Fears council tax could rise because local government pensions 'are too generous'

andykn

RabbitMad wrote: »

Actually I think the work doesn't need doing; or rather I think we can live with out it given the cost.

Do we need diversity officers at each local council. Obviously they do a job but is what they are prodcing worth it. Lets have a referendum on every single public sector employee's job and let the public decide if they are willing to pay for it.

Better still have a referendum on all public sector spending as its our taxes that pay for it.

I've got as better idea. Instead of having to spend days examining and understanding all the issues ourselves so that we can make an informed judgement on every issue, why don't we pick a few people we trust to do it for us. Let them present their ideas then vote for whichever one we agree with the most.

bumpoowee

andykn wrote: »

But were you contributing 6% of your earnings like most local govt and NHS employees have to?

Wow a whole 6%. My employer had to shut down it's final salary scheme as it cost an estimated 40% extra on top of each employee's wages to fund.

chopperharris

RabbitMad wrote: »

Actually I think the work doesn't need doing; or rather I think we can live with out it given the cost.

Do we need diversity officers at each local council. Obviously they do a job but is what they are prodcing worth it. Lets have a referendum on every single public sector employee's job and let the public decide if they are willing to pay for it.

Better still have a referendum on all public sector spending as its our taxes that pay for it.

I think we will eventually find out , that when the next wave of benefit reforms happen , a sizeable amount of jobs at the lowest level will be WTB(work to benefits).Frees up money for pensions liability , but most probably only at management level getting the full pensions.Job done , wages bill slashed or benefits bill reduced.

Next is contraceptive implants for those on benefits over a year.Drug/drink testing on sign on.Daily sign ons.Dla removed for bus passes , patient elected doctors given bonuses for signing them off as ffw.

Then its pensioners being euthanised and having to pay for it.

Taxes on football tops if your above the size of large.Tattoo tax yearly.Orange foundation taxed.9ct gold yearly tax.Multi coloured hair tax.Costa tax.German cars over 6 year old tax.Denim tax.No jacket in winter in city centres tax.

Politicians zero taxation.

MPD

bumpoowee wrote: »

Wow a whole 6%. My employer had to shut down it's final salary scheme as it cost an estimated 40% extra on top of each employee's wages to fund.

Was that after a lengthy contribution holiday?
Has it also reduced or stopped share dividends?

Or is this another example of wealth being redistributed from the workers to the "elite"? (showing off my true political colours again)

kabayiri

The latest scheme they are drip feeding us through the media is to work until we are 70.

A flaw with this however...employers dont want full time people at 70.

Why are we so blinkered to more flexible working for older people?.....here's an idea, once over 60 you can keep any income up to 20 hours a week (say) to top up a basic state pension. It's not ideal, it's not perfect....but we have to make older people more attractive as a workforce addition. They still have a lot to offer.

Pobby

themanbearpig wrote: »

Transfering of wealth from young to old is all high house prices do, and exactly what these high pensions are doing too.

I hear what you are saying. However, I don`t really think that I have benefited from HPI. It`s stupid. My home has a perceived value, way over what I paid for it 10 years ago. It gives me no pleasure, or as a strictly non mewer, any real advantage. Just wish that that in my case it didn`t happen and moving to the retirement bungalow would have only cost me an extra 12k.

I am miffed that the youngsters in my family can only buy through taking massive risks. One has just done that.

HPI, total mess.

LizzieS_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

You miss my point about funded and unfunded schemes.

From the point of view of costs to the current generation of working people there is little to choose between funded and unfunded scehmes. One needs to consider the macroeconomic consequences of both schems to try to compare them.

I didn't miss your point, I just have a different view.

Go back a few years - many people chose to get the maximum sized house they could afford, not because they needed it but because by downsizing later they would have a nice nestegg to draw a pension from. Good idea in principle, but not so good if your nest egg is due in the current climate.

Pensions are similar, funded schemes adjust their contribution levels to cover for changes, eg an aging population. Unfunded schemes do nothing and eventually are paying out far more than original expectations.

Paying the pensions is a known factor, how much and for how long is not (although both can be averaged out pretty accurately).

Governments of today (and past) have always known the future bills are going to increase, yet they spend on other things and build up the problem for a future generation/government to deal with. For unfunded schemes the best concept of this is borrowing on a credit card when you already have the capital, only to pay far more back later.

EDIT. One important point. As part of poll tax introduction, council schemes were allowed to reduce their assets to far less than 100% funding. In simple terms, Thatcher borrowed from the funded schemes to try making the poll tax look lower. Along came the Maxwell scandal and suddenly it was no longer a good idea, legislation was passed making sure all funded schemes were made to have 100% funding again. This alone may have created problems in the private sector, but for the public sector schemes why did the funding really matter as any shortfall would come out of general taxes just like the whole of unfunded public sector schemes?