Public sector/benefits to be savaged FT article

StevieJ

SingleSue wrote: »

He is hanging on by a thread and I am considering my options.

What has he done to you is he always late ? :mad:

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Whilst its true that civil service pensions are unfunded and local government/teachers/NHS are funded, in terms of the resources that future generations of workers need to sacrifice for the benefit of pensioners, it makes no difference.
If future pensioners are going to enjoy any given standard of living then the then current generation of workers must produce (but not consume) the goods and services that pensioner's consume.
Of course the mechanisms are diferent; funded schemes require high profits from companies (and hence lower wages to workers) to pay the funded pension whilst unfunded schemes require higher taxes (and lower take home pay for workers). In either case the workers have to give up the same share of their production to pay.
Funded schemes are just as vunerable to the arbitary political decision as unfunded scheme as Brown raid on pensions shows.

It makes a huge difference.

If money is set aside and invested for a pension it can be invested to increase production. If no money is taken to cover a pension then when it is paid it becomes a drag on current investment as the Government has to take money that could otherwise be invested productively.

lostinrates

SingleSue wrote: »

He is hanging on by a thread and I am considering my options.

Hopefully not this thread: its not a particularly nice one

treliac

Ygor wrote: »

The Treasury recognises in its pay guidance that the pension is part of earnings when comparing with private sector pay. It's not a nice little extra, it's been earned and salaries are consequently lower.

Thanks for your contribution Ygor (but try telling that to Mr Tramp :rolleyes:).

Not only would salaries have to reflect any loss of pension rights, but the many, many, who end up with really rather low final salary pensions, would instead claim pension credit top-ups to their state pensions - the cost of those being borne by the taxpayer.

geoffky

treliac wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we are now paying people in order to stop them from burgling us?

Shucks, they'll just have to unlearn their unemployability and join the rest of us who've had a hard slog all our lives. The govt should never have allowed it to get to this.

As whathavewedone and so many others are saying, this govt has been misappropriating our money for years. We'd like it spent sensibly in the future please.

If there's a pain barrier to go through, we'll just have to face up and go through it.

You and i know that the jobs are just not out there.

So do we invent jobs for them and if we do what do we pay them and will others lose their jobs because of it.
See its easy saying let them work ect ect but reality is different,,,WE will never ever have full employment again....count yourself lucky if you are working .but don't ever think being on the dole is a easy choice because its not.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

It makes a huge difference.

If money is set aside and invested for a pension it can be invested to increase production. If no money is taken to cover a pension then when it is paid it becomes a drag on current investment as the Government has to take money that could otherwise be invested productively.

I assume therefore you accept my argument that the method of funding pensions at any particular level of GDP means that the workers will have to 'sacrifice ' the same proportion of the fruits of their labour whether pensions are fully funded or otherwise.

Your argument is not that the tax budgen is proportionately too high, but that the level of GDP would have been higher if we had funded pension schemes.
An interesting one although I'm not sure what empirical evidence there is for the view.
Presumably too, the reduced pension provision being made in the private sector is being untold harm to the future level of GDP.

And of course all the others here complaining about the level of taxation to pay for excessive public sector pensions should instead be complaining the the level of GDP would have been much higher if we had funded schemes.

Interesting.

treliac

geoffky wrote: »

You and i know that the jobs are just not out there.

So do we invent jobs for them and if we do what do we pay them and will others lose their jobs because of it.
See its easy saying let them work ect ect but reality is different,,,WE will never ever have full employment again....count yourself lucky if you are working .but don't ever think being on the dole is a easy choice because its not.

From Conservative Party policy:-

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Welfare_and_Pensions.aspx

Our welfare policy paper sets out a radical programme of reform that will provide ladders of opportunity for millions of British people. It will be the biggest shake-up of the welfare state for 60 years:

• Every claimant potentially able to work will be engaged in welfare to work activities aimed at helping them back into work as quickly as possible
• For those unable to find work there'll be long-term community projects to help them get back into a working environment
• Those not willing to take part will face tough sanctions

Our welfare programme will be delivered by private and voluntary providers, who will only be paid when someone gets and keeps a job.
Combined with our commitment to end the couple penalty in the tax credits system, our radical welfare plans will help lift almost half a million children out of poverty.

Also, employment opportunitites vary widely around the country. And, yes, I know what it's like to have a family and for the main breadwinner to be made redundant. However we were prepared, as a couple with two pre-schoolers, to work around the clock (DH taking temp night work) to earn what we could whilst managing the care of our children between the two of us.

Over time it's clearly become quite possible for those so inclined to design their lives and families around a benefits system that provides enough of life's comforts and so has reduced the hunger and need to fend for oneself or, indeed, make any level of contribution towards the rest of society.
.

donaldtramp

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6256717.ece

YouGov asked what people would like to see done about the government’s record borrowing and soaring debt. There was strong backing for the strategy adopted by the Canadian government in the 1990s, when it cut public spending by a fifth over four years; 54% said they would back such a policy and only 22% were opposed. A majority of Labour supporters backed this policy.
Overall, respondents said the burden of reducing government debt should come mainly through cuts in public spending rather than tax rises. Only 7% favoured a policy of solely raising taxes to close the black hole in the public finances .

This is the most recent Yougov poll. And 54% of respondents would back a 20% cut in public expenditure.
It's coming public sector workers whether you like it or not.;)
I'm glad the general public are coming to their senses after allowing labour to balloon their benefits and mollycoddling the public sector.

The boot is most definitely on the other foot. Public sector employees, you better start polishing up your cvs!

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Wookster wrote: »

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

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at but as someone who has recruited at high levels I can tell you what I have said is 100% correct.

Whatever:D There are so many sockies on here I've lost all track of who is who.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

I assume therefore you accept my argument that the method of funding pensions at any particular level of GDP means that the workers will have to 'sacrifice ' the same proportion of the fruits of their labour whether pensions are fully funded or otherwise.

The worker's 'sacrifice' of income is rather meaningless as it isn't being set aside anywhere. In fact it's worse than meaningless because the money is taken out but isn't saved, it just reduces the wages bill.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Your argument is not that the tax budgen is proportionately too high, but that the level of GDP would have been higher if we had funded pension schemes.
An interesting one although I'm not sure what empirical evidence there is for the view.

Ask yourself, what happens to pension money? Mostly, it's invested in shares and corporate bonds which reduces the cost of funding for corporations which in turn means they can produce more at lower cost which will increase GDP. It's an unintended consequence of pension provision and probably impossible to measure in any meaningful way but that you can't measure it isn't the same thing as saying it isn't there.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Presumably too, the reduced pension provision being made in the private sector is being untold harm to the future level of GDP.

And of course all the others here complaining about the level of taxation to pay for excessive public sector pensions should instead be complaining the the level of GDP would have been much higher if we had funded schemes.

Interesting.

I think you're missing my central point - the Civil Service pension scheme is unfunded and the liability unaccounted for. The chances of all Civil Servants working today receiving anything like what they have been promised is remote given the current levels of overspending by Central Government.

Do you really think that a National Debt of 80% of GDP and a GBP1,000,000,000,000 liability can be paid out of taxation while maintaining current levels of spending? I'd be very interested in any explanation you can give for how that could be acheived.