New pension proposals

atush

NAR wrote: »

Well in that case I look forward to the squealing of private sector workers the next time the Government IMPOSE another tax/limit/contribution increase on you lot.

So awful that you look forwards to the suffering of others- it says a whole lot about you and none of it good. We dont, those of us out there that actually feel sorry for the public sector workers now being forced into the cold light of dawn in the 21st century.

atush

Jessikita1983 wrote: »

Instead of going after the public sector workers as individuals, for the government choosing to give us perceived "gold plated pensions", even though we contribute to, why not go after the millions who chose not to contribute and scrounge off the state long term. Who you will be subsiding well into their old age after keeping them their whole lives!

Sounds like sour grapes to me, get a job in the blic sector and take advantage of it if you feel so strongly.

Not sour grapes so much as the sound of reality biting. yes those scroungers are a problem, but their ranks will soon be swelling with all the public sector workers talked out of their 'gold (now silver) plated pensions by their unions. Are you among them jessika, or will you contine to contribute?

jem16

Moby wrote: »

Yes but they should have tapered the cut off point more gradually!

I had read that as well as the 10 years no change proposal, they had also suggested tapering the next 3/4 years.

J_i_m

RichandJ wrote: »

Your employers, as it seems to have slipped your mind, are taxpayers.

Lame argument, yet sadly a popular one.

Look... taxes pay for public services. Public services are to the benefit of us all be if for our safety (Armed forces, Police, Fire-fighters etc) Health (NHS) Education & welfare.

These are for us all. They cost money to provide, the people who provide them need paying.

Anybody who earns over the threshold pays income tax, this includes public sector workers, it is not an "accountant's trick".

Public sector workers pay all the same taxes and bills as anyone in the private sector, they also feed money back into the private sector via being consumers and buying the produce and services that the private sectors sell which funnily enough pays the wages of those who work in the prate sectors.

in conclusion the "I'm a tax payer and I pay your wages" argument is as short sighted as it is lame, and also very boring indeed.

RichandJ

J_i_m wrote: »

Lame argument, yet sadly a popular one.

Look... taxes pay for public services. Public services are to the benefit of us all be if for our safety (Armed forces, Police, Fire-fighters etc) Health (NHS) Education & welfare.

These are for us all. They cost money to provide, the people who provide them need paying.

Anybody who earns over the threshold pays income tax, this includes public sector workers, it is not an "accountant's trick".

Public sector workers pay all the same taxes and bills as anyone in the private sector, they also feed money back into the private sector via being consumers and buying the produce and services that the private sectors sell which funnily enough pays the wages of those who work in the prate sectors.

in conclusion the "I'm a tax payer and I pay your wages" argument is as short sighted as it is lame, and also very boring indeed.

You will note I did not say we don't need a public sector. Some do provide a worthwhile service, it would be hard for individuals to provide an army for example.

Again, I do not deny that those who work providing these services have to be paid for their labour and some of this will undoubtedly find its way back into the productive part of the economy. If you cannot see, however, that they do not actually pay in tax then you have indeed been taken in by the accounting trick.

J_i_m

The fact that you've blantetly ignored the point is just so telling, yet if you want to comfort yourself with lies that's up to you since you're clearly incapable of buiilding an argument based upon fact.

RichandJ

What point ?

dshart

J_i_m wrote: »

Lame argument, yet sadly a popular one.

Look... taxes pay for public services. Public services are to the benefit of us all be if for our safety (Armed forces, Police, Fire-fighters etc) Health (NHS) Education & welfare.

These are for us all. They cost money to provide, the people who provide them need paying.

Anybody who earns over the threshold pays income tax, this includes public sector workers, it is not an "accountant's trick".

Public sector workers pay all the same taxes and bills as anyone in the private sector, they also feed money back into the private sector via being consumers and buying the produce and services that the private sectors sell which funnily enough pays the wages of those who work in the prate sectors.

in conclusion the "I'm a tax payer and I pay your wages" argument is as short sighted as it is lame, and also very boring indeed.

Jim, it is not whether you are employed by the taxpayer or not the point is your contributions and your employers contributions are insufficient to pay out the pensions for public sector workers, so the shortfall is made up from government coffers (which is tax payers money) and I do understand that public sector workers also pay tax. But the percentage of tax paid in by private sector workers that goes to fund the public sector workers pension deficit is unfair and that is what leads people to say that private sector workers are paying your pension.

There is no issue with taxes being used for public service wages although in some sectors cuts should be made and the service made more streamlined and less wasteful. The issue is the pensions, if a private pension scheme did not have enough to pay the pensions then the pensions would drop or the scheme would fold and pensioners would get nothing, they cannot dip into government coffers even though they are tax payers too.

BobQ

Whatever you think of the most recent proposals from the Government, the timing seems inept.

Arguably the offer to maintain existing terms for those within 10 years of retirement has the potential to persuade those affected to vote against a strike. But its effect is diluted by publishing it after lots of people have already voted (the UNISON ballot had virtually closed and certainly most votes would have been posted).

atush

RichandJ wrote: »

Your employers, as it seems to have slipped your mind, are taxpayers.

And the reply by Jim:

Lame argument, yet sadly a popular one.

But Jim misses the point. yes Jim, you contribute to the taxes that pay for the PS including your own salary and pension. But you (and the govt) do not today pay in enough to pay for what needs to be paid in RIGHT NOW to pay for your pension when you need to take it.

what you need to realise is that to pay for today/your future is what we can no longer completely provide for you. Esp as you are now paid a fair wage for your job and not an inferior wage as in days gone by. We will still all pay your salary and increases, but we need you to work longer like we have to for you pension, and to pay in a bit more but not as much as we would have to, to get that same pension.

This isn't rocket science folks, more like GCSE or even lower maths really. No quantum physics involved, I assure you.