We are all in this together, well not if you are in a union.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

No they are not - what evidence can you provide of this? NONE. So shut up then.

a £170bn budget deficit and a soaring national debt.

That's bad enough, and it's for two years! What about if the Conservatives win? They will be even more savage. All I can say is: THERE WILL BE BLOOD!!

savage? see my previous comments on what is brutal and what is not.

I don't think so, somehow. If the government had simply talked about 'pay restraint' and left individual areas to decide their own pay budgets that wouldn't have been so bad, but the arbitrary imposition of an all-round 1% pay cap (2.7% BELOW inflation) has really angered a lot of people. There will be blood.

no there won't. there will be grumbling, posturing on internet forums, and maybe some strikes.

You really are a total prat. The government does not have to pay an uncertain amount, as I said before, because it has capped its own contributions! Anything more that is actuarially required by the terms of the pension scheme will be met by the employees in future years, you plonker! Are you so thick you can't even understand what I am writing here? No, there is no pool of assets, this is essentially an assurance fund that is calculated actuarially. Look this up in the dictionary if it's too big a word for you.

(i) its payments are uncertain because it currently can only estimate the factors which will determine the payments, the government has in no way capped its liability, which would be impossible when it doesn't know what it is (ii) if the government attempted to limit its own liability by ramping up employees contributions, the effect of that is actually a unilateral pay cut. when that happens to any material extent, the public sector will all go on strike demanding pay increases to fund the pension contributions.

THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! It is not invested in stock and shares, but that does not mean that it is 'unfunded'. As long as the contributions are of a certain level, the funds will be there - guaranteed by the actuaries! What the hell do you mean by 'funded' anyway?

what i mean by unfunded is that the government committing to pay you a pension in the future, but is not in the present setting aside any assets to pay that pension out of.

a funded scheme is one that actually has assets in it to pay the liabilities.

The money is put into bonds and other secure instruments decided by the actuaries to provide a FIXED INTEREST return that will meet the pension obligations. Investing in stocks and shares would be risky and not be acceptable to the actuaries. I am fully aware that defined benefit schemes run by private sector companies have invested in shares etc, but the result of this has been all too obvious: most of them have closed down because the shares did not perform as anticipated, leaving huge liabilities in pension funds. Most of the final salary schemes in the private sector are in this predicament.

fixed interest streams? err. no, sorry. there are no assets. you seem to be contradicting yourself here, as you have said above above that there is no pool of assets, and now you are claiming that there is a pool of assets.

let me be perfectly clear. this is how the civil service scheme works:

they give you a pay slip. it has some theoretical numbers written on it. that's all they are, numbers. there is no money being invested anywhere.

when you retire, you get a pension. the government pays that. the payments are funded from tax revenue and borrowings in the year that you are paid the pension.

In politics, fairness is most certainly a consideration. There is more to making political decisions that doing sums on a calculator and the coming up with a plan. Decisions that affect human beings have to be determined in a fair way, otherwise you might as well have anarchy.

your politics demands that one group (private sector employees) are treated unfairly by paying more tax than they need to so another group (public sector employees) can have larger, unnecessary, payrises. so if fairness is a consideration, then stop being so selfish.

But salaries are already at a market rate, that's why there is no need for any pay feezes/cuts!! What you want is to lower them to the lowest common private sector denominator - and I say NO! Categorically.

private sector pay is being frozen, therefore the market rate is frozen. so there is no need for any pay increases at all, not even the 1% you're getting.

I have only accepted this principle on a very broad and loose basis, to ensure that there is a link in labour markets betwene the two sectors. The difference is that you are using this principle as a justification for lowering public sector salaries to the lowest level any government could get away with. This is what I do not and will not accept.

market rate is, be definition, the lowest amount you need to pay someone to do the job. you are advocating, therefore, being paid more than market rate.

it was already abundantly clear that you knew you had lost the argument. there was no need to say it again.

JasonLVC

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

How do these governments raise their revenue ?

there has to be a means to raise revenue for social costs/spending or do they take the view that the individual pays for everything ?

My post was in response to the statement that every country charges income tax. No they do not.

The UAE has no taxation of any kind (due to oil revenues) so the wealth is already in the country so to speak.

Some countries have a form of NI but which is paid for by the employer alone, so is a burden on the business not the individual. Others still have higher Capital Gains Taxes or Inheritance Taxes as a mean to raise revenue. But sales tax/VAT seems to be the way of the future.

Pakistan has VAT recently, Dubai in the next few years, most African states have it and they introduced it a few years back in Jersey (to much outrage) and even The Governator wants to bring it in to California (the US has 'sales tax', but it doesn't apply to services so your Ipod will have 8% added to it but your lawyer will be tax free - go figure!)

So to answer your question - either tax is raised via corporation (business) taxation or personal taxation. The trick is to get the balance right. Ireland has a CT rate of just 12.5% which is why businesses flocked there, Ireland also has a high VAT rate of 21% and a top Income Tax of 41% so you can see where Ireland got its money from (the people), which arguably led to higher pay, which arguably led to higher debts, which arguably led to their current situation which has involved massive public sector cuts, pay freezes and service reductions.

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

it was already abundantly clear that you knew you had lost the argument. there was no need to say it again.

You are a perfect idiot. You keep repeating yourself like a broken record, even when I have explained all the facts very carefeully and clearly. It is you who has lost the argument, but you don't realise it, that's all. The first sign of mental illness is to lose the ability to tell the difference between truth and fantasy; you are displaying this.

You talk about public sector pensions as if you knew all about them, but you don't - everything you say about them is wrong, factually wrong. And you also keep repeating the lie that the entire pivate sector has had pay freezes or cuts, when this is certainly not the case - I personally know several people who have received healthy rises.

Keep talking at the wind if you like, because I have better things to do than argue with trolls like you. I have already stated my case and I don't see the need to repeat myself endlessly. I can certainly see why you have not received a pay rise, and that is becasue you seem to spend all day on this forum!

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

a £170bn budget deficit and a soaring national debt.



savage? see my previous comments on what is brutal and what is not.



no there won't. there will be grumbling, posturing on internet forums, and maybe some strikes.



(i) its payments are uncertain because it currently can only estimate the factors which will determine the payments, the government has in no way capped its liability, which would be impossible when it doesn't know what it is (ii) if the government attempted to limit its own liability by ramping up employees contributions, the effect of that is actually a unilateral pay cut. when that happens to any material extent, the public sector will all go on strike demanding pay increases to fund the pension contributions.

This unilateral cut has already happened in the NHS and local government, and it will happen in the civil service. But it's not a pay cut, it's an increase in employee pension contributions, you plonker - can you not see the difference? The base salary is not actually cut!!

chewmylegoff wrote: »

what i mean by unfunded is that the government committing to pay you a pension in the future, but is not in the present setting aside any assets to pay that pension out of.

a funded scheme is one that actually has assets in it to pay the liabilities.

It is funded and I have already explained why. Use your single brain cell.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

fixed interest streams? err. no, sorry. there are no assets. you seem to be contradicting yourself here, as you have said above above that there is no pool of assets, and now you are claiming that there is a pool of assets.

let me be perfectly clear. this is how the civil service scheme works:

they give you a pay slip. it has some theoretical numbers written on it. that's all they are, numbers. there is no money being invested anywhere.

when you retire, you get a pension. the government pays that. the payments are funded from tax revenue and borrowings in the year that you are paid the pension.

No it doesn't. The money is used to pay for the value of the pension through the actuary. The actuary decides what needs to paid in and this is kept in place and put into safe hgh interest investments such as bonds. You are thinking here of the state retirement pension - that one does operate in the way you've stated, but not the civil service pension, or any other government pension.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

your politics demands that one group (private sector employees) are treated unfairly by paying more tax than they need to so another group (public sector employees) can have larger, unnecessary, payrises. so if fairness is a consideration, then stop being so selfish.

private sector pay is being frozen, therefore the market rate is frozen. so there is no need for any pay increases at all, not even the 1% you're getting.

NO. Private sector pay is not frozen - only in some areas has it been frozen. And why should I apologise for wanting to protect my interests? Fariness is not accepting being kicked in the teeth just because everyone else has done so. That's stupidity, not fairness.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

market rate is, be definition, the lowest amount you need to pay someone to do the job. you are advocating, therefore, being paid more than market rate.

Utter nonsense. Market rate is not the lowest possible amount, but a range of pay levels, and the true market rate would be the midpoint of this range. You are really as thick as plank of wood, aren't you?

Andy_L

marklv wrote: »

No it doesn't. The money is used to pay for the value of the pension through the actuary. The actuary decides what needs to paid in and this is kept in place and put into safe hgh interest investments such as bonds. You are thinking here of the state retirement pension - that one does operate in the way you've stated, but not the civil service pension, or any other government pension.

You are wrong, the employer & employees contributions in the unfunded schemes (C Service, NHS, Teachers etc - everyone except LGPS, Universities & MPs AIUI) is used to pay the pensions of retired members.
Any excess/shortfall goes back into/comes out of the big treasury pot (ie the taxpayer). It is, if an excess, not invested or saved.
The employers contributions exist only to make the employing department aware of the true cost of employing staff (and obviously there's "robust debate" about what assumptions should be used to calculate that employers calculations)

bigheadxx

If public sector pensions are funded then how do you explain the £1 trillion unfunded liability to the taxpayer of public sector pensions?
http://www.managementinpractice.com/default.asp?title=Public-sectorpensioncontributions%22outofkilter%22&page=article.display&article.id=20970

Old_Slaphead

bigheadxx wrote: »

If public sector pensions are funded then how do you explain the £1 trillion unfunded liability to the taxpayer of public sector pensions?
http://www.managementinpractice.com/default.asp?title=Public-sectorpensioncontributions%22outofkilter%22&page=article.display&article.id=20970

Public sector schemes are, in the main, not funded For example NHS, Defence, Civil Service, Teachers are a few of the unfunded schemes.

To pay out accrued liabilities ie if everyone decided to transfer their pension pots out to a private scheme would cost around £1 trillion - hence that's the sum future generations will be expected to pay out for historical pension commitments (that's in addition to the £1 trillion public sector debts and £400bn PFI commitments outstanding)

Funded schemes like LGPS should be renamed as "part-funded" because they're facing massive shortfalls - but that's a story for the next government.
Private FS schemes have to, by law, address underfunding issues - but public schemes can simply ignore them

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

You are a perfect idiot. You keep repeating yourself like a broken record, even when I have explained all the facts very carefeully and clearly. It is you who has lost the argument, but you don't realise it, that's all. The first sign of mental illness is to lose the ability to tell the difference between truth and fantasy; you are displaying this.

You talk about public sector pensions as if you knew all about them, but you don't - everything you say about them is wrong, factually wrong. And you also keep repeating the lie that the entire pivate sector has had pay freezes or cuts, when this is certainly not the case - I personally know several people who have received healthy rises.

Keep talking at the wind if you like, because I have better things to do than argue with trolls like you. I have already stated my case and I don't see the need to repeat myself endlessly. I can certainly see why you have not received a pay rise, and that is becasue you seem to spend all day on this forum!

you could try looking in the mirror as you have described your own posting strategy on this thread.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

This unilateral cut has already happened in the NHS and local government, and it will happen in the civil service. But it's not a pay cut, it's an increase in employee pension contributions, you plonker - can you not see the difference? The base salary is not actually cut!!

if the employee's pension contribution goes up:
(i) your net salary goes down
(ii) your pension entitlement remains exactly the same

have you been given a pay cut? to assist you with answering the question, the answer is yes.

It is funded and I have already explained why. Use your single brain cell.

luckily for me it only takes one brain cell to understand the difference between funded and unfunded. your brain is obviously so large and complex you are struggling with the concepts involved.

No it doesn't. The money is used to pay for the value of the pension through the actuary. The actuary decides what needs to paid in and this is kept in place and put into safe hgh interest investments such as bonds. You are thinking here of the state retirement pension - that one does operate in the way you've stated, but not the civil service pension, or any other government pension.

no, i am thinking of the civil service scheme and the other similar defined benefit public sector schemes.

there are no assets, not even "safe high interest ones". the accounting on your payslip is an academic exercise.

the liabilities will be met entirely from future tax revenues and borrowing (exactly as the schemes' current pensioners are being paid from current tax revenues and borrowing). contact your magical actuary or your pension scheme trustees if you want some confirmation of this.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

I can certainly see why you have not received a pay rise, and that is becasue you seem to spend all day on this forum!

i'm on holiday.