Guaranteed to Make your blood boil

Loughton_Monkey

I literally choked on my Gin & Tonic earlier today when I read this!

A quick 'Google' to find out when Baroness so-called Eaton had her lobotomy revealed nothing. I can only believe a 'career' in Local Government fried her brain over the years.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12516645

The top Tory in local government has urged Chancellor George Osborne to rethink plans to make public sector workers pay more into their pensions.
Local Government Association (LGA) chair Baroness Eaton said the move could lead many staff to opt out, putting the scheme's future at risk.
The warning comes in a letter, obtained by the Observer, written with Labour LGA executive member Sir Steve Bullock.
The Treasury said it was working to protect the lowest paid from the move.

'Strong evidence'

Public sector workers' pension contributions will rise from April next year under plans set out by the chancellor in last year's Spending Review, saving the Treasury an additional £1.8bn by 2014-15.
Lady Eaton and Sir Steve - who is the directly elected mayor of Lewisham in south London - warned that rather than bolstering the local government pension scheme the move could lead to many employees opting out.
In their letter they said if that happened it would call into question the sustainability and viability of the pension scheme.
This in turn would leave the taxpayer picking up the bill as workers would end up relying on means-tested benefits in retirement, they added.
The letter said: "There is strong evidence to suggest that the opt-out rate will be far greater than the 1% envisaged in the Spending Review announcement.

'Need for reform'

"Neither is there any evidence to suggest that full account has been taken of the likely reductions in the local government workforce over the Spending Review period, a large proportion of which will be scheme members."
A recent survey by the GMB union suggested that 39% of its members who currently paid into the scheme would opt out if they were asked to contribute more.
A Treasury spokesman said: "As set out in the Spending Review, the government will from April 2012 phase in an increase in pension contributions by public sector workers of an average of 3%.
"The government is in discussion with stakeholders, including the unions, about implementation of this increase with a view to protecting the lowest paid.
"The interim Hutton review identified the need for reform and the government is awaiting his final report in spring."

Why does she not understand that we need to save money, and asking one of the most highly paid and cossetted sectors to make an additional contribution to a massive benefit - all but extinct in the Private sector - makes perfect sense.

But it's her reason that bothers me. "There is strong evidence to suggest that the opt-out rate will be far greater than the 1% envisaged in the Spending Review announcement."

OK. Every LGA pension member needs to pay a few percent more. If they 'drop out' then the savings to us taxpayers is three or four times that.

Far from 'dropping' the idea, shouldn't the Government be pushing ahead with it as soon as possible, and for once supporting the GMB Union and pleading with them to ensure that 39% of their members do leave the scheme and save us a lot more money? Maybe even make the employees contribute another percentage point - to aim at 50% drop out!

As for the 'defence' that a few of these might, subsequently, need a bit of 'means tested benefits' is surely an extremely small price to pay for such a massive savings? That comment is as brainless as me pleading with my wife not to splash out £9K on the credit card on an un-needed house improvement, only to receive the defense "Well you are wrong to save £9,000. You must spend it. Otherwise you'll lose £45 cash-back next June"!

This woman - Baroness Eaton - should be expelled from the Conservative Party immediately. If she wants to be a Conservative, then she should behave like one.

CLAPTON

I agree

it should be a criminal offence for anyone at all to have any pensions or savings when they reach retirement age as they will all be a burden on the then working population

free suicide pills should of course be freely available

a special cadets squad should be formed to ensure that their offspring aren't hidding them and providing any quality of life.

it should be seen as the highest form of civic duty to spare the then working population any burden from old people.

Loughton_Monkey

CLAPTON wrote: »

I agree

free suicide pills should of course be freely available.

Excellent. 100% agreement so far.

Memo to LGA scheme administrators: The form currently headed 'Application to withdraw from LGA Pension scheme' to be re-named 'Application to commit financial suicide.'

Old_Slaphead

Answer's simple - if members want to continue paying existing rate then they move to a new DC scheme with the employer matching their contribution (that's more than generous!). Alternatively there's the NEST scheme - if it's good enough for the rest of us then why not public sector workers too?

It should be conditional that they are NOT allowed back in original scheme when they realise how good it is.

If the taking of benefits were deferred until state retirement age that would also help reduce the costs.

molerat

A recent survey by the GMB union suggested that 39% of its members who currently paid into the scheme would opt out if they were asked to contribute more.

Confirmed my theory that 39% of local government workers are terminally thick. :cool:

annie_tanks

Clapton..why dont you go the whole hog and move all oldies into one bedroom room blocks..thus solving the housing problem in one fell swoop..then bump them off when their medical bills become excessive..I think not..nasty Clapton..

CLAPTON

annie_tanks wrote: »

Clapton..why dont you go the whole hog and move all oldies into one bedroom room blocks..thus solving the housing problem in one fell swoop..then bump them off when their medical bills become excessive..I think not..nasty Clapton..

irony maybe?

The_K_Man

Hey, local government workers pay 6.5% of their salary into their pensions....that seems pretty steep already considering NHS workers pay 3%. I'm sure that in the private sector it is even less.

Loughton_Monkey

annie_tanks wrote: »

Clapton..why dont you go the whole hog and move all oldies into one bedroom room blocks..thus solving the housing problem in one fell swoop..then bump them off when their medical bills become excessive..I think not..nasty Clapton..

Irony, sarcasm, and effrontery are an essential part of what would otherwise be quite boring subjects.

It is so sad to learn that it is wasted on some people.

The topic is about (a) the suggestion to allow LG workers to receive an extremely valuable benefit, but pay a little bit more for it, and (b) the concept that this change is purported to make supposedly intelligent workers deliberately make themselves poorer.

Have sympathy with them if you want to, but let those without sympathy for self-inflicted poverty air their views without being accused of mass murder.

kidmugsy

"that seems pretty steep already": not given the scale of the benefits, K.

The_K_Man

Well the two main benefits of the local government pension is that it is linked to the RPI for it's duration (both drawn and deferred benefits) and it is linked to your final salary. I would think that the final salary element will eb changed to be an average earnings over your time in local government, which I think is fair enough.

Please don't have a go at the local government pension when the NHS, teachers and civil servants get a FAR better deal though!