Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 224 total)
  • Is Unemployment a "Price Worth Paying"?
  • Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    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 most 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!!!

    Premier Icon Junkyard
    Free Member

    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.
    Can you read graphs? I posted up the graph on that it BS and I explained ho many have a fund. Yes I am a union rep and I have a view [ whihc has not been fully expressed yet] but I have not lost touch with reality or my faculties of reasoning nor started saying things that are blatantly untrue. Ps are the private secto workers with pish pensions doing anything other than thinking about themselves?

    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?.

    whilst it is a fair point only 3 year s in the last century did the govt not do this [ 2 were labour years as well iirc ] it is the norm for all govts not just labour ones – the tories agreed to meet the labour budget commitments prior to the crash for example so were they also irresponsible? It is ridiculous to blame either lab or tories for the current situation though yu can ask whether their response helps or hinders.

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

    Do you mean agree with you ?
    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.
    3. 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.
    [/quote]
    I think the point still stands though the graph chosen was unwise, incorrect etc.
    ps the members accept offers not the union – right wingers always like to assume unions make members do this despite ballots.

    Premier Icon allmountainventure
    Free Member

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SveJUtLkZm0&feature=related[/video]

    Premier Icon Junkyard
    Free Member

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

    it was all about the economy this week but he has rarely raised it before
    first question]
    Today’s figures show that unemployment is up by 80,000. Does the Prime Minister still think the British economy is out of the danger zone?
    People are going to judge the Prime Minister on results. They do not want to hear his spin about the Work programme. Youth unemployment is up by 78,000, on today’s figures, even after his Work programme has started. What young people and their families are asking is, “Where are the jobs?”

    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

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    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

    Premier Icon uplink
    Free Member

    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

    Premier Icon Junkyard
    Free Member

    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

    Premier Icon konabunny
    Free Member

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

    With the aid of the Lib Dems, apparently they did! (FWIW, I was one of the fooled – I voted Lib Dem to try to get rid of Labour in my Lib Dem v Lab, having assumed that in event of coalition Lib Dems would partner with Lab. Boy, was I wrong).

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

    No matter how much you dislike Brown, there was no need to use that word as an insult. F’wit, pillock, dips**t, clown, tool etc all would have done fine…

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    RPRT

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

    Premier Icon rightplacerighttime
    Free Member

    Who did I misquote?

    Premier Icon Markie
    Full Member

    I’m not sure that graph shows quite what you think it does Junkyard… from The Guardian:

    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. If that ceiling is reached, unions would accept increases in contributions or working longer – issues that are now the subject of deadlocked discussions. [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.

    Premier Icon uplink
    Free Member
    Premier Icon bainbrge
    Full Member

    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.[/quote]

    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 Link 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

    Premier Icon Markie
    Full Member

    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, mostly the opposite:

    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.

    Premier Icon rightplacerighttime
    Free Member

    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?

    Premier Icon bainbrge
    Full Member

    :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).

    Premier Icon rightplacerighttime
    Free Member

    Who’s point?

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    There was a point?

    Premier Icon Frodo
    Full Member

    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.

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    Werthers Originals on prescription. That should do it!

    Premier Icon bainbrge
    Full Member

    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.

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    Certainly.

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

    Hard boiled sweets and pedophilia 😀

    Premier Icon dangerousbeans
    Free Member

    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.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    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, which seems to be the plan of many in the private sector.

    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?

    Premier Icon konabunny
    Free Member

    There was a point?

    Hu’s on First.

    Premier Icon dangerousbeans
    Free Member

    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.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Premier Icon Frodo
    Full Member

    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.

    Premier Icon binners
    Full Member

    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 😀

    Premier Icon Junkyard
    Free Member

    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.

    Premier Icon Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    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 one hundred and fifty billion quid 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 still 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

    Premier Icon Frodo
    Full Member

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

    Premier Icon Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    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!)

    Premier Icon konabunny
    Free Member

    because we lead the world in punctuation.

    Premier Icon dazh
    Full Member

    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.

    Premier Icon dangerousbeans
    Free Member

    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.

    Premier Icon uplink
    Free Member

    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?

    Premier Icon jruk
    Free Member

    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.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    You want your bins emptying, do it yourself

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

    DB – this is very black and white?

    Premier Icon uplink
    Free Member

    You want your bins emptying, do it yourself

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

Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 224 total)

The topic ‘Is Unemployment a "Price Worth Paying"?’ is closed to new replies.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.