Time to start a thread on public sector pensions

vivatifosi

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush wrote: »

It's always amusing in threads like this to see the private sector demand that the public sector have benefits / salary / pension / terms & conditions reduced "because the rest of us don't get them".

Er, I started this thread because it is interesting. FWIW I am a public sector employee as well as a trustee of a private sector final salary pension scheme and think the changes are a step in the right direction.

Tell me GPT. Where is the money going to come from?

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush

vivatifosi wrote: »

Tell me GPT. Where is the money going to come from?

Taxing the rich at a proportionate level, and not spending billions on illegal invasions of other countries would be a good start.

vivatifosi

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush wrote: »

Taxing the rich at a proportionate level, and not spending billions on illegal invasions of other countries would be a good start.

I agree that the war in Iraq and going into Afghanistan cost £18bn (as at last year) and hasn't really got us anywhere. However that's a drop in the ocean compared to the unfunded pensions estimated by this firm to be £1.2 trillion.
http://www.towerswatson.com/united-kingdom/press/1418

I would like to see tax loopholes closed but don't agree with taxing the rich at more than 50% as they'd just leave the country.

The scale of the problem is massive.

StevieJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

I agree that the war in Iraq and going into Afghanistan cost £18bn (as at last year) and hasn't really got us anywhere. However that's a drop in the ocean compared to the unfunded pensions estimated by this firm to be £1.2 trillion.
http://www.towerswatson.com/united-kingdom/press/1418

I would like to see tax loopholes closed but don't agree with taxing the rich at more than 50% as they'd just leave the country.

The scale of the problem is massive.

So how much is the unfunded Social security bill, and the unfunded NHS bill not to mention the unfunded defence bill

heleddie

Getting public sector staff to work till their 65 might sound like a good idea but I know that if my house caught fire, or I was being attacked, or I wanted my children taught or I was in pain in hospital and needed a doctor with a steady head - I'm not sure I'd feel the same way.

Many public sector staff went into jobs accepting that the wages were lower but knowing that their pensions were better which made up for it. If you reduce one, you're going to have to raise the other.

ILW

heleddie wrote: »

Getting public sector staff to work till their 65 might sound like a good idea but I know that if my house caught fire, or I was being attacked, or I wanted my children taught or I was in pain in hospital and needed a doctor with a steady head - I'm not sure I'd feel the same way.

Many public sector staff went into jobs accepting that the wages were lower but knowing that their pensions were better which made up for it. If you reduce one, you're going to have to raise the other.

Trouble with that is public sector wages are no longer lower than private sector.

thescouselander

ILW wrote: »

Trouble with that is public sector wages are no longer lower than private sector.

Really? What are you basing that on? Just taking the civil service as an example you might be able to demonstrate that at the lowest grades pay is more than in the private sector. But as you get higher up in the civil service the pay is demonstrably less than an equivalent private sector job.

LydiaJ

heleddie wrote: »

Getting public sector staff to work till their 65 might sound like a good idea but I know that if my house caught fire, or I was being attacked, or I wanted my children taught or I was in pain in hospital and needed a doctor with a steady head - I'm not sure I'd feel the same way.

Many public sector staff went into jobs accepting that the wages were lower but knowing that their pensions were better which made up for it. If you reduce one, you're going to have to raise the other.

I take your point about firefighters and surgeons, where physical stamina is required, but teachers and GPs?? I'd be more than happy for my kids to be taught by teachers in their 60s, and I'm expecting to be teaching until whatever retirement age is supposed to be by the time I get there - 67 according to current plans.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

Trouble with that is public sector wages are no longer lower than private sector.

This isn't true.

This is a statistical nightmare coming home to roost.

Firstly, it's difficult to measure public and private sector pay. Why? Because firefighters, teachers, police, politicians etc, only really exist in the public sector.

Secondly, over the last decade, many thousands of lower end jobs, such as cleaners for hospitals etc have been handed over to the private sector. Indeed, many of the bin collection contracts now run under the private sector. Therefore, it removes all the low paid jobs from the public sector, and puts them into the private sector figures.

You can still draw some comparisons, but they are few and far between now.

Many of the comparisons that can be made now are basic office tasks. Though you MUST take into account perks of jobs in the private sector when doing this. Perks such as staff discounts, free parking, paid travel to work, christmas holidays etc all add up. None of which you get in the public sector. You did get an ok pension though.

Bizzarely, those who do get paid travel to work and free parking passes, are the highest paid and need it least.

How many private sector employees would work christmas day, for their usual wage?

nic_santorini

The_White_Horse wrote: »

these public sector cretins should all have their pensions and pay slashed by 50%.

Why? Please justify your ignorant statement?