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.

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

If you need 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.

Private sector workers deserve better pensions

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

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

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.

How about the aforementioned massively paid, superbly pensioned executive level and the shareholders etc? If large PLCs were made to operate as true cooperatives, for the benefit of there employees and accountable to them, rather than for directors and shareholders, then there may be a different picture. The ruthless pursuit of wealth by the already wealthy is what is fundamentally wrong with the global economy. And the fact that the problem is global, yet any government introduced solutions can only affect the state in question is why I’m pessimistic about any actual solution. Truth is, the collective überwealthy are far more powerful than any one government, far more selfish, far more ruthless and far more stupid.

We. Are. ****. (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?

that is factually incorrect- see if a picture helps

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.

hey dont let your ignorance stop you 😉
It depends people say public sector pensions like there is one pot like the NHS when the reality is very mixed – if i say private sector pension are they all the same? Teachers for example pay into a fund that has no shortfall for current pensions at current rates and has a legally binding agreement that teachers will increase contributions if there is a shortfall but it is still having payouts reduced and contributions increased – this is beyond a hard sell tbh
Civil service has no pot and is paid from taxation.
They are not all the same.
Army has no contributions and full pension inflation linked from 22 years iirc as has the police.

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

how they are not even in the pension schemes you refer to
I am a union rep and tbh nothing turns pretty placid folk into rabid militants than messing with their pensions. I suspect it would be easier to get a wage cut from them than a pension cut.
Unions are not pushing this issue for political reasons the members really are livid about this.
It will be a winter of discontent and [ politically] they [unions]may be shooting themselves in the foot as it appears the argument has been lost and that the private sector think it is fair for us all to have rubbish pensions.

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:

Busted

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% ?

.
.
.
.