Public Sector Pensions...

Sphynx

The government are already saying that public sector wages have grown to equal or exceed the private sector counterparts and that is another reason why the pension is undeserved.

michaels

You always have the option to take a private sector job instead if you think the remuneration (including pension) is better. The employer (govt) will be forced to pay more if they can't get the staff they need at the wage offered. I personally don't think in the current climate that filling any vacancies (even with a much lower pension entitlement) will be a problem given that there are already officially 2.5m unemployed...

thescouselander wrote: »

Fair enough but I accept lower pay in my job because of the terms of the pension. If the pension changes to match that offered in the private sector there is going to be a lot of pressure for pay to do the same (ie to go up).

michaels

You answer tyour own question:

• Money can't be raised from the poor because they don't have it.
• Money can't be raised from the rich because they can avoid paying (avoidance or emigration) and there aren't actually that many of them.

Which only leaves those in the middle.

treliac wrote: »

I think it strikes harder than that though. Middle income earners are always clobbered. Never rich and always taking the flak for whatever ills have to be addressed. They/you/we're the easy target!

Sphynx

michaels wrote: »

You always have the option to take a private sector job instead if you think the remuneration (including pension) is better. The employer (govt) will be forced to pay more if they can't get the staff they need at the wage offered. I personally don't think in the current climate that filling any vacancies (even with a much lower pension entitlement) will be a problem given that there are already officially 2.5m unemployed...

True, but for alot of people who have no direct comparative job in the private sector and who have worked and qualified in a certain profession this isn't really a viable option.

michaels

If only this was true then there wouldn't be the problem we see today. The banking crisis has only cost a few billion, the deficit is as a result of a sustained increase in spending as a share of GDP without a commensurate increase in taxation. This can only be solved in two ways:

• Increase taxation as a share of GDP; or
• Rescue spending back towards the proportion it was 10 years ago.

The current govt's ideological preference is towards the later.

Sadly it is not the fault of the banking crisis which is why it will not just be solved by the banks recovering

MyLastFiver wrote: »

All I ask is that we remember that it wasn't teachers and nurses who caused the financial crisis; it was incompetence and greed in the banking sector.

StevieJ

treliac wrote: »

Unfortunately, the anti-public sector brigade rear up in their distorted thinking that everyone is well paid.

I wonder if they would do this for £16k p.a. :eek:

ILW

I don't think anyone goes into the army for the pay.
Good picture though.

thescouselander

StevieJ wrote: »

I wonder if they would do this for £16k p.a. :eek:

I doubt you will find anyone doing that for only 16K PA. The basic pay is supplemented by heavily subsidised housing and living expenses and then you've got to add various allowances etc. The whole package has a value significantly more then 16K.

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

I don't think anyone goes into the army for the pay.
Good picture though.

I think many do if they can't get a job in civvy street.

thescouselander

ILW wrote: »

Are you sure you accept lower pay, are there direct comparisons with the private sector?

Yes, as a Chartered Engineer I can find directly comparable jobs (doing exactly the same work) for about 15-20% more than what I'm on now - coincidently about the amount I would expect to have to pay into a pension.