Incensed again

sheffield_lad

Koicarp wrote: »

Can you reference all that?

Are you seriously suggesting that with the changes the tax payer WON'T be paying billions in??????

Have you been drinking lol

Koicarp

howee wrote: »

OMG I had respect for your views (even though they aer wrong), up until your last post.

Are you seriously suggesting that with the changes the tax payer WON'T be paying billions in??????

Have you been drinking lol

dshart is talking about additional treasury funding after the coming changes and not including the employer contribution. A quick read of Hutton would suggest his sums are dodgy (I think).
My thinking is that Hutton, says treasury paid in 3.1Bn in 2009/10 across the 4 biggest schemes. The employee payments were well over (I think) 4.6Bn and payments in will increase by 50% in april 2012. The RCN also says that government have informed them they plan another increase of the same size in april 2013. So I see no reason why the treasury would be putting in their 3.1Bn (though I'm no economist).
When it comes to respect, your's will not pay my heating bill when I'm old, so in all honesty I don't give a flying one whether I have it or not.

dshart

Koicarp wrote: »

dshart is talking about additional treasury funding after the coming changes and not including the employer contribution. A quick read of Hutton would suggest his sums are dodgy (I think).
My thinking is that Hutton, says treasury paid in 3.1Bn in 2009/10 across the 4 biggest schemes. The employee payments were well over (I think) 4.6Bn and payments in will increase by 50% in april 2012. The RCN also says that government have informed them they plan another increase of the same size in april 2013. So I see no reason why the treasury would be putting in their 3.1Bn (though I'm no economist).
When it comes to respect, your's will not pay my heating bill when I'm old, so in all honesty I don't give a flying one whether I have it or not.

This is what I read from the document linked below

http://issuu.com/hmtreasury/docs/pen...olor=%23222222

When you look at the projections going forward it still shows unfunded public service pensions expenditure.

Koicarp

Link doesn't work for me.

dshart

Koicarp wrote: »

Link doesn't work for me.

its the same link as posted in post #180 by BobQ.

Moby

dshart wrote: »

Your first point is no longer correct as majority of company final salary schemes have been closed. Now the employers and employee contributions are paid into a private pension fund with no further call of the company for funding.

No they haven't...simply not true. In any event the point still stands...the employers claw back the costs of their contributions from the public.

Regarding the second point you make, if the pension schemes are fully self funded by only employer and employee contributions with no further call on government funds then I have no problem with them. But majority of public sector schemes require additional funding from government

The LGPS is by some way the biggest!

I agree that there is a need for a public sector workforce and that they should have fair pay and conditions for the work they do, but this should not come at just any cost. The services they provide must be affordable which is currently not the case.

Who says any cost? There have already been changes to many schemes!. As far as being affordable ...who says that...ah yes the Government. You'll be telling me next you believe our esteemed Home Secretary.....god job the now villified and resigned head of the Borders Agency is a union member!;)

With regards to campaigning for fair pensions for private sector workers, people do campaign and they use unions too to put pressure on companies to improve pay and conditions, we also campaign by voting for whichever party we feel will listen to our plight and change things for the better. But you never hear of majority of these campaigns because we cannot call the mass strikes that affect everyone, we cannot hold the country to ransom. How many times do you ever read in the papers about workers in a company with say 500 workers going on strike over pay and conditions? You may hear about companies like BA or railtrack or BAA strikes but that is only because it affects the general public.

It doesn't have to be strikes. Campaigns take many forms.

I agree tax avoidance is an issue that needs to be tackled too especially the tax avoidance by big multi-national companies, it is just one of a host of things that need to be done to address the national debt. But there is no point ignoring the fact that majority of public sector pensions are unaffordable just because some other private company doesn't pay their correct taxes.

Already answered.

bilbo51

Moby wrote: »

I'm afraid and you have fallen for the typical Tory worship of 'wealth creation' and 'entrepreneurs'.

No I haven't 'fallen' for anything. Tell me how this country pays its way.

MoreOn

bilbo51 wrote: »

No I haven't 'fallen' for anything. Tell me how this country pays its way.

power, resources and effective processes... discuss...

To add, private pensions are paid for by public sector workers... discuss.. (circuit of capital)

private sector works would have redress if the terms of their pension were changed without consent, why don't/can't public sector works seek the same redress discuss..

Power, manipulation, mob mentality and abuse of the weak....

dshart

Moby wrote: »

No they haven't...simply not true. In any event the point still stands...the employers claw back the costs of their contributions from the public.



The LGPS is by some way the biggest!



Who says any cost? There have already been changes to many schemes!. As far as being affordable ...who says that...ah yes the Government. You'll be telling me next you believe our esteemed Home Secretary.....god job the now villified and resigned head of the Borders Agency is a union member!;)



It doesn't have to be strikes. Campaigns take many forms.


Already answered.

The employers contributions in the private sector come from company profits and in the public sector they come from taxes. Yes I agree that anyone using a private company's services contributes towards the profits and hence as you say towards the pension contributions. But the difference is that there is a deficit in the public sector pensions and this is made up by additional call on tax money. If there is a deficit in a private sector pension (not one of the few final salary ones left) there is no call on additional funds from the company.

I am not aware of the funding status of the LGPS, but as I stated, if it is fully funded by employers and employee contributions without additional calls on funds then I would agree it should not be changed.

Changes have been made to many schemes but yet they are still unaffordable. As to who says. well the Hutton report was an independent report into pensions, so do you disbelieve this because it does not fit in with your thoughts?

Campaigns can take many forms, so why are the unions calling for strikes? They are doing it because they know it will cause mass disruption to peoples daily lives and put pressure on the government. The threat of the strikes has already made the government water down the proposals.

hugheskevi

But the difference is that there is a deficit in the public sector pensions and this is made up by additional call on tax money.

I don't think it is sensible to talk of a deficit in anything other than the (funded) LGPS and MPs pension schemes.

All the unfunded schemes have statutory obligations to pay pensioner members, which is independent of any member contributions from today's members.

Today's members have nothing to do with historic accruals, so hypothecating their contributions makes no sense. To emphasise this point, if there hadn't been large cuts to the number of public sector workers, pension contribution receipts would be much larger, and hence there wouldn't be a 'deficit' or it would be smaller than it is. But that in no way means that existing levels of pension accruals are or are not justified.

I am not aware of the funding status of the LGPS.

Page 10 of this report suggests funding level of about 75%.

Changes have been made to many schemes but yet they are still unaffordable. As to who says. well the Hutton report was an independent report into pensions, so do you disbelieve this because it does not fit in with your thoughts?

The country would not go bankrupt if it left public service pensions unreformed. Literally, they are therefore affordable. But that does not mean they are justified.

The Hutton Report showed expenditure on public service pensions declining as a share of GDP. That does not mean the current level of pension payments is justified (eg, the current level is higher than would have been forecast 5 years ago due to recession).

So reform is not based on them being unaffordable, aside from in a glib, sensationalist use of the term which doesn't actually mean anything, but about the extent to which the current level of generosity is appropriate.