Incensed again

cyclonebri1

real1314 wrote: »

If cyclonbri committed all his ranting time over the past few years into getting a job in the promised land of the public sector, would he be happier? Discuss:


(nb, I know this is a discussion point rather than info/questions, but hell's teeth, it's no different to all of the OPs threads on Public Sector pensions ; ps. Using "PS" to mean "Public Sector" is a bit silly; Private Sector would be........?)

:cool:

But not quite as silly as your Discuss repeats??

Have you been stalking me over the last "few years""??, In actual fact I've hosted two threads in this vein, the 2nd as a continuation of a changing 1st topic, and both within the last month or so.

Please feel free to comment, but at least make it usefull or accurate, the above is niether.:p

PS;

Oh, that bit cracked me up, :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

MoreOn

bilbo51 wrote: »

In response to my post "Tell me how this country pays its way", MoreOn said:
Would you care to put that random selection of words into a sentence that, well, makes sense?

No... You're lack of understanding of broad facts is noted..

MoreOn

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

Is this the unions strike action your talking about?

Erm no.. The actions of the government, their's are higher order decisions that have whipped up "the mob" into nothing more that tribalistic behaviour.

Why did the government chose £37K or even a teacher? Why not a policeman or nurse or firemen? The cynical side of me will say perhaps it's because the other's can be hidden in the argument, any discussion about lives can be avoided.. Instead it's an argument about future generations. Which is a spurious arguement when private and public pensions depend on the cycle of capital of which each is a cog.

Any one can argue all you like about who has whay pay/pension structure it comes down to inflows, outflows of capital and power/control.. The UK "used" to be great at retaining capital now it's crepe....

At least in my Job I generate a surplus inflows to the country compared to my salary (probably 10 plus times)... Can each of you say the same? Are you just a cog in the cycle which permits outflows or adding to the nations wealth?

MoreOn

dshart wrote: »

If we do not get control of our debts soon then that belief that we can continue to pay will evaporate and if we cannot get access to funds then the country will go bankrupt. I am not saying that public sector pensions alone are the cause of the debt, but they are one small part that needs to be addressed. Keep a close eye on Greece especially if they default and get kicked out of the Euro, public sector staff wages and pensions will not get paid and there will be chaos.

This did make me laugh not that i've an issue with that one element, as a single element it flies in the face of the advice "we" (as in ppl on MSE) give to those with finance issues.. The bottom line is what are the countries skills and how can we get more capital in...

dshart

MoreOn wrote: »

This did make me laugh not that i've an issue with that one element, as a single element it flies in the face of the advice "we" (as in ppl on MSE) give to those with finance issues.. The bottom line is what are the countries skills and how can we get more capital in...

How does what I said fly in the face of advice given to people with finance issues on this site? Most advice given to people asks people to list a SOA so people can advise where savings can be made. In the case of the country's finances one of the bills that can be reduced is the pension deficit.

A lot of people come on the site asking advice on how to get loans when they have poor credit records. When money was easy to come by they did not come here, but now the banks do not believe in their ability to repay and will not loan them anymore they come seeking help.

Are you advocating that we advise people with debts to ignore places where savings can be made and just keep on borrowing not worrying about tomorrow?

Thicko2

dshart wrote: »

I am not suggesting that there are no employer contributions, but that these contributions should be fixed so there is not additional calls on funding from government. In the private sector the employer contributions in most new schemes tend to be fixed and vary from company to company. These contributions combined with the employees contributions pay for the pension. If the pension return is poor there is no possibility of the worker going back and asking the employer to increase the contributions.

Dear Dshart

What you propose is exactly what was reached in the NHS scheme from the 2007 changes. The employer contributions in my scheme were fixed at 14%. Any increases above this, under the risk share arrangements, were due to fall on the members. It is of course currently recieving £2bn a year more in contributions than payments in the last years figures. This £2bn returns back to the treasurery to support public sector defecits. I do not think there has been a recent year, if at all, where, the NHS scheme has required additional public sector funding above employer and employee contributions. Indeed i think there are many years of benefits provided back to the treasurery.

A charitable view of the current governments current actions is they are trying to predict the future changes and implement the risk share early and plan long term.

My view the extra member contributions raised now at least from the NHS scheme are an addtional public sector defecit tax on the employees.

Again my memory is hazy but i do recall some document that predicted that for the next 5 years the NHS scheme continues to generate an in year surplus.

MoreOn

dshart wrote: »

How does what I said fly in the face of advice given to people with finance issues on this site? Most advice given to people asks people to list a SOA so people can advise where savings can be made. In the case of the country's finances one of the bills that can be reduced is the pension deficit.

A lot of people come on the site asking advice on how to get loans when they have poor credit records. When money was easy to come by they did not come here, but now the banks do not believe in their ability to repay and will not loan them anymore they come seeking help.

Are you advocating that we advise people with debts to ignore places where savings can be made and just keep on borrowing not worrying about tomorrow?

Are you advocating that is the only answer to debt....

Regarding the aleged deficit... is the only answer to look at the inflows and ouflows without restructing the the system to make it more efficient?

Andy_L

NAR wrote: »

Final salary schemes closed to new entrants to the Civil Service 4 or 5 years ago.

Correct, however the CARE scheme that replaced it had a higher accrual rate than the FS scheme.
At the time the number crunching was such that it was the same cost, it just shared out the money in an, arguably, more equitable way (eg plodders didn't loose out to flyers, long service to early leavers). Obviously those numbers have been totally thrown by the change from RPI to CPI indexation

cvd

Are career average schemes uplifted by CPI ? If that's the case, many employees with a 'flat' salary profile (ie no promotions throughout their career) may well be better off.

They most certainly will not - unless there is no general rise in living standards over a working lifetime (over 40 years).

However, if they are uplifted by the index of average earnings (as Hutton recommended), then they will be.

A career average scheme where earned benefits are uplifted by CPI is a really poor scheme.

Old_Slaphead

cvd wrote: »

A career average scheme where earned benefits are uplifted by CPI is a really poor scheme.

It may be "really poor" in public sector parlance but it's a darned site better than what most of the country's workforce will be getting