Get away from my pension.

[Wildcat]

Would that be the same OBR report that states:-

 

The same report that shows an increase in net pension costs from £3.1Billion in 2009/10 to more than triple that figure £9.4 Billion by 2014/5 ? (see table 4.8 on page 52 of the report)

 

 

The actual report can be found here http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/d/pre_budget_forecast_140610.pdf

 

I'd suggest people actually read rather than the 'executive summary for policy makers' posted by wikicat.

 

If you read the article I referenced you would understand why this is increasing in the short term.

 

It is increasing because of cuts in staffing and pay. This increases the proportion of Net contributions from Pensions that is not offset by money coming in from public sector pay.

 

Here is the table where the real future costs are displayed in a meaningful way:

 

% of GDP 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Public service pensions 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7

 

Admittedly displayed more clearly in the article.

http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/06/misplaced-outrage-over-gold-plated-public-sector-pensions/

[convert]

We have all seen changes to our pensions in the last decade Public sector workers are no exception to that.

Then why should they be exempt from cuts in the current financial crisis?

 

As to the whole system coming down because of public sector pensions. Not even the Tories own think tank is saying that. It is saying public sector pensions as a proportion of gdp will go up 0.1% for the next 2 decades at current rates and then fall to below what it is today. That is not unaffordable and it is nothing for you or anyone else to be getting their knickers in a twist about.

 

http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/06/misplaced-outrage-over-gold-plated-public-sector-pensions/

I'm sorry , perhaps I was a little unclear in my opinions. I'm not stating that the tripling of public sector pensions over the bext 5 years (an extra £6.3 Billion) will bring the whole system down. Rather the attitude of the unions with their unrealistic demands. I'd sooner not go through the pain caused by Thatcher during the 80's again thank you. I'd sooner see people in employment rather than sat on the dole because the 'man' wanted to cut down on the number of tea breaks they were allowed.

 

I was including NI and giving an approximate figure based on this:

http://www.contractorcalculator.co.uk/Income_Tax_Summary.aspx

No, you were making assumptions.

 

 

I have never heard of MPs described as public sector worker's before. Even if they are it is hardly very relevant to the topic.

Why not, they should take the cuts on the chin like everone else.

 

 

That is a pathetic argument that works both ways. Why don't those in the private sector so jealous of public sector benefits simply apply for the jobs? Perhaps the low pay and hard work and sacrifices willingly made because they are doing a service to the community is the answer?

Perhaps because some of them can't 'cut it' in the real world. Perhaps because an employer that has to make a return for its shareholders only chooses those who don't slack off.

 

How very magnanimous of you.

Why, how nice of you to say so. I can die happy now.

 

Because your arguments are weak and see what you want to see rather than what is staring you in the face. The feeling is mutual.

Whereas you just seem to cherry pick (you do that phrase don't you?) bits of information that appear to support you marxist ideals, whilst ignoring any evidence that questions them.

 

 

Odd then that nearly everything you have written is contradicted by your concluding paragraph which undoes just about everything you have said. If the public sector didn't have red tape and rigorous accounting mechanism they would not be accountable to the level of scrutiny that is demanded of public sector bodies. If the National Audit Office looked at any private business the way they do the public sector they would uncover a whole host of skeletons in closets.

 

Sorry old chap but that doesn't really ring true.

 

Just look at the 'mistakes' in Doncaster.

[Wildcat]

Wildcat , you were making a good point until your very last line. Every private company has to have auditors often internal and external. There are obviously some skeletons in some cupboards but come-on have you never heard of Doncaster. There are whole sections of the European Journal dedicated to publishing the findings of tribunals who have investigated wrongdoings by civil servants not just in the UK but the whole of Europe.

 

Obviously the public sector is not with out its flawed characters and bad decisions (NHS IT project for starters). My point is that these problems are not specific to the public sector. To stick with the theme, there are good reasons why public sector IT projects are more demanding than in the private sector. The need for security, auditability and the flutuating expectations placed on them by Minsters. But there are just as many flawed projects in the private sector, they just don't receive any public attention because it isn't tax payers money that is being spent on them.

 

PS by European Journal are you referring to the german TV station?

[convert]

If you read the article I referenced you would understand why this is increasing in the short term.

 

It is increasing because of cuts in staffing and pay. This increases the proportion of Net contributions from Pensions that is not offset by money coming in from public sector pay.

 

Here is the table where the real future costs are displayed in a meaningful way:

 

% of GDP 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Public service pensions 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7

 

Admittedly displayed more clearly in the article.

http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/06/misplaced-outrage-over-gold-plated-public-sector-pensions/

 

To be honest I'm not interested in the propaganda in your article, I'd sooner look at the real figures in the report.

 

In the next 5 years Public sector pensions are going to cost an extra £6.3 Billion per annum (and that isn't a cumulative figure). The money has to come from somewhere.

 

As you've already stated, the pension contributions from current / future staffing levels won't cover the pension costs of those about to / already retire(d).

 

The same is true in the private sector. I've already stated that at my company empoyees have been asked to increase their contributions to help offset this.

 

Why should public sector workers be treat any differently?

[Wildcat]

Then why should they be exempt from cuts in the current financial crisis?

 

Why should anyone be facing cuts in the present crisis when a tax increase would be the fairest way to pay for the debt burden? VAT could go up from 17.5% to 19%, and income tax up from 20% to 23% (the same as it was last time the Tories were in power).

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/12/cuts-hit-poor-tax-rises-fairer

 

But no the demand is for public sector cuts that affect the poorest 12 times more than the richest. That isn't us all in it together, that is those that skimmed off the profits from the boom years escaping the consequences for the financial system tumbling down and leaving the poor to foot the bill.

 

Public sector pay is already behind private sector pay and has been through out the recession. Why should public sector workers be the scapegoats like the poor for a crisis they had nothing to do with?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6446DE20100505

 

I'm sorry , perhaps I was a little unclear in my opinions. I'm not stating that the tripling of public sector pensions over the bext 5 years (an extra £6.3 Billion) will bring the whole system down. Rather the attitude of the unions with their unrealistic demands. I'd sooner not go through the pain caused by Thatcher during the 80's again thank you. I'd sooner see people in employment rather than sat on the dole because the 'man' wanted to cut down on the number of tea breaks they were allowed.

 

As I said before that is the net figure. If you want to reduce it then you need to increase public sector pay and hence contributions and not sack so many staff.

 

No, you were making assumptions.

 

Maybe, but the assumptions are good enough for a ball park figure.

 

Why not, they should take the cuts on the chin like everone else.

 

Answered above.

 

Perhaps because some of them can't 'cut it' in the real world. Perhaps because an employer that has to make a return for its shareholders only chooses those who don't slack off.

 

If shareholders held businesses accountable there would be a huge reduction in boardroom pay!

 

Why, how nice of you to say so. I can die happy now.

 

Whereas you just seem to cherry pick (you do that phrase don't you?) bits of information that appear to support you marxist ideals, whilst ignoring any evidence that questions them.

 

And your use of net pensions contributions without realising the increase was down to cuts and pay freezes just shows how cherrypicking your data can backfire.

 

Sorry old chap but that doesn't really ring true.

 

Just look at the 'mistakes' in Doncaster.

 

Answered in post previously.

[Wildcat]

To be honest I'm not interested in the propaganda in your article, I'd sooner look at the real figures in the report.

 

In the next 5 years Public sector pensions are going to cost an extra £6.3 Billion per annum (and that isn't a cumulative figure). The money has to come from somewhere.

 

As you've already stated, the pension contributions from current / future staffing levels won't cover the pension costs of those about to / already retire(d).

 

The same is true in the private sector. I've already stated that at my company empoyees have been asked to increase their contributions to help offset this.

 

Why should public sector workers be treat any differently?

 

My figures come from the same report.

 

The £6.3 billion figure you are fixated upon is a net figure. The reason it is going up in the short term projections is loss of income to the scheme from the cut backs in public sector workers and freezes on pay. The figure makes the opposite point to the one you think it is making.

 

As Sibon has already pointed out public sector pensions have been cut. Pay has lagged the private sector. In the Civil Service Pay is up to 20% less than comparators in the public sector to compensate for the pension scheme. Your question is based on a false premiss.

[convert]

Why should anyone be facing cuts in the present crisis when a tax increase would be the fairest way to pay for the debt burden? VAT could go up from 17.5% to 19%, and income tax up from 20% to 23% (the same as it was last time the Tories were in power).

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/12/cuts-hit-poor-tax-rises-fairer

Tax and spend hasn't worked so far has it.

 

But no the demand is for public sector cuts that affect the poorest 12 times more than the richest. That isn't us all in it together, that is those that skimmed off the profits from the boom years escaping the consequences for the financial system tumbling down and leaving the poor to foot the bill.

So public sector employees haven't been taking advantage of 0% credit cards; they haven't been taking out mortgages @ 7 times income. There are lots of employees in the private sector who have already seen pay cuts, as their companies struggle to survive, let alone provide shareholders with a decent ROI.

 

Public sector pay is already behind private sector pay and has been through out the recession. Why should public sector workers be the scapegoats like the poor for a crisis they had nothing to do with?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6446DE20100505

I'd say that we're all in it together, Why should anyone group get preferential treatment.

 

As I said before that is the net figure. If you want to reduce it then you need to increase public sector pay and hence contributions and not sack so many staff.

What a superb idea; let's increase the amount we spend on the engorged public sector; let's up wages to such an extent that the public sector has no option to cut jobs. Just how much do you think pension contributions will drop then. As I've said before, anyone who can see the big picture is quite happy to take a pay cut (which in effect is what an increased pension contribution is) rather than join the dole, or see their colleagues sign on.

Perhaps it is you who should look as to why the net pension cost is set to rise so much. It's not just to do with salary levels and the number in employment. It's also affected by the growing number of pensioners that the schemes need to provide for. A population that has a longer life expectancy and the fact that some final salary schemes have been closed with investment schemes replacing them. Contributions for these new 'money purchase' schemes don't go into the final salary pot.

 

 

 

 

 

And your use of net pensions contributions without realising the increase was down to cuts and pay freezes just shows how cherrypicking your data can backfire.

 

 

 

 

I answered that above

[Wildcat]

Tax and spend hasn't worked so far has it.

 

Depends what you mean. Most people appreciate the investment in education and hospitals.

 

So public sector employees haven't been taking advantage of 0% credit cards; they haven't been taking out mortgages @ 7 times income. There are lots of employees in the private sector who have already seen pay cuts, as their companies struggle to survive, let alone provide shareholders with a decent ROI.

 

I'd say that we're all in it together, Why should anyone group get preferential treatment.

 

As I have already shown the public sector has faced heavier cuts than the private sector.

 

What a superb idea; let's increase the amount we spend on the engorged public sector; let's up wages to such an extent that the public sector has no option to cut jobs. Just how much do you think pension contributions will drop then. As I've said before, anyone who can see the big picture is quite happy to take a pay cut (which in effect is what an increased pension contribution is) rather than join the dole, or see their colleagues sign on.

Perhaps it is you who should look as to why the net pension cost is set to rise so much. It's not just to do with salary levels and the number in employment. It's also affected by the growing number of pensioners that the schemes need to provide for. A population that has a longer life expectancy and the fact that some final salary schemes have been closed with investment schemes replacing them. Contributions for these new 'money purchase' schemes don't go into the final salary pot.

 

I answered that above

 

And how do you increase pensioners to get the short term spike? oh yes it was what I was saying before... cutting back on staff with early redundancy schemes.

 

The point you are missing is the long term forecast from the Tory report showing public sector pensions are affordable and costs for them will reduce according to their forecasts without any need for further interventions.

 

The other point you are missing is that we aren't all in this together, the public sector is leading the way with pay restraint already our pension schemes were cut a few years ago and we are already lower paid than the private sector.

 

If you want everyone to pay for this crisis equally then taxation should be the primary way of doing so not cut backs on services, a solution that affects the poor 12 times more than the richest 10%. The people protected by Tory policies that aren't in this together with us are the very same people that profited out of the policies that brought about the crisis.

[mike84]

The pension age needs upping now to be honest, if your 65 now, you should work to 70.

 

It won't happen though, because they make up the largest share of voters.

 

it's a catch 22 though isn't it, if someone retires, Generally there job is re-advertised or someone might get promoted into it. This frees up a job for someone who is out of work to apply for. The longer people work for the less jobs become available.

[crookesey]

Well greedy Gordon put his grubby nail bitten fingers into my private pension in 1997, whilst allowing the stupid and unnecessary continuance of tax relief on the personal contributions to ring fenced, public sector final salary schemes.

 

I was minded to take my pension just before the crash, it along with many of my savings and investments halved in value. I worked my way out of the recession for the following two years, and have recently accepted a severance package, however my pension fund and investments are still not back to their 2007 level.

 

So to all public sector employees, please let us know how the crash affected your pension benefits. Are you all to bloody minded and self centred to think that it is only private sector workers who should feel the full force of the 2008 crash?