Time to start a thread on public sector pensions

abaxas

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

With respect, if someone signs a contract that gives me property, I do have rights over that property. That is why Hutton is not grabbing already accrued rights.

I doubt this will save any money in reality. Removing final salary schemes either means that salaries will increase to compensate (due to market forces). The alternative would be comparable private sector salaries will fall to match. Or that a lack of quality competition makes it easier for me to gain and maintain promotion.

I scratch my head when free marketeers argue that you can just cut salaries without there being consequences.

A contract lives within the law. The issue with pensions is the law can and will be changed.

Are you saying an employee no longer has to pay min wage as the original contract is different?

ruggedtoast

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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

Then everyone would strike and I'm not sure who would feed you your shreddies and give you your medication every 4 hours though.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Then everyone would strike and I'm not sure who would feed you your shreddies and give you your medication every 4 hours though.

If most of the public sector went on strike, hardly anyone would even notice. Most of the important stuff has been hived of to private companies and more is going that way.

Sir_Humphrey

abaxas wrote: »

A contract lives within the law. The issue with pensions is the law can and will be changed.

Are you saying an employee no longer has to pay min wage as the original contract is different?

Bit puzzled by this comment; no-one is saying that my existing entitlements are going to be removed. That would be akin to the minimum wage being lowered, and the difference retrospectively being removed from my pay packet by the employer; that would be obviously illegal.

Of course, my future pension could be changed. If it is, and if market forces operate as theory says they should, then the market would compensate in some way or another.

I would expect that under a career average scheme, pay differentials between pay grades would expand, simply because there would be little incentive for people to gain promotion, with all the extra aggro and responsibility that entails. In which case, average salaries will go up (and the actual salary on which the pension is based will go up).

Also, the entitlements would accrue faster as they do under the Nuvos career average scheme which was introduced for new joiners after 2007. This would be necessary to ensure that lower paid workers still pay into pensions, and do not end up relying on means-tested benefits during retirement.

Hutton also recommends improved indexation.

The main downside for the public sector would be working longer. This would result in the only real saving (which would be partly offset by having higher accruals over the extra years at work).

abaxas

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Bit puzzled by this comment; no-one is saying that my existing entitlements are going to be removed. That would be akin to the minimum wage being lowered, and the difference retrospectively being removed from my pay packet by the employer; that would be obviously illegal.

Incorrect you 'entitlements' only exist due to laws allowed the breaking of others.

As I keep saying laws can and will be changed. You cannot have an 'entitlement' to something illegal.

I dont see much fox hunting going on now.

bobthedambuilder

Generali wrote: »

The thing is, the pension that a public or private sector employee gets is a part of their pay. You pay a public sector employee (hopefully) for providing a service or good that either can't be provided privately or can be better provided publicly.

What rubbish! How can a pension sometime in the future be part of your pay? Did you pay tax on it? What happens if you leave? What happens if you die? It's not yours until you take it.

Change is coming, the country can't afford otherwise.

ruggedtoast

ILW wrote: »

If most of the public sector went on strike, hardly anyone would even notice. Most of the important stuff has been hived of to private companies and more is going that way.

Oh really, do explain to me what that 'important stuff' is?

abaxas

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Oh really, do explain to me what that 'important stuff' is?

OH works for the DWP.

All the union members are not doing any work and have decided to automatically put in a grievances against other members of staff.

Almost none will be upheld, but no work is actually being done.

You are right, no-one has really noticed, have they.

Sir_Humphrey

abaxas wrote: »

Incorrect you 'entitlements' only exist due to laws allowed the breaking of others.

As I keep saying laws can and will be changed. You cannot have an 'entitlement' to something illegal.

I dont see much fox hunting going on now.

I am struggling to follow this? Are you advocating making it illegal for me to enforce my property rights under a contract?

What contractual rights did fox hunters with the government have in relation to carrying out their activities?

Do you seriously think for one minute that the Tories will make it legal for the state to ignore contractual obligations? That would make it legal for the state to sequester any asset they saw fit without compensation! They could privatise an asset and then immediately reclaim it! Think about the wider consequences!

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Oh really, do explain to me what that 'important stuff' is?

Care homes, Transport etc etc.