Public sector monster needs to be tamed

ukcarper

Quite a few private companies put additional money into employee’s pension funds, who pays for that the customers of the company.

Old_Slaphead

ukcarper wrote: »

Quite a few private companies put additional money into employee’s pension funds, who pays for that the customers of the company.

At risk of repeating previous posts - very, very, very few private companies can offer schemes as generous as the public sector ones. If they did they'd be out of business as you, the public, wouldn't be prepared to pay much higher prices and would opt for cheaper (possibly imported) alternatives.

If the public schemes are hugely underfunded or unfunded you can just go to the taxpayer and ask him/her to make up the difference. At a time when Clown is raiding private pensions for his stealth taxes, it's this double standard that irks most of us.

One of the few schemes left to rival public sector is BT Group pension (although even changes are being planned to this now) This is a throwback to 1980s when, upon privatisation, BT was obliged by the Gov't to keep it's generous scheme open.

In addition to the normal annual employer contribution BT has to pay a further £500-750million per year to make up it's shortfall. No wonder BT is losing business to competitors when it has to spend huge amounts to keep it's pension scheme funded. The pension deficit is greater than the stockmarket value of the company!

ukcarper

It might not be so bad if they hadn't taken payment holidays in the good times

Also I believe final salary scheme was close to new members some time ago

baileysbattlebus

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

At risk of repeating previous posts - very, very, very few private companies can offer schemes as generous as the public sector ones. If they did they'd be out of business as you, the public, wouldn't be prepared to pay much higher prices and would opt for cheaper (possibly imported) alternatives.

If the public schemes are hugely underfunded or unfunded you can just go to the taxpayer and ask him/her to make up the difference. At a time when Clown is raiding private pensions for his stealth taxes, it's this double standard that irks most of us.

One of the few schemes left to rival public sector is BT Group pension (although even changes are being planned to this now) This is a throwback to 1980s when, upon privatisation, BT was obliged by the Gov't to keep it's generous scheme open.

In addition to the normal annual employer contribution BT has to pay a further £500-750million per year to make up it's shortfall. No wonder BT is losing business to competitors when it has to spend huge amounts to keep it's pension scheme funded. The pension deficit is greater than the stockmarket value of the company!

And the government is ultimately responsible for about half of it or rather the 260,000 people employed by BT before privatisation - Maggie slipped that in when no one was looking. If pensions fund fails government have to pay the pensions of the 260k people.

The government is believed to have drawn up a contingency plan that would involve the wholesale renationalisation of BT, should the company get into financial difficulty, because of the public purse's exposure to the telecom giant's mammoth pension scheme.

Last month the company was worth about £7.6bn - about a quarter of the pension liability.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/15/bt-plan-nationalise

Teachertim

Quite right, I am a teacher, enjoy my job, am good at it and especially enjoy my 13 weeks holiday a year. Can't wait to collect my final salary pension at 60 ! You all had the option to work in the public sector - you chose not to ! Stop moaning.

Just like to say thanks to all those tax payers out there for funding my luxury lifestyle !

P.S - Teaching has the highest rate of death within two years of retirement than any other profession! So it's not all bad for you lowly private sector workers.

beingjdc

macaque wrote: »

The difference between the maximum and minimum numbers is circa 0.002%.

Not it isn't, it's about 500%. You have forgotten how to do percentages, you don't do them as a percentage of some theoretical maximum. If my house is worth £100,000 and your house is worth £200,000, your house is worth 100% more than mine.

What you have done is equivalent to saying that there are houses in Kensington worth £10 million, therefore the difference between a £100,000 house and a £200,000 house is 1%.

Statistics abuse.

mewbie_2

beingjdc wrote: »

Statistics abuse.

Reported..

MrFonzerelli

People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 16% of people know that.

lostinrates

Teachertim wrote: »

P.S - Teaching has the highest rate of death within two years of retirement than any other profession! So it's not all bad for you lowly private sector workers.

I don't what point this is arguing?:o
...surely that indicates something like it was a way better job than they realised and retirement is full of disappointment? I don't get it:o

macaque_2

beingjdc wrote: »

Not it isn't, it's about 500%. You have forgotten how to do percentages, you don't do them as a percentage of some theoretical maximum. If my house is worth £100,000 and your house is worth £200,000, your house is worth 100% more than mine.

What you have done is equivalent to saying that there are houses in Kensington worth £10 million, therefore the difference between a £100,000 house and a £200,000 house is 1%.

Statistics abuse.

Tripe! 0.4 in 100,000 is 0.0004%. It is an absolute value and it is not calculated against any 'theoretical maximums'. It amounts to 240 deaths in a population of over 60 million people. Australia who are 7th from top had the equivalent of 180 extra deaths. These are very small numbers even with countries near the top of the list. Compare these numbers to mortality rates for the under 5s in the UK which are around 400,000. Your are talking utter nonsense.