Public sector wellcome to the real world

Old_Slaphead

Koicarp wrote: »

But I keep reading Hutton on my desktop, which points out that the NHS pension is in surplus, and getting cheaper, so how can it be about affordability?

The NHS pension is not "in surplus". It's current income is higher than expenditure due to the unusually high ratio of employees to pensioners. When the current staff retire and that ratio reduces the cost of the NHs will be massive.

Current cashflow is around +£1.5bn (incidentally around 2/3rds of which is paid by the taxpayer) whereas accumulated liabilities totals, if memory serves, around £80bn

NAR

Well what about the teachers pension fund. Why is the government still refusing to publish the figures?
My theory is that the government are trying to be even-handed to all public servants despite the fact that they know the teachers fund is in a lot better shape than the rest of the public service.

Andy_L

NAR wrote: »

Well what about the teachers pension fund. Why is the government still refusing to publish the figures?

There is no fund. Except for the LGPS (and a few other niche schemes) all the public sector schemes are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis like the rest of government expenditure

Koicarp

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

The NHS pension is not "in surplus". It's current income is higher than expenditure due to the unusually high ratio of employees to pensioners. When the current staff retire and that ratio reduces the cost of the NHs will be massive.

Current cashflow is around +£1.5bn (incidentally around 2/3rds of which is paid by the taxpayer) whereas accumulated liabilities totals, if memory serves, around £80bn

I'd agree that there are more members than previously, but there is no normal level therefore there cannot be an "unusually high" number, because the NHS has been growing since the day it began. We are currently in the midst of another baby boom and our population is getting older, meaning that the NHS will be required to see more patients in the future, which will require more nurses and doctors etc. The governments own figures show the surplus (current cashflow to be closer to +2bn).
The NHS treats more patients, more successfully than it ever has before, because it is larger than it was before. Until recently I could have said more quickly too, but as staffing numbers are falling again the now largely unpublished waiting lists are increasing.
I said quite a few pages back that I was happy to pay more for the same benefit, particularly if my increased payment reduced that of my employer and could then be released for patient care.
Once employee contributions have increased (current plans are for around 3% next year AND the year after), it will be essential that membership levels are kept high as every member who drops out will cost the taxpayer more money than if they stayed in.

Old_Slaphead

Koicarp wrote: »

there is no normal level therefore there cannot be an "unusually high" number,

I didn't mention numbers - I said the ratio was unusually high.

I'm not disputing anything you say - merely suggesting that the NHS being "in surplus" only relates to short term cashflow (caused by the proportion of staff vs pensioners) and takes no account of the massively accruing liabilities.

That's why, in the medium to long term, it IS about affordability.

Koicarp

So what are the "massively accruing liabilities"? Hutton thinks the liability to the taxpayer will fall without any change due to the move from RPI to CPI.

Old_Slaphead

Koicarp wrote: »

So what are the "massively accruing liabilities"? Hutton thinks the liability to the taxpayer will fall without any change due to the move from RPI to CPI.

Fall relative to what ?

Koicarp

GDP.
Can you answer my question?

inittogether

Public servant speaking. 22 years into my service. 42 years old. £19,500.
Someone asked why we in the public service are scared of privatisation. I am. But so should everybody be. Private companies are quite rightly only in business to make a profit. Apply that to the public services you already pay for and watch it all come crashing down.

A private company running a library would charge for every book you take out. It would fine you for every day that book is overdue, possibly every hour. It would hire a private debt collecting firm to chase you for that fine, adding hundreds of pounds to the original pennies you owed. All from a service that you already pay for in your taxes. That's just a library. Apply the same principles to the NHS, and any other essential service and I hope you see the dangers.

The contract I signed 22 years ago says Civil service pay is set at levels to take account of the benefits (pension scheme, redundancy pay etc). So our pay was held back because of those benefits. If pay in the private sector is lower (that's not what I see anyway, but let's suppose it is) it is not because the public service has increased our wages. We have had below inflation increases or no increases at all - this is a cut every year. If they have lowered the terms and conditions outside, driven down wages costs, forced everyone to be cutthroat, and to be grateful for whatever crumbs are thrown at them, that is a disgrace. But the private sector should fight against that, regain their dignity in the workplace. When someone pays you wages, they do not buy your soul. It is an exchange - your time and effort for some money.

The public sector is the oil that keep the machinery of the UK running smoothly. If these long-serving trained professionals were not here you would notice in no time at all. The country would grind to a halt. Your kids wouldn't learn anything, you would pay the wrong tax, you couldn't claim benefits, the borders would be open to all, no museums, no courts, no driving examiners...etc, etc.
Much is made of the fact that the private sector have little or no redundancy schemes or pensions. If they joined a union then maybe they could work together to better their lot. I would support them. Don't fall for the age old divide and conquer tactic of governments. They are just distracting you from their own actions.

Old_Slaphead

Koicarp wrote: »

GDP.
Can you answer my question?

Massively accruing liabilities = cost of paying for pensions current employees.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12819538

Fall relative to GDP - who says?

GDP forecast for next 12 months has already been reduced (after just 4 months) from 1.8% to 1.4% and we are told growth will be below expectations for next decade - what gives you any faith in GDP estimates for next 50 years.

Hutton expects cost to be reduced to year 2000 level but only after 50 years so, relative to GDP, cost is going to be higher than average for next half century.