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

bigheadxx

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

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

Reform is on its way, Cameron has stated that defined contribution schemes are the way forward and it is only really a matter of time.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7accaee4-40db-11df-94c2-00144feabdc0.html

marklv

dopester wrote: »

A bit of a turnaround from your previous intransigent posts with CMLO that most of the public sector pension money was mostly in some big fund and all hunky-dory.

So CMLO doesn't have mental illness issues after all, because you were entirely wrong about this point. Cancel the appointment with Harry's doctor yet again. It's more the person making the diagnosis who needs the appointment.

No, I am not entirely wrong. And it doesn't make any difference whether the money is in a fund or not, because even if it was in a stock market fund, like private sector defned benefit schemes, the fund would almost certainly be in deficit, due to the poor performance of the stock market since the bubble burst in 2000/2001. Look at all these wonderfully funded schemes like the ones pertaining to BA, BP and many others. All in deficit and requiring bigger company contributions. Ironically, had the funds simply been placed in a high interest account they would be worth more today.

bigheadxx

marklv wrote: »

No, I am not entirely wrong. And it doesn't make any difference whether the money is in a fund or not, because even if it was in a stock market fund, like private sector defned benefit schemes, the fund would almost certainly be in deficit, due to the poor performance of the stock market since the bubble burst in 2000/2001. Look at all these wonderfully funded schemes like the ones pertaining to BA, BP and many others. All in deficit and requiring bigger company contributions. Ironically, had the funds simply been placed in a high interest account they would be worth more today.

The BA pension scheme is a final salary scheme and that is the problem, there is more liability than funding and BA may have to switch to a defined contribution scheme. So again you are wrong, your facts are wrong and your arguments are flimsy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/5446391/British-Airways-wont-rule-out-pension-closure.html

marklv

bigheadxx wrote: »

Reform is on its way, Cameron has stated that defined contribution schemes are the way forward and it is only really a matter of time.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7accaee4-40db-11df-94c2-00144feabdc0.html

It's not Cameron, just the usual !!!!!ing from the fat cats of the CBI, whose members are so rich that they don't even need pensions! Cameron may introduce a switch to defined contribution schmes for new joiners to government employment, but he would be very foolish to force that on existing members. I don't think he will, he isn't stupid and it's not to his advantage to alienate 6 million voters.

marklv

bigheadxx wrote: »

The BA pension scheme is a final salary scheme and that is the problem, there is more liability than funding and BA may have to switch to a defined benefit scheme. So again you are wrong, your facts are wrong and your arguments are flimsy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/5446391/British-Airways-wont-rule-out-pension-closure.html

I did say the BA scheme was a defined benefit (i.e. final salary one) you stupid fool! And it is in DEFICIT!

marklv

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

who needs the public sector? ronald reagan fired all those air traffic controllers when they went on strike - did the airports stop working? No, they just replaced them.

No-one needs the public sector, sack all 6 million of them.

Even better, shoot them all - and charge them for the cost of the bullets! :rotfl:

PrivatisetheNHSnow

marklv wrote: »

Even better, shoot them all - and charge them for the cost of the bullets! :rotfl:

no, just asking them to get a proper job is enough actually - it would make the whinos and the unionists and left start panicking.

bigheadxx

marklv wrote: »

I did say the BA scheme was a defined benefit (i.e. final salary one) you stupid fool! And it is in DEFICIT!

Defined contribution I meant, that was a concentration error but the argument is the same. Defined benefit / final salary schemes will all ultimately make way for defined CONTRIBUTION schemes as I said in post 302.

kabayiri

If fire fighters went on strike I would worry for public safety. I'd have similar concerns if ambulance drivers, nurses, doctors all withdrew their labour.

But teachers? Nah....we would just be a bit irritated and have plenty of ammunition to give them grief during parents evening.

There will be blood? Hmm, nothing a generous elastoplast wouldn't fix.

marklv

kabayiri wrote: »

If fire fighters went on strike I would worry for public safety. I'd have similar concerns if ambulance drivers, nurses, doctors all withdrew their labour.

But teachers? Nah....we would just be a bit irritated and have plenty of ammunition to give them grief during parents evening.

There will be blood? Hmm, nothing a generous elastoplast wouldn't fix.

It's all speculation for now. Until the winning party comes up with precise details of what exactly they want to do with the public sector it's hard to tell how employees will react. If the 1% pay cap is on pay budgets rather than individual salaries then it's possible that with efficiency savings this would enable staff to receive rises closer to the current cost of living. The devil is in the detail. In any case Labour is very unlikely to win an outright majority, so we'll have to see what the other parties are planning. As yet there is a lot of talk but very little detail.