[Closed] Public Sector Strike 30/11

frankly Ps workers have had a good crack form pensions and the day of reckoning had to come.. simply put there not saving enough for the reward thier taking.

i can only quote the chap whose house ive just left 82 yr old ex PS worker bin retired 26 years worked in PS for 25..
draws just under 600 a week pension.. never earnt more than 450 whilst working. has a new car every 18 months and 3 foreign holidays a yr ( just back from 3 wk in tenerife).. ''cant spend the money as quick as they give it to me''

dont begrudge old folks a comfortable retirement.. but if he takes that for shovelling how much are the dr's bosses accountants etc taking..

Live longer = Contribute more OR for longer to your pension.
SIMPLE

So you're saying that public sector schemes should be affordable, yes? For example, like the Local Government and NHS schemes, both of which are healthy?

Before swallowing government propoganda, please note that the word "unaffordable" does not appear in the Hutton report, and no actuarial study has been performed on the LGPS since it was last renegotiated 3 years ago.

If the government wants to show that we need to contribute more, then it should present evidence rather than rhetoric.

"Last week, I met a working-class cabin boy, who told me that Gordon Brown's Death Tax had been shouting at buses on the high street."

😆

[img] [/img]

Are there any 'Medium-Sized Hitters'?

Well I'm led to believe that you aren't [i]that[/i] tall, are you? 😉

I'm led to believe that you're not all that aesthetically pleasing. 🙁

I actually transcend any categorisation by the lumpenproletariat of STW, as I am superior to them all, and indeed it is [i]I[/i] what decides what class you're in. 😀

'tis true... 😥

ransos - Member

If the government wants to show that we need to contribute more, then it should present evidence rather than rhetoric.

It was all going so well, totalshell's anecdote, frodo's 'rebalancing the economy' then this.

You know where you can go with your facts.

i can only quote the chap whose house ive just left 82 yr old ex PS worker bin retired 26 years worked in PS for 25..
draws just under 600 a week pension.. never earnt more than 450 whilst working.

i'm sorry but that's impossible just on Public Sector pension, I wish it was because I'd retire in 3 years if it was. Having seen my predicted forecast it's not that after 49 years service and earning more than £450 week.

if a private sector director invested 50 million and lost it, he'd be gone

Or; bailed out to the tune of billions with PUBLIC money, then given a healthy bonus for negotiating such a cracking deal for the shareholders... hmmm.

thegreatape - Member

Can someone take some Smints round to TJ to sort out his constipation so he can join in properly.

I'm not allowed to.

WILL LESBIANS TAX THE COUNTRYSIDE?

COULD THE INTERNET STEAL THE IDENTITY OF BRITAIN'S SWANS?

100?

please note that the word "unaffordable" does not appear in the Hutton report

But this is what Hutton says:

1.22 Public service pension expenditure must be affordable. To be sustainable, it must
remain affordable over time. [b]The affordable level of pension cost is a decision for the
Government within the context of a wide range of priorities. But it cannot be assessed in the
short term [/b]alone since the effects of pension decisions build up and persist over decades.

Box 1.B: How do current final salary schemes measure up to the
Commission’s principles?

• Affordable and sustainable: Due to the link between pension benefits and final earnings,
the [b]majority of salary risk[/b] (the risk that higher than expected salary rises increase the cost
of providing pensions) in current schemes[b] is borne by the Government[/b]. Members receive a
substantial increase in pension rights from salary rises as they approach retirement, [b]with the
costs falling on public service employers. [/b]

Does this seem correct?

• Adequate and fair: Any pension design is capable of delivering adequate pensions. The
available evidence suggests that current final salary schemes in the public sector do achieve
this. However, high flyers typically derive more value from final salary schemes than low
flyers, [b]leading to unfairness between scheme members. A high-flying employee could
receive almost twice as much in pension payments per £100 of contributions than a low
flyer.[/b] In addition, the balance of risks between the government and the member is[b] one-
sided, leading to unfairness between the taxpayer and scheme members. [/b]

Does this seem correct? As I have said before, I hope that the strikers understand who they are really fighting for here - somehow I doubt it!

• Supporting productivity: Final salary schemes [b]restrict labour market mobility[/b]. Depending
on the Government’s underlying objectives for the scheme this may be desirable for the
retention of skilled higher earners. However, at the macroeconomic level a more flexible
labour market should increase efficiency across the economy as a whole.

Ditto?

• Transparent and simple: The current schemes are reasonably well understood and simple
to administer. However, transparency is an issue since it can be difficult to ascertain the
benefit derived from the scheme, relative to contributions paid in, for higher and lower
earners, and high and low flyers. [b]For the taxpayer, there is little transparency of expected
cost, since this depends on future pay developments. [/b]

Ditto?

I think we should be told....

TJ and I are right

the royal 'We'?

have you thought about combining logins?

TandemSafety?

ElfinJeremy?

Ant n Dec would be a suitable moniker. or laurel & Hardy?

That was a sneaky one that, Bruneep. 🙂

Beautifully claimed. Poetry in motion. I'm proud of you.

(Weeps)

😥

i can only quote the chap whose house ive just left 82 yr old ex PS worker bin retired 26 years worked in PS for 25..
draws just under 600 a week pension.. never earnt more than 450 whilst working. has a new car every 18 months and 3 foreign holidays a yr ( just back from 3 wk in tenerife).. ''cant spend the money as quick as they give it to me''

I reckon you've been played, mate, lol

gsp1984 - Member

To support our mainly incompetent and lazy public sector... When the whole private sector has already severly suffered.

No, I'll stay at home thanks.

and a cracker from the dailymail-o-matic

HAVE CYCLISTS MADE YOUR MORTGAGE IMPOTENT?

totalshell - Member
frankly Ps workers have had a good crack form pensions and the day of reckoning had to come.. simply put there not saving enough for the reward thier taking.

i can only quote the chap whose house ive just left 82 yr old ex PS worker bin retired 26 years worked in PS for 25..
draws just under 600 a week pension.. never earnt more than 450 whilst working. has a new car every 18 months and 3 foreign holidays a yr ( just back from 3 wk in tenerife).. ''cant spend the money as quick as they give it to me''

dont begrudge old folks a comfortable retirement.. but if he takes that for shovelling how much are the dr's bosses accountants etc taking..

Posted 12 minutes ago # Report-Post

[b]Totallshell,greetings in the lord.
I need to move £300,000,000 from my father account in Nigeria after his untimely death in a year ago. Please to give me your bank details and I will pay the money into your account. You will then return it to mwe and be paid a fee for handling it.[/b]

Well,if you believe the tosh you typed out about Public Sector pensions, the above has gotta be worth a try....

PS; Frodo...I don't want your sympathy, I want my strike to be as inconvenient as possible....However, I have a better idea; why doesn't everybody in the public sector just work to contract? Would that be better,as it would seem we are all so lazy nobody would notice. I mean, surely that would win public support?

No its more insidious than that Ransos, and you know that!

The government said that the Hutton report says public sector pensions are unaffordable. This is untrue.

majority of salary risk (the risk that higher than expected salary rises increase the cost of providing pensions) in current schemes is borne by the Government

Public sector pensions are not a single entity. The LGPS is very different from the Civil Service scheme, yet they are being lumped in together.

A high-flying employee could receive almost twice as much in pension payments per £100 of contributions than a low flyer.

Not an argument for increasing contributions.

Final salary schemes restrict labour market mobility

Funny how the Tories weren't saying that about private sector final salary schemes. And using the finding as a reason for moving to career average earnings, thus reducing average pension payout for most, is a non-sequitur.

For the taxpayer, there is little transparency of expected
cost, since this depends on future pay developments.

Pay developments are pretty well understood, and don't change dramatically over time.

Anyway, it's funny how things come full circle:

1. Private sector screws up.
2. Rescue provided by public sector.
3. Government claims it cannot afford public sector because it's propping up the private sector.
4. Government cuts public sector.

All the free-marketeers on here might remember that the next time they're complaining about "supporting" the public sector.

why can't that pension example be realistic? I believe (might be wrong) that the pension payments are index linked. If he's been retired for 25 years then his £600/week would have been £250 in 1985, or approx 55% of his pre-retirement income?

ransos - To be fair, it was a very specific part of the private sector that royally ****ed up. And I don't think anyone, in the private or public sector, is in any doubt about the fact that they've got off scot -free and the rest of us are picking up the (mahoooosive) tab.

In that respect, as Dave used to say (remember that?), we really are all in this together

No.

Most of my caseload consists of paedophiles and other sex offenders, I can't really dash off to London for a day out.

1. Private sector screws up.
2. Rescue provided by public sector.
3. Government claims it cannot afford public sector because it's propping up the private sector.
4. Government cuts public sector.

Eh you forgot about this.....thanks Gordon.

General government total outlays, per cent of nominal GDP, UK and Total OECD, 2000-2010

[img] [/img]

ransos - Member

2. Rescue provided by public sector.

Wrong.

Rescue provided by the taxpayer...public and private sector alike.

Oh graph time 😀

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/11/george-osborne-set-to-borrow-billions-more-than-alistair-darling-was-projected-to/ ]Osborne set to borrow billions more than Darling[/url]

To support our mainly incompetent and lazy public sector... When the whole private sector has already severly suffered.

Oh how well the Tories and their friends in the media have done in selling their myths to a gullible public.

The private sector did far far better during the global recession [i]precisely[/i] because of the public sector. The government of the day made certain that whilst they couldn't stop a recession in the private sector, they could minimise its effect by insuring that there would be no contraction in the public sector.

It is quite frankly astonishing that despite the worst global recession since the 1930s, and Britain's fairly unique exposure due to its huge over dependency on the finance sector, unemployment only reached two and a half million. You can thank the public sector for that.

But whether you support the pointless token one day public sector strike next week makes not an iota of difference. Globalised free-market fundamentalism is finished. The British economy, in common with other economies in simular dire circumstances, will not emerge from the present situation and just carry on with "business as usual".

This is not a temporary economic crises. It is a systematic failure of neo-liberal free-market fundamentalism. It affects all the economies which have bought into neo-liberal theory. It has nothing to do with "budgetary deficits"......look at Spain.

None of the neo-liberal economists saw this coming - including in all of the countries which have been severely affected. And none of the neo-liberal economists know what the solution is. They know that austerity doesn't work, but they persist with it anyway because they have no other solution.

The problems with overproduction and the need for maximum profit are irreconcilable. The "efficient market" is an unattainable myth. It is not a "British problem". Wake up.

Change will come, whether governments and/or voters want it or not. Because the neo-liberal free-market experiment is dying and nothing, just nothing, can save it - not even 'pension reform'. Anything our government does, or the governments of Greece, Italy, Germany, Spain, whatever, do, will amount to no more than pissing in the wind.

Change, as always, will only come because it will be forced upon us, not because we want. But the neo-liberal experiment is finished. Social democracy/government intervention will provide a quick temporary solution, as it did during the postwar consensus period, and as it does today in countries such as Argentina.

But however many times capitalism reinvents itself it will never reconcile its contradictions. And considering the global interdependency characteristic it now has, I have my doubts whether this time it can pull it off.

'Left Foot Forwards' Please ... can we have some credible evidence!

The Banking and Financial sector go hand in hand with the bloody Government and are generally Public Companies which are quite different to the private sector that is expected to rescue us from the mess that they created between them.

Without borrowing any money because for the most part they (banks) are constrained by the various Basle agreements put in place to shut the stable door now the horse bolted and still restrict even Government supported borrowing. So we out here are expected to invest our own money, quite where we're going to get it from since we've been living on it for the past four years we don't know, then we need to take on more staff, staff that they haven't exactly educated the way we might wish for, but never mind there are plenty of Eastern Europeans hungry for work, so we can turn over more money and collect and pay more tax and Bank charges that frankly make your eyes water, so they (Bankers & Politicos) can continue to waste it by employing outreach consultants and more dog wardens whilst the upper levels of their management earn more in a year than we will profit in ten.

Er, actually I don't think a lot of us are going to bother frankly and the black (cash)economy looks increasingly tempting.

None of the neo-liberal economists saw this coming

Greenspan did during the Clinton years - he discovered his models had huge gaps in them. But he was persuaded by others that this didn't matter.

Frodo - Member
'Left Foot Forwards' Please ... can we have some credible evidence!

Try reading next time:

[b]The Treasury[/b] has collated 14 [b]independent[/b] forecasters’ predictions (pdf, p.18) for net government borrowing over the next four years.

[b]Their collected view[/b] is that chancellor George Osborne will borrow billions more than the Office of Budget Responsibility predicted he would in June 2010

😆

Ernie - Your views on capitalism are well know. So go on show us the light, how should we run our economy?

Oh how well the Tories and their friends in the media have done in selling their myths to a gullible public.

There we go again.....got to stop this fellas.....

Lifer - Its quite obvious really.

The OBR predictions are based on the same data sets. To say that the independent prediction predicts that Osbournes plan will end up borrowing more than Darlings is at best disingenuous.

The OBR and Treasury predictions use different data sets.

Your up to your no good mischief as usual.

Lifer - I seem to recall that Greenspan was [b]told [/b] that he was wrong and better be quiet if he knew what was good for him

Ernie - Your views on capitalism are well know. So go on show us the light, how should we run our economy?

[img] [/img]

He's only sleeping.....

Greenspan did during the Clinton years - he discovered his models had huge gaps in them.

I'm not really talking about the housing bubble/credit crises. I'm talking more about the inability of the free-market to correct itself. The problems associated with the housing bubble/credit crises should have been resolved by now, they haven't been, and the situation is getting worse. None of the neo-liberal economists predicted this. Although plenty of economists did.

Please do. I assume that is your normal routine anyway, as someone displaying your level of intelligence would not exactly be sought after by any employer, private or otherwise

You couldn't be more wrong. Your intelligence must be on another level, to psychically gauge my level of intelligence over the Internet is amazing. I applaud your mind superiority.

Oh how well the Tories and their friends in the media have done in selling their myths to a gullible public.

I've been sold nothing from the media, I went further in my next post to explain why I have formed that opinion so that anybody that read my previous post did not come to that assumption.

My missus is a nurse in the Forces, but effectively works in the NHS for a lot of the time. She can't strike, but appears to get a very good deal pay wise compared to an NHS nurse, if lacking the job security and flexibility. The MOD seem to be be messing around with the substantial time served bonus payments, continually changing the criteria, which is not great for long term career planning, but she just cracks on with it, knowing its still a good deal. Pay rises seem to have stopped, but she still gets incremental rises.

I doubt Ernie has any more of a clue about how to fix this than the rest of us, up to and including the 'leaders of the free world'.

But it is obviously bonkers to suggest that;

A) It's the public sector's fault, and if we whip them soundly then it will all go away, or

B) What we need is more, freer, unrestricted Capitalism, when thats blatently what has got the world into this mess in the first place.

The problems run as deep as the fundemental character flaws of humanity ourselves, such as greed, envy, laziness, selfishness.

I don't hold out a great deal of hope for us as a civilisation, to be honest.

One thing they do say though, is when you want to find out who's fault something is, you should follow the money. Who has profited from this mess? Who stands to profit from it? It ain't public sector pensioners, thats for sure.

EDIT; perhaps when skynet/the matrix/VIKI takes over, it won't be such a bad thing...

Your intelligence must be on another level, to psychically gauge my level of intelligence over the Internet is amazing.

Frodo - Member
Lifer - Its quite obvious really.

The OBR predictions are based on the same data sets. To say that the independent prediction predicts that Osbournes plan will end up borrowing more than Darlings is at best disingenuous.

The OBR and Treasury predictions use different data sets.

[url= http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/201111forcomp.pdf ]Comparison of independent forecasts, Annex 2 p.28[/url]

Public Sector Net Borrowing: Public sector finances release, Table PSF 1 / Public sector accounts, Table PSAT 1, Code ANNX

What data sets do the OBR use then? Can't find refernce to it in:

[url= http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/wordpress/docs/junebudget_annexc.pdf ]Budget forecast 2010 (P.90)[/url]

Your up to your no good mischief as usual.

What?

Not really. I merely have the ability to read.

Oh dear. I rest my case.

It's got nothing to do with pseudo aphorisms about neo liberalism, it's more basic stuff, it goes like this, if you borrow money you have at some time or other to pay it back, if you borrow money to give it to whole swathes of your population to either do nothing, or do pointless activities in the name of employment for purely political reasons then sooner or later you are going to go bust.

A couple of things would solve this issue quickly, one would be to get the hell out of Europe and second would be to seriously look at the welfare state, oh and whilst I'm at it, legal aid. We also need to train our potential work force to do things that are actually needed, educate our kids the way the Germans educate theirs less media and drama studies more technology and engineering.

Now before anyone challenges the we'll all go broke if the Europeans don't buy our shit, they don't buy it now unless they absolutely have to and cannot find something local anyway and they certainly do not adhere to their rule structure in the same way we slavishly do.

As to the welfare state, I'll not get all Daily Mail on you, but it is very detrimental to the human condition being paid to do nothing. If they were not paid they would have to do the sort of work that we are currently having to ship in other nationalities to do.

Anyway it matters not what I think, I have no political clout, no party that represents my views, like a lot of small independent business types, totally disenfranchised.