We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Public Sector Pensions - Are they really so bad?
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Why is it funny?
It made my point. As soon as I say "banks" you want to make a point that some people are not paid like those at the top are.
Yet it's ok to have a go at the entire public sector and everyone within it.
You stated the vast majority of the public sector do not get bonuses etc. We pointed out that was the same for the private sector.
It was you who threw blanket over the private sector as far as I can see no one has said everyone in the public sector or "had a go" at them?0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »What's amazing to me, is that the public sector is so easy to work in, so easy to get better pay in, and so easy to get greater benefits.
Yet the people saying it, choose to work in the private sector.
Bizzare.
I am not aware the public sector could employ the whole of the UK.
There is no doubt people have moved from either. But you find a lot of the public sector stay with the same employer for years.
That is not replicated in the private sector, which would hint that their is a certain amount of reward / satisfaction in the public sector.0 -
Not sure how you work out someone who costs the tax payer more to employ and costs more to support their pension will work out costing tax payers the same as someone on a lower wage with no pension other than the state one.
AFAIK they will both receive a state pension.
yes but the one on the lower rate of pay will not be able to provide for themselves to the same degree.
If we keep the current expectations then they will simply be topped up by other state means tested allowances of one sort or another. e.g. prescription charges, housing benefits, social care costs later on. In addition they will not pay tax on the pension and will have less disposable income to pay VAT/Duty on to supplement the tax take then.
Now if we are happy or in fact we don't have any choice, but to have zero expectation, then let us be open and upfront about it now. We could also bring in some form of culling when we ceased to be of any use;).
I think expectation management would be a lot easier to stomach if we sorted out other Government "discretionary" spend now IMO."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »yes but the one on the lower rate of pay will not be able to provide for themselves to the same degree.
If we keep the current expectations then they will simply be topped up by other state means tested allowances of one sort or another.
Pensions are being reformed to remove top ups are they not?
You can't blanket the cost are the same without figures to prove that.
I can't see anyone on more money 100% funded by the tax payer through their career costs the same as a private employer. (Bin person example)
The wages alone side of that tells me you have got that very wrong.0 -
You stated the vast majority of the public sector do not get bonuses etc. We pointed out that was the same for the private sector.
It was you who threw blanket over the private sector as far as I can see no one has said everyone in the public sector or "had a go" at them?
You are no longer here to discuss. You are hear to pick me up on small pieces of what I say, and ignore the context. Grizzly earlier had to point out the context again. Yet you are still ignoring the context to pick up on tiny issues, because of the poster who said them.
If you seriously think that because I say the public sector do not get X Y and Z, I am assuming, and therefore saying that every individual within the private sector DOES get those perks, then I'm sorry, but I cannot explain everything and lay out the context for you within every post. Considering theres only up to 5 of you who will pick up on these things and argue them to the enth degree, it's not really worth the time to type out a disclaimer in every post I write.
Therefore, were through on this thread
As I say, if the public sector is so darn good, join it.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I've never said the public sector is impoverished. You've just claimed I have said that.
No I didn't !
I said that "We are always told" (usually by the public sector TUs, CS employees etc) that public sector workers are very low paid.0 -
Here's the context Graham:There are a lot of things in the private sector which the majority of public sector employees forego.
No company cars (apart from the select few), no perks, no credit cards racking up points for airmiles which you can spend and claim back, no travel costs (I was surprised the other day when one of my colleagues in the private sector announced he actually gets his costs of travelling to work and back home reimbursed!!). No parking charges for working reimbursed. No bonuses, ever.
What part of the context is being ignored? Those are pretty sweeping statements.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »You are no longer here to discuss. You are hear to pick me up on small pieces of what I say, and ignore the context. Grizzly earlier had to point out the context again. Yet you are still ignoring the context to pick up on tiny issues, because of the poster who said them.
Therefore, were through on this thread
Look I am not, I am just not prepared to accept discussing this is having a go and making out the private sector is some bonus living joy ride for all.
The truth is it is only the lucky few in all sectors who get these, but if we want to be fair we look at those who do not.
That is exactly what I have been doing.0 -
Pensions are being reformed to remove top ups are they not?
Do you really expect them to match what is really needed.
Not sure what your personal position is, and I don't really need to but £10/20 per week isn't going to add up to much and It is now going to keep pace with wages which are in decline. The basket of pensioner inflation is going up disproportionately fast and key items have rarely ever entered deflation.
As we are switching away from income related taxes, which a basic pensioner doesn't pay (progressive), to purchase related taxes (regressive) perhaps we now need to consider redefining how that should be collected too.
Unintended consequences spring to mind. We are thrashing around trying to soften the bump without getting any more air in the Tyre."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Do you really expect them to match what is really needed.
Not sure what your personal position is, and I don't really need to but £10/20 per week isn't going to add up to much and It is now going to keep pace with wages which are in decline. The basket of pensioner inflation is going up disproportionately fast and key items have rarely ever entered deflation.
As we are switching away from income related taxes, which a basic pensioner doesn't pay (progressive), to purchase related taxes (regressive) perhaps we now need to consider redefining how that should be collected too.
Unintended consequences spring to mind. We are thrashing around trying to soften the bump without getting any more air in the Tyre.
OK Bin man in public sector say £20K PA
Lets say for example in the private sector it is the same £20K
The public sector one works for 40 year and the pension is worth an additional 15%
£20K+15% = £23K X 40 = £920K 100% funded by tax payer.
So for it to work out the same cost to the tax payer the benefits after retirement (most probably 5 years later for the private employee) will have to equal nearly £1M more in today's terms to have the same tax payer cost.
Even if you use just the £3K (pension contribution) that is £120K,
That would equal an extra £6K per year state top up or £500pm or £125 per week. (popping clogs @ 85)
It does not add up as the same, sorry.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards