Public sector/benefits to be savaged FT article

carolt

You seem to be implying in all your posts that the public sector is overpaid and parasitical - yet (if I understand correctly) your OH works for the public sector and is - again (IIUC) - overpaid in your opinion.

I personally don't disapprove of the public sector so don't see any problem with what she does or is paid - but you do seem to, so don't understand how you square your apparently strong views against the public sector with benefitting from it personally.

CLAPTON

Wookster wrote: »

I'm saying that unfunded pension liabilities are unsustainable.



If there is a shortage then I suspect it will be filled by immigrants rather that older people. The rising pension burden will increase the burden on the young and working; meaning that the level of public services they receive falls quite significantly.



No coincidence that the countries with the highest birth rates are some of the poorest countries in the world...

I've already explained that the 'burden' of pensions on the workers is the same whether or not they are funded... I understand why people feel intuitiviely this isn't so but careful thought shows it is.


if we have a surplus of workers whether immigrant or older people then we will be able to sustain a decent standad of living for pensioners without undue strain on the levels of tax or company profits.

Your last point I don't understand at all as previously you seemed to be arguing that too many old people relative to the working population ('falling' birth rates) puts too big a strain on the working people. So what is it... do we need a higher proportion of workers versa pensioners or a smaller one.. or is there just too many people in the world already?

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

You seem to be implying in all your posts that the public sector is overpaid and parasitical - yet (if I understand correctly) your OH works for the public sector and is - again (IIUC) - overpaid in your opinion.

I personally don't disapprove of the public sector so don't see any problem with what she does or is paid - but you do seem to, so don't understand how you square your apparently strong views against the public sector with benefitting from it personally.

I think that the public sector has become bloated in many areas. It is costing huge amounts of money that the future generations will have to pay for. The pension provision (which is my main gripe) is lavish and totally unfair when compared to how Brown has decimated private provision and used it as his 'milsch cow'.

I have absolutely no problem with public front line staff having decent wages although I think that many don't recognise that they are paid quite well for the work they do - many still seem to think that the rest of us in business are getting lavish banker-style remuneration which is simply not the case.

IMO there are simply too many unproductive, bureacratic jobs in the public sector (I'm not suggesting that there aren't any in private sector - it's just that the taxpayer doesn't have to fund them, and competition will weed them out eventually)



Again, would explain the source of your first comment (unless you're confusing me with someone else), which I believe to be inaccurate.



.

Wookster

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've already explained that the 'burden' of pensions on the workers is the same whether or not they are funded... I understand why people feel intuitiviely this isn't so but careful thought shows it is.

Agree with your first point about affecting the burden, however if a pension is funded or unfunded does affect your ability to pay.

CLAPTON wrote: »

if we have a surplus of workers whether immigrant or older people then we will be able to sustain a decent standad of living for pensioners without undue strain on the levels of tax or company profits.

What does a surplus of workers have to do with this?

CLAPTON wrote: »

Your last point I don't understand at all as previously you seemed to be arguing that too many old people relative to the working population ('falling' birth rates) puts too big a strain on the working people. So what is it... do we need a higher proportion of workers versa pensioners or a smaller one.. or is there just too many people in the world already?

I'm highlighting a problem, not offering the magic solution. The problem is state pensions are unfunded. With an ageing population with higher birthrates the pension burden will increase. This money must come from somewhere - at the moment it comes from the same pot that NHS, Police, welfare etc. spending comes from. If you follow this through to its rational conclusion, pensions will take up a bigger slice of the pie and these other things the government is obliged to supply will suffer.

carolt

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Strangely enough, in the interests of improving efficiency and cost saving, her dept's just been reorganised, a process which has involved the use, at some considerable cost, of outside consultants.

Of about 40employees in the dept, 9 (incl my partner) have been given a salary regrade (upgrade) - with 6 years backpay and an increase in pension entitlement. 2 have opted for early retirement and the rest have stayed on exactly same terms as before (some after sucessful appeals).

From a personal point of view it's been financially very beneficial but I still think the whole system is crazy, phenominally expensive and totally unsustainable in the long term. The LA has justified the cost (consultants, backpay, ongoing wages, pensions....blah, blah, blah) as 'it's been provided for in previous years reserves" ie council tax has been previously inflated as a contingency for this anticipated excess.

Presumably services offered in previous years were'nt commensurate with the level of council tax charged for.

Will she still be there in a few years - dunno. As her job involves "delivering Government initiatives" (whatever that means) probably not - but I'm sure LA will have some lavish redundancy packages in place (probably including enhanced pension accruals !!)

That's my source.

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

That's my source.

I find that comments made in your posting #99 both inappropriate to the source quoted and quite frankly offensive.

My views (for that matter they may not be my partner's!) that spending huge amounts on consultants to 'reorganise' at an ultimate higher than original cost in the name of efficiency seems a crazy way to do business - is there anything wrong with my having such a view.

Everyone, even the Labout Government acknowledges that there will need to be huge public sector cost savings in future. The economy simply isn't big enough to support current levels of public expenditure.

You state that I imply that the public sector is "overpaid and parasitic". That's simply untrue and have yet to see how you justify that sweeping statement.

donaldtramp

Nowhere near 23% Carol??? Yup they don't even know how good they have it!

Well the civil service gets an average of 19.4% (bottom page 2 first column) and that doesn't take into account the full liabilities. Have a read....

http://www.cbi.org.uk/pdf/20081201-CBI-Public-Sector-Pensions-Brief.pdf

Also explains how £1 in 5 of our Council tax goes to public sector pensions. Councils etc.

The day of reckoning is coming and I can't wait;)

Old_Slaphead

donaldtramp wrote: »

Nowhere near 23% Carol??? Yup they don't even know how good they have it!

Well the civil service gets an average of 19.4% (bottom page 2 first column) and that doesn't take into account the full liabilities. Have a read....

http://www.cbi.org.uk/pdf/20081201-CBI-Public-Sector-Pensions-Brief.pdf

Also explains how £1 in 5 of our Council tax goes to public sector pensions. Councils etc.

The day of reckoning is coming and I can't wait;)

In previous threads it has been shown that to get a fully funded, index linked, final salary pension (as offered in public sector) would require contributions totalling (ie employer + employee) an average 30-34% of salary....and that assumes there are no employee promotion included.

Also, bear in mind that in the LGP Scheme, even with 16-20% (dependant upon authority) employer contributions, the schemes are still significantly underfunded. Next year's 3 year review will show the full state of pension scheme funding when the effect o the last 12 months stockmarket falls and reduction in long term interest rates become fully apparent.

Carolt - btw this is not dissing the individuals in the public sector, calling them overpaid parasites or whatever, it's simply showing huge liabilities that has been built up at an alarming rate over the past 10 years that this government will not seek to begin to address until after the election.

Generali

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

In previous threads it has been shown that to get a fully funded, index linked, final salary pension (as offered in public sector) would require contributions totalling (ie employer + employee) an average 30-34% of salary....and that assumes there are no employee promotion included.

Also, bear in mind that in the LGP Scheme, even with 16-20% (dependant upon authority) employer contributions, the schemes are still significantly underfunded. Next year's 3 year review will show the full state of pension scheme funding when the effect o the last 12 months stockmarket falls and reduction in long term interest rates become fully apparent.

Carolt - btw this is not dissing the individuals in the public sector, calling them overpaid parasites or whatever, it's simply showing huge liabilities that has been built up at an alarming rate over the past 10 years that this government will not seek to begin to address until after the election.

Let's be fair, these liabilities have been built up by Governments of all hues and AFAIK no party is calling for pensions to start to be funded.

Of course, the massive expansion of the state under the Labour Party since 1997 has made the problem far worse.

ruggedtoast

I find it bizarre that almost incalculable billions have been piddled up the wall by banksters on stratospheric salaries, inflating a bubble that has left most of us skint, and then had further billions poured into it by the government in an attempt to stop civilisation collapsing, but according to some people here the public sector workers are to be the prime whipping boys for the new revolution of equality.

Which part of the public sector is going to bear the brunt of this revolution? I presume doctors, nurses, teachers, ambulance drivers etc are safe. So I guess that would be the "bloated bureaucrats" then, who are who?