Public sector wellcome to the real world

cvd

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

This is definitely false.

If you do believe that, then you must accept that the government can fiddle all official statistics

Le_Chuck

roysterer wrote: »

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.

The one scheme that has no employee contributions isn't even being looked at.

My scheme is in surplus. Employer conts were reduced this year

And as some one else has already posted - from the Torygraph
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100009757/theres-nothing-unaffordable-about-public-sector-pensions/

bilbo51

cvd wrote: »

...you must accept that the government can fiddle all official statistics

And your point is?

Le_Chuck

cvd wrote: »

This is definitely false.

If you do believe that, then you must accept that the government can fiddle all official statistics

Actually I would believe that. I would never believe a politian on anything

Le_Chuck

bilbo51 wrote: »

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:

Was more thinking about Teachers/Nurses/Police etc

Alter_ego

Le_Chuck wrote: »

The one scheme that has no employee contributions isn't even being looked at.[/URL]

If you're referring to the armed forces scheme. It has been established that armed forces pay is ameliarated (reduced) to provide a pension. The MOD has admitted this.

bilbo51

Le_Chuck wrote: »

Was more thinking about Teachers/Nurses/Police etc

See post #151 re Nurses. She hasn't got a scooby as to whether she had a good deal or a bad deal or what. She just did her job for the rate on offer.

Le_Chuck

bilbo51 wrote: »

See post #151 re Nurses. She hasn't got a scooby as to whether she had a good deal or a bad deal or what. She just did her job for the rate on offer.

There's always a few exceptions

bilbo51

Le_Chuck wrote: »

There's always a few exceptions

Not a politician are you by any chance?

roysterer

Thicko2 wrote: »

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.

Please excuse my cynical stance on Politicians.
Lord HUTTON was a member of the previous government who helped get us into this mess in the first place.
Is he any different to the rest of the Charlatans in Whitehall????
Did he overnight become a wise old owl on entering the House of Lords whilst compiling his report for Mr Osbourne??????
Is HUTTONS report worth the paper its written on?????
From my limited experience and observations on Politicians it would appear that they get more wrong than right???
For gods sake this recent shower of sh__ could not forcaste inflation over 6 months let alone a break even point in 50 yrs time due to changes made a few years ago.