that week.