Time to start a thread on public sector pensions

tomterm8

The public sector pension contracts were made within the statute law of the time. Changing the law to default would still be a default. No one who has an ounce of sense would claim these contracts were illegal.

Mathew

Those who signed up to a public service pension for a set time, Police for example would expect to receive lump sums and pension (30 years pre 2006) by as early as 48 I guess?. What will happen to those with less 26 years?
I can see arguements, 'I signed up to and sacirificed further education, higher wages etc etc for the pension and retiring early', 'I need my lump sum to pay of mortgage'. Wonder how they will get on!!

abaxas

tomterm8 wrote: »

The public sector pension contracts were made within the statute law of the time. Changing the law to default would still be a default. No one who has an ounce of sense would claim these contracts were illegal.

So what you are saying is that women can retire at 60, men at 65. We can beat kids in school, buy slaves from the local market and dunk people in water if we think they are a witch.

In terms of your default argument, the government has just defaulted on the old age pension. Remember people who paid increased stamp? Do I hear a cry from people complaining they have been defaulted on? The concept of contract applies only within the law at the time of use.

Unfunded pensions by definition are fraud (no-one can argue against it) but current legislation allows it. Why do you think those laws exist? Obviously by your argument we dont need them.

This is and always will be my point. If something is illegal but is allowed by a quirk of the law, if that law is removed it becomes illegal.

tomterm8

abaxas wrote: »

So what you are saying is that women can retire at 60, men at 65. We can beat kids in school, buy slaves from the local market and dunk people in water if we think they are a witch.

In terms of your default argument, the government has just defaulted on the old age pension. Remember people who paid increased stamp? Do I hear a cry from people complaining they have been defaulted on? The concept of contract applies only within the law at the time of use.

Unfunded pensions by definition are fraud (no-one can argue against it) but current legislation allows it. Why do you think those laws exist? Obviously by your argument we dont need them.

This is and always will be my point. If something is illegal but is allowed by a quirk of the law, if that law is removed it becomes illegal.

So, you would be happy if the government decided to stop repaying bonds?

There is no such thing as something that is illegal that is "illegal but is allowed by a quirk of the law" things are illegal or they are legal.

Fraud is defined by the law: these pensions are legal. They are an obligation the state took on. Changing the law to refuse to pay accrued benefits is default.

It is black and white: there is no grey area.

Of course, parliament can change the law on future benefits... no one is disputing that. It isn't default. People have the right to take their labour elsewhere, just like if an employer changes their pension scheme they can leave and get a new job. If an employer attempted to take away accrued rights, the pension scheme would sue them to heck and back.

The pension rights already accrued are the employees property. Taking it by unilaterally changing the law is a default.

State pension benefits are a different matter, they are not contractual in nature. State pension rights accrue when you reach the state pension age. Parliament did not default, in any meaningful use of the word.

abaxas

tomterm8 wrote: »

So, you would be happy if the government decided to stop repaying bonds?

There is no such thing as something that is illegal that is "illegal but is allowed by a quirk of the law" things are illegal or they are legal.

Fraud is defined by the law: these pensions are legal. They are an obligation the state took on. Changing the law to refuse to pay accrued benefits is default.

It is black and white: there is no grey area.

Of course, parliament can change the law on future benefits... no one is disputing that. It isn't default. People have the right to take their labour elsewhere, just like if an employer changes their pension scheme they can leave and get a new job. If an employer attempted to take away accrued rights, the pension scheme would sue them to heck and back.

The pension rights already accrued are the employees property. Taking it by unilaterally changing the law is a default.

State pension benefits are a different matter, they are not contractual in nature. State pension rights accrue when you reach the state pension age. Parliament did not default, in any meaningful use of the word.

There is no black or white in the law, only shades of grey. As it is an evolving beast with different interpretation and changes daily due to case law(interpretation and precedent).

Do so research on unfunded pensions or ask someone in the pensions industry. Pensions live in a world that is allowed to exist not in a world where it exists by default.

I wonder if the law has ever been 'tested'. Or when it will be.

Graham_Devon

Not sure about all this pension stuff....I'm just amused that all the people who are saying "working longer is the answer" or such like, have made sure the system they set up will allow them to retire before the changes take place!

Graham_Devon

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.

Really?

I should think crime would rocket instantly, anarchy would set in, and people would be left to die in hospital beds and in their own homes.

We'd notice. And we'd notice within hours.

Coeus

God I love the Conservatives. No one else quite takes a sythe to the public sector like they do. No other party has the balls to do it either...

Wookster

And predictably our unions don't see any problems with the status quo.

ILW

Wookster wrote: »

And predictably our unions don't see any problems with the status quo.

Why is it that virtually every time you hear a public sector union spokesman bleating about how hard done by their members are, they always have to say "it's the bankers fault"?