Public sector/benefits to be savaged FT article

ninky_2

Wookster wrote: »

I'm from Zimbabwe (a country with no social security net at all) and live in London.

hmmmmm. and you're saying that like it's a good thing?!

Former_Spice

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;)

There is some rubbish written in that article. Retriremnt age of 60? No, it's 65 for local government. Anyone asking for their money back before then loses a quarter of it.

The article continually implies that their hasn't been reform in the public sector which is simple not true. Increased contributions by up to 25% is one of them.

Turnbull2000

Former_Spice wrote: »

There is some rubbish written in that article. Retriremnt age of 60? No, it's 65 for local government. Anyone asking for their money back before then loses a quarter of it.

The article continually implies that their hasn't been reform in the public sector which is simple not true. Increased contributions by up to 25% is one of them.

Sh*t. Hit thanks by accident.

Only for the minority who have joined in the past few years. The vast majority will continue to retire at 60. It'll take decades for this change be effective, by which time life expectancy will have increased further and we'll be back to square one. I for one will applaud a move to increase state worker retirement age to 67 with immediate effect - tapering off to a lower age for those that are older.

perplexed.com

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;)

Could you explain what you mean by that last sentence? If you are correct and there are so many unproductive, wasteful etc jobs - are you saying that all these people should become/will be unemployed? What would happen then? Mass unemployment seems a strange thing to look forward to.

RobertoMoir

donaldtramp wrote: »

No room for spending cuts? I disagree entirely.
The public sector workforce has mushroomed under Labours governance.

There are hundreds of thousands of people employed in the public sector that weren't there before they came to power. These jobs(and associated pensions) will HAVE to be culled, read the article.
I agree with you totally about the nonsensical IT projects, ID cards etc. They must be dropped immediately..

For me it's simple enough to sort out the public sector:

Do you provide a direct service to the customer(/the public/whatever). Then as long as the service is required, you're probably ok. Do you provide direct support to the person above? Then you're probably ok too.

Are you responsible for a "working party" to discuss "challenges" with how the people in my previous paragraph meet random and arbitrary targets set by someone who doesn't understand the service or the requirements to support that service properly? Or does your job sound like it came out of a Stalinist nightmare? Then you're gone... sorry.

Ygor

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.

Can't find the threads on the search. Can you post a link?

SGE1

donaldtramp wrote: »

I believe so. The socialist government we have in at the moment has followed the same old tired route that Labour always follows.
They spend all the cash, redistribute wealth to everyone and their dogs. Eventually economics catches up with them when there is nothing left in the pot.
Labour has tried to extend the debt bubble(by taking on ridiculous, stupid amounts of debt) so that over the next year or so everything will appear rosy, but then the nastiness will begin.
It's textbook socialist governance.

I'm not sure you understand what socialism means I'm afraid. I think know more about textbook conservative rhetoric than socialism. Have a moan if you like, but use the appropriate label.

donaldtramp

SGE1 wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand what socialism means I'm afraid. I think know more about textbook conservative rhetoric than socialism. Have a moan if you like, but use the appropriate label.

Oh I do understand what Clown's "socialism" has done to this country. Look at the state of it, massive expansion of non-productive jobs in the public sector, enormous liabilities going forward with regards to debts and public sector pensions. A massive increase in tax take with no discernible increase in benefit to society. But that's "fair" isn't it.
I'm not even going to go on to the subject of big brother control, speed cameras (tax cameras) everywhere and the likes.

donaldtramp

perplexed.com wrote: »

Could you explain what you mean by that last sentence? If you are correct and there are so many unproductive, wasteful etc jobs - are you saying that all these people should become/will be unemployed? What would happen then? Mass unemployment seems a strange thing to look forward to.

Did you read the very first post in this thread?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=21374161&postcount=1

If so I'm sure you will be able to understand that the current state of affairs simply can't go on. Clown has just mortgaged the country to pay for his last year as Prime Minister.

There doesn't need to be mass unemployment (though it is going to happen regardless of Browns debt)
At present the public sector is stupidly overprotected whilst the guys who pick up the tab (the private sector) are being laid off on mass. This is NOT sustainable.

The country needs re-aligned to actually produce things, make money and do business. We can't continue to simply serve(and control) each other with a massive public sector with no-one paying the bills.

perplexed.com

It's not only the private sector who pay for the public sector as people working there also pay taxes. I do, though, agree things are unbalanced and will have to change.

However I don't take any pleasure in this, it's all very sad.