300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

CLAPTON

marklv wrote: »

Nonsense, because investing even in something as boring as bonds would get a return higher than inflation, which, when compounded, and even taking account of inflation, would probably double or even treble the amount quoted by you.

see my post 189 above

thescouselander

princeofpounds wrote: »

I wasn't comparing it to private sector pensions. I was working out the absolute cost.

Frankly the private sector pensions of the past were also unmanageable, but they moved a lot quicker to reform. But they have nothign to do with my point.

Well what is your point then? Pensions of old (private and public) are expensive, no-one is disputing that but all political parties have said they will protect benifits already accrued so there's not much that can be done about people already in the system so the governments current pension liability will have to be paid no matter what.

Harry_Powell

marklv wrote: »

You're just being a silly !!!.

If you want to compare benefits you have to compare job function per job function, not simply public v private. Prat.

You just seem to want to compare YOUR job function and YOUR benefits, perhaps bendix was right when he said you were self-interested and self-centred?

kabayiri

marklv wrote: »

True. I have seen incredible amounts of money spent on bespoke suited !!!!!! from Deloittes, Accenture and other firms. These people have the gift of the gab and worm their way into every organisation they can, and then con them into paying them megabucks for largely unnecessary work that is explained by the consultants as being of critical business importance.

No sweeping statements there then! What is your anger at these people? They are just earning a living.

The reason the big consultancies exist is because of their perceived need from their customers.

They know that public sector clients dont usually have the in-house capability these days; they can therefore charge what they feel is attainable.

For every block of unnecessary work from a consultancy there will be a customer who doesn't actually know what they want, and who keeps changing the requirements on a regular basis.

Part of the 1.7bn saving will be coming out of savings from consultancies....that must please you.

princeofpounds

Well what is your point then?

Precisely that these pensions are expensive. If you look back my entire thread of posting goes back to this comment (and the rest of the assocaited post):

If the pension in the public sector was so good why doesn't everyone want to work there - I'll tell you why, its because the package you could get in the private sector is often as good or better.

I just wanted to point out exactly how generous public sector pensions are, and also how unsustainably generous they are.

It really wasn't anything to do with public vs private at all, so I think you're getting yourself wrapped up thinking I'm taking part in the debate that is flying around between a few other posters on the thread.

thescouselander

princeofpounds wrote: »

Precisely that these pensions are expensive. If you look back my entire thread of posting goes back to this comment (and the rest of the assocaited post):



I just wanted to point out exactly how generous public sector pensions are, and also how unsustainably generous they are.

It really wasn't anything to do with public vs private at all, so I think you're getting yourself wrapped up thinking I'm taking part in the debate that is flying around between a few other posters on the thread.

I see, well I apoligise if I have misunderstood. Public sector pensions are indeed generous but they are often accompanied by lower pay when compared with a like for like private sector job - its almost like deferring pay in some respects.

Personally I'd have no problem with ending the current scheme I'm in and increasing pay to the full market rate so I could make my own arrangements. At least I wouldn't have to worry about some future government moving the goal posts.

CLAPTON

thescouselander wrote: »

I see, well I apoligise if I have misunderstood. Public sector pensions are indeed generous but they are often accompanied by lower pay when compared with a like for like private sector job - its almost like deferring pay in some respects.

Personally I'd have no problem with ending the current scheme I'm in and increasing pay to the full market rate so I could make my own arrangements. At least I wouldn't have to worry about some future government moving the goal posts.

surely you already have that choice... you can leave the public sector for the private sector, increase your pay to the full market rate and make suitable provision for your pension.

princeofpounds

its almost like deferring pay in some respects.

It is, and I'll highlight a theme I have made in another couple of threads in the past, and which is often missed in these debates.

The really cunning thing about the way public sector pensions have been handled by the generation now retiring is that deferring the pay allowed cash salaries and therefore taxes to be lower. Public services were bought on the cheap (probably around 20% cheaper than otherwise).

However, we are now getting to the point where the bill has to be paid, because in the same way the liability is deferred salary, the asset required is deferred tax revenues. Conveniently, the retiring generation has already earned most of its wealth by this point, and so it is asking the younger generation to pay the bill in higher tax rates for the next 20-30 years.

This is manifestly unfair on the younger generation, who are being asked to pay in arrears for services they did not benefit from.

However, reneging on the contracts would also not be fair from the point of view of the retirees, who believe they have legal contracts entitling them to that money.

The fairest solution would be to go back to the taxpayers of the last 40 years (private and public alike) and ask them to stump up the difference, but that is clearly impractical.

So there cannot be a fair settlement... answers on how to resolve this one on a postcard!

kennyboy66_2

princeofpounds wrote: »

It is, and I'll highlight a theme I have made in another couple of threads in the past, and which is often missed in these debates.

The really cunning thing about the way public sector pensions have been handled by the generation now retiring is that deferring the pay allowed cash salaries and therefore taxes to be lower. Public services were bought on the cheap (probably around 20% cheaper than otherwise).

However, we are now getting to the point where the bill has to be paid, because in the same way the liability is deferred salary, the asset required is deferred tax revenues. Conveniently, the retiring generation has already earned most of its wealth by this point, and so it is asking the younger generation to pay the bill in higher tax rates for the next 20-30 years.

This is manifestly unfair on the younger generation, who are being asked to pay in arrears for services they did not benefit from.

However, reneging on the contracts would also not be fair from the point of view of the retirees, who believe they have legal contracts entitling them to that money.

The fairest solution would be to go back to the taxpayers of the last 40 years (private and public alike) and ask them to stump up the difference, but that is clearly impractical.

So there cannot be a fair settlement... answers on how to resolve this one on a postcard!

There is no magic bullet but someone needs to consider most of the following.

1) Increase income tax rather than National Insurance. In what possible way is it useful to burden the workers rather than everyone with tax increases ?
2) Make people work longer sooner.
3) Make all new recruits go on a a "career average" style pension
4) Make existing members on final salary pay significantly more for their pension.
5) Close final salary schemes and put everyone into a "career average" pension (but protect existing rights).

There will be no winners, just varying degree of losers.

jonewer

Well, one thing thats for sure, retirement is going to have to start later. 65 then 67 as opposed to the current 60.

There are of course some easy wins and an elephant in the room when it comes to the deficit.

Firstly theres Afghanistan - £4.4bn. ELIMINATE
Secondly theres foreign aid - £6.5. ELIMINATE

Saving well over £10bn with not a single job loss.

The elephant in the room of course is benefits. We cant go on spending between a quarter and a third of the tax take on handouts and expect to remain competitive.