Crunch time for council workers’ golden pensions

Pennywise

I think that we're missing the elephant in the room here. It's all well and good arguing that public sector workers should keep their pensions, but where is the money coming from. It's all well and good saying the the private sector workers who've lost some (or all) of their pensions should be compensated, but where's the money coming from.

I think people are assuming that we may have a tax rise of a percent or two in the next few things, but the reality is that the tax rises are already going to have to be massive. People are talking about VAT possibly rising to 20% as if that's the worst case scenario - it isn't, it could easily rise to 25%. Same with income tax, people think perhaps it may rise from 20% to 21 or 22%, but it could well rise to 25% or even 30%. Our debts are huge and tinkering around with a few percentage points aren't anywhere near enough. All the parties are still assuming rapid growth and prosperity once the recession is over - i.e. that we can "inflate" our way out of the debt - what happens if it's just a slow steady growth - all their forecasts are shot to pieces.

It won't be much good for a public sector worker feeling good about managing to keep their pension in tact if they're suffering far higher VAT and income tax.

We need mature debate about all pensions, all taxes, all public spending and all benefits. The situation is far too dire to ignore - there is real pain ahead so we all need to forget our vested interests and look at the bigger picture for the benefit of everyone. Of course, that won't happen!!!

Old_Slaphead

Pennywise wrote: »

It won't be much good for a public sector worker feeling good about managing to keep their pension in tact if they're suffering far higher VAT and income tax.

We need mature debate about all pensions, all taxes, all public spending and all benefits. The situation is far too dire to ignore - there is real pain ahead so we all need to forget our vested interests and look at the bigger picture for the benefit of everyone. Of course, that won't happen!!!

a) At least they'll have the nice pensions to pay the higher taxes - must of us will need to fund it by an even lower living standard.

b) I agree with the 'debate' philosophy but it simply won't happen. There are too many vested interests in maintaining the status quo and this Gov't (and probably it's sucessor) doesn't have the balls (not Ed) to fairly manage the economy for the benefit of all and not selected minorities.

I agree - there's real pain on the way but you can bet your bottom dollar that it's the hard working lower paid & pensioners who will suffer the most.

carolt

Pennywise wrote: »

I think that we're missing the elephant in the room here. It's all well and good arguing that public sector workers should keep their pensions, but where is the money coming from. It's all well and good saying the the private sector workers who've lost some (or all) of their pensions should be compensated, but where's the money coming from.

I think people are assuming that we may have a tax rise of a percent or two in the next few things, but the reality is that the tax rises are already going to have to be massive. People are talking about VAT possibly rising to 20% as if that's the worst case scenario - it isn't, it could easily rise to 25%. Same with income tax, people think perhaps it may rise from 20% to 21 or 22%, but it could well rise to 25% or even 30%. Our debts are huge and tinkering around with a few percentage points aren't anywhere near enough. All the parties are still assuming rapid growth and prosperity once the recession is over - i.e. that we can "inflate" our way out of the debt - what happens if it's just a slow steady growth - all their forecasts are shot to pieces.

It won't be much good for a public sector worker feeling good about managing to keep their pension in tact if they're suffering far higher VAT and income tax.

We need mature debate about all pensions, all taxes, all public spending and all benefits. The situation is far too dire to ignore - there is real pain ahead so we all need to forget our vested interests and look at the bigger picture for the benefit of everyone. Of course, that won't happen!!!

I do agree that what is needed is mature, dispassionate debate about how to afford the various options; also agree it is unlikely to happen, sadly.

However, when Cameron gets in I daresay your views will be in the ascendancy, re public sector pensions and pay - sadly, I think.

carolt

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I live in Nottingham (home to Her Maj's Customs & Revenue). As said before, relatively few jobs around paying what, would in London, be classified as half-decent wages. I don't think Nottingham is 'extreme' - I just think that your view of wages in London (I'd probably suggest that Birmingham, Edinburgh & Manchester have similar profiles) is out of step with what's happening in most of rest of UK.....a fact supported by the ONS stats that 'across the board' - public sector salaries are higher than private. You may not agree but trends clearly show that there's been a (pay)role reversal over the last decade.

Re. police retiring at 50 - there's plenty of jobs police can still do in the later stages of their careers when their experience can be brought to bear.....after all it's not like our society doesn't need a helping hand with low level law and order. For example...deskbound jobs, all that searching the undergrowth for clues, speed cameras, training & mentoring, court preparation work, counter work, school liason, surveillance, data prep, working with young kids etc etc. - all policework isn't dangerous by any means.

Age 50 isn't by any means old these days as many police go back and do p/t work or security jobs. My neighbours don't look too decrepit by any means as I'm sure their golf & squash clubs will testify.

Gosh, we do keep agreeing now.

I'm sure you're right about Nottingham having a very different profile to London, in job terms, and that public sector salaries must afford a more than comfortable standard of living there. I'm sure that my London-centric (well, big-city centric) perspective does colour my views, because these are the people I know and can directly compare.

As I've stated above, I'd be strongly in favour of greater variation in regional levels of public sector pay; the unions, however, are very strongly against this. Great for public sector staff in Nottingham, say - not much help for staff struggling to pay the bills in London.

Harry_Powell

Harry_Powell wrote: »

carolt, I think you missed a question I made earlier about your teaching background. You stated that you have zero final salary pension and I asked whether you could have had teachers pension entitlement from your earlier career (i.e. if you worked in state schools). You may have built up a teachers pension without realising, or perhaps you've built up FS pensions if you worked in FE or HE establishments?

As you keep avoiding the question, I'll assume that you do have a teachers final salary scheme and therefore do have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo with public service pensions.

I don't have a problem with this, I have many VI's but don't you think it's a little disingenuous to state that you don't have a FS pension and therefore don't have a VI, when you do?

donaldtramp

Because they took often low-paid jobs on the understanding that they were sacrificing pay levels today but would be compensated by getting better pensions later.

I can see the arguments in favour of changing the rules for those going into the public sector in future; though you might need to up the pay levels to attract staff if you do.

But I don't think you should take away benefits already accrued.

After all, we've all paid millions through our taxes to pay bankers' contractual bonuses - this is just the same.

Except most public sector employees were far lower paid, and unlike bankers, really rely on these pensions to have any standard of living in retirement at all.

Carol, Blah balh same old arguments trotted out every time.

Your comment about low paid jobs in the Public sector is an insult to ALL of the low paid private sector employees who have no pension and are topping up other peoples.

Up the pay levels??? I think you'll find very shortly that jobs will be slashed in the public sector, never mind higher wages. This will happen whoever gets in next time or the IMF will force Britain to cut public sector debt. There is no other option.

After all, we've all paid millions through our taxes to pay bankers' contractual bonuses - this is just the same.

This nonsenical hollywoodised answer is the standard defense put forward.
As I clearly showed earlier in the thread(I note you did not even attempt to defend the your position;) when presented with overwhelming numbers) the public sector debts MASSIVELY outweigh any bailout to the banks.
As for a very few privelidged folk getting big bonuses, this pales into insignificance in comparison with the millions of state workers who are being subsidised by the taxpayer.

Except most public sector employees were far lower paid, and unlike bankers, really rely on these pensions to have any standard of living in retirement at all.

The bankers are a tiny , tiny amount of people. Do the arithmetic.
Once again, what about all the private sector low paid who have been paying YOUR pension for years and they are entitled to nothing.

Don't any of you guys realise the benefits you are getting at the expense of other hard working people?
And never mind defending the status quo, don't you feel even the slightest bit guilty about living off the backs of other people???

m1ntie

The average local government pension is presently just over £4,000 pa and the average employee is on a salary of approximately £13,000

http://www.cipfa.org.uk/panels/pensions/lg_pension_scheme_the_facts.pdf

bendix

I was delighted to read yesterday that Rochdale Council has decided to stop paying its workers an additional allowance (equivalent to 2-3 days salary per annum) for . . . . wait for it . . . lift waiting allowance.

Yes, you heard it right. For many years, employees at that fine public sector organisation were given extra pay because their lifts were relatively slow. Evidently, the union demanded it because the slow lifts [sic] meant that employees sometimes arrived to work late.

I suppose it hadn't occurred to them to leave home a bit earlier.

Right, i'm off to go and speak to my HR Director. I think it's a great idea.




I'm about to go and talk to our HR director to see if they will

carolt

Harry_Powell wrote: »

As you keep avoiding the question, I'll assume that you do have a teachers final salary scheme and therefore do have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo with public service pensions.

I don't have a problem with this, I have many VI's but don't you think it's a little disingenuous to state that you don't have a FS pension and therefore don't have a VI, when you do?

No, I avoided your question because I didn't wish to discuss details of my working history with a bunch of complete strangers on an internet forum. I still don't.

You're welcome to believe what you like. If you want to believe I've made it all up for reasons best known to yourself, that's entirely up to you. I find it strange that you have selectively decided to agree with one part of my personal history - namely that I'm a teacher, but not that I'm self-employed - I have no idea why.

Now it's your turn. What do you do, Harry? Please tell us all exactly the nature of your employment and your pension history. Or don't - you know, I don't really think anyone's interested - this thread is not to discuss the pensions of individual posters (I believe there's a Board on MSE specifically to do that, if that's what you enjoy? - maybe it would be more your thing?) but to discuss the larger questions of the future of public sector pensions in the context of government debt and recession. A subject I find much more interesting, personally.

donaldtramp

I'll repeat the question....for the public sector employees.

No guilt about living off the backs of other people???

This includes the hard working low paid private sector employees taxes