Public sector wellcome to the real world

Le_Chuck

roysterer wrote: »

It seems pretty clear to me that there is a complete split between Public Sector and Private Sector workers in this country regarding their pension provision.
What options are available to this current and future governments with regards to funding the Public Sector Pensions in their current format??????
Option 1, Increase taxation and community charges.
Option 2, Increase taxation and community charges and VAT.
Option 3, Increase taxation and community charges and VAT, and dream up some more taxation like the recent increased tax on north sea oil producers (even though this will probably result in Jobs being cut in the oil industry and Producers like BP moving from the north sea).
Option 4, Just carry on borrowing recklessly and let our grandchildren pick up the tab.
Option 5, The Bankers can fund it with their bonuses?? (will it be enough??) I don't think so some how??

So on Thursday when your on strike perhaps you might like to think about how your Pension is going to be funded??????

THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE NOT PREPARED FOR OPTIONS 1, 2, 3, & 4 TO BE APPLIED. AS FOR OPTION 5, THEN WE WILL GO 50-50 BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR AND HAVE HALF EACH = EVERYONES HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Title of this thread was wellcome to the real world so forget option 5.

Option 6. Use the LGPS as a model for other pension schemes & invest contributions in the stock market & property.

And why doesn't the government admit that the proposals are driven by political ideology. How come the armed forces pension(a non contributary scheme) is affordable & everyones elses isn't (even the ones in surplus(LGPS))

dori2o

ILW wrote: »

Think you are missing the point.

As a taxpayer, I do not see why I should be paying for someone elses very generous pension that I do not have access to myself. If you want a high pension you should be funding it out of your own pocket.

Are you, or any of you, aware of how much the 'gold plated super duper' pensions cost the govenment/taxpayer.

Care to hazard a guess?

Based on some of the idiotic posts on here you'd think it was 10%, 30%, 65%.

No. The actual cost is 1.9% of GDP, and this amount is coming down year on year without changing the goalposts.

Exactly how much of YOUR money was given to the banks, and yet you all seem happy to have let that go with no recourse.

Unfortunately the whole country has been suckered in by Comedy Dave and his propaganda machine run by the Daily Fail and the Torygraph. Even his own party don't know what the actual situation is as has been proven over the past couple of weeks.

Thicko2

roysterer wrote: »

It seems pretty clear to me that there is a complete split between Public Sector and Private Sector workers in this country regarding their pension provision.
What options are available to this current and future governments with regards to funding the Public Sector Pensions in their current format??????
Option 1, Increase taxation and community charges.
Option 2, Increase taxation and community charges and VAT.
Option 3, Increase taxation and community charges and VAT, and dream up some more taxation like the recent increased tax on north sea oil producers (even though this will probably result in Jobs being cut in the oil industry and Producers like BP moving from the north sea).
Option 4, Just carry on borrowing recklessly and let our grandchildren pick up the tab.
Option 5, The Bankers can fund it with their bonuses?? (will it be enough??) I don't think so some how??

So on Thursday when your on strike perhaps you might like to think about how your Pension is going to be funded??????

THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE NOT PREPARED FOR OPTIONS 1, 2, 3, & 4 TO BE APPLIED. AS FOR OPTION 5, THEN WE WILL GO 50-50 BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR AND HAVE HALF EACH = EVERYONES HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Title of this thread was wellcome to the real world so forget option 5.

Roysterer - Please read the evidence the hutton report or the NAO report. THis is not a cost issue based on current expenditure levels.

The costs are going down due to changes already imposed in 2006/7/8.

From 1.9% of GDP to 1.4%. The bigger question is should we have such disparity in pension provision between public and private.

Le_Chuck

Alter_ego wrote: »

How would you define it then? T&C? Contract?

Neither, its just that the pension increases with inflation. What the government of the day uses to define inflation is upto them. They could have just easily changed what was included in RPI resulting in it being slightly less than it is now.

Thicko2

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100009757/theres-nothing-unaffordable-about-public-sector-pensions/

Even the telegraph grasps it with some of their writers.

Old_Slaphead

Thicko2 wrote: »

From 1.9% of GDP to 1.4%. The bigger question is should we have such disparity in pension provision between public and private.

Or put another way - with the lower CPI indexing it will still take another 50 years to get it back down to year 2000 level

Alter_ego

Le_Chuck wrote: »

What the government of the day uses to define inflation is upto them.

True, but only when it suits.
eg Index linked savings certs, the new ones introduced a few weeks ago, RPI is the measure of inflation.
I could understand if RPI was abolished in favour of CPI.

roysterer

Le_Chuck wrote: »

You do have access, by joining the public sector ;-)

I think you are missing the point aswell, the pension is part of the total renumeration package. If the generous pension wasn't there salaries would be higher, so you still paying out of your taxes. Its no different to someone who works in a shop, gets 10-15% discounts, share of the profits, all paid for by me the customer.

When People in the Private Sector joined there Companies the Pension Scheme was also looked upon as part of the renumeration package. So whats the difference????
The Private Sector Final Salary Pension Schemes became unsustainable so changes had to be made that none of us liked but we had to accept these changes.
The Public Sector Final Salary Scheme is unsustainable so changes have to be made, Please tell me what is the difference??????
Stop pretending that there is not a problem with Public Sector Pensions in there current format, get real.

Thicko2

I think old slapahead those figures were generated before RPI to Calculation was included but i will check.

The bigger driver is/are the changes introduduced in 2006/07/08, which varied scheme by scheme, but from a NHS perspective, increased tiered employee contributions for all (2.5% extra for me i recall), new starters having a retirement age of 65, reduced ill health, redundency terms etc. other schemes saw smiliar proposals put in place.

bilbo51

Le_Chuck wrote: »

If the generous pension wasn't there salaries would be higher.

No they wouldn't. From what I've seen on here, and from what I hear from my wife (LGPS member) most LGPS members haven't got a clue about their pension. And despite all the recent news they still haven't. Except that "it's all so unfair." :rotfl: