Incensed again

tuggy12

atush wrote: »

I have twins starting Uni next year and was certainly dropped a huge tuition fee bombshell x2 that I have had practically no time to plan/save for.

I don't understand how that should affect your plans.

Your twins will pay the tuition fees but only after they have graduated and earn more than £21k pa.

Lokolo

tuggy12 wrote: »

I don't understand how that should affect your plans.

Your twins will pay the tuition fees but only after they have graduated and earn more than £21k pa.

atush was most probably planning to pay the fees themselves rather than the twins taking out a loan.

ViolaLass

sprite1508 wrote: »

Without wanting to start a mass debate on this it is NOT the union who has said we HAVE to strike.... it is our employers as they dont want half in half out situation, they want us all to stick together..

I'm not aware that your employers are allowed to dictate what you do in this case.

atush

Lokolo wrote: »

atush was most probably planning to pay the fees themselves rather than the twins taking out a loan.

Correct. I will not set them off on a life of debt if I can help it. They have pensions to fund and ahome to buy and will need to save for those. I would pay the 8K per annum living costs on any case even if they paid for their own tuition.


I am very worried for those who take out those new huge student loans, and they aren't so cheap any more. I had to take out one for my final year as my parents ran short of cash. Took me years to pay it off.

atush

ViolaLass wrote: »

I'm not aware that your employers are allowed to dictate what you do in this case.

Me either. your life, your choice.

dshart

The big problem is that there is inequality between public sector and private sector pensions. Everyone gives examples that shows their side of the argument to be correct, but in the end you should compare people in similar jobs and similar wages in public and private sectors and compare how much they have to contribute to come out with the same pension upon retirement at the same age. I am sure you will find that the private sector worker has to contribute more.

I know some people will say that it is up to the private sector workers to fight their corner as the public sector workers are doing, but the problem with that is no one ever hears about the strikes that go on in small private companies as they have little if no effect on the general public so do not even make the news, and private sector workers from several companies cannot take combined action as this would be deemed illegal. Yet the public sector unions can call mass strikes with the aim of holding the country to ransom and forcing the government into concessions. The only private sector strikes you ever hear about are the ones that affect the public such as British Airways, thousands of other private sector workers have their pay and conditions cut and pension schemes mishandled and no one ever hears of it and if they strike the company just folds and the workers lose everything.

So while I can appreciate that people in the public sector may have to work longer and contribute more to get their pensions, I am afraid I cannot have much sympathy as they are still better off than an equivalent paid person in the private sector.

sheffield_lad

dshart wrote: »

The big problem is that there is inequality between public sector and private sector pensions. Everyone gives examples that shows their side of the argument to be correct, but in the end you should compare people in similar jobs and similar wages in public and private sectors and compare how much they have to contribute to come out with the same pension upon retirement at the same age. I am sure you will find that the private sector worker has to contribute more.

I know some people will say that it is up to the private sector workers to fight their corner as the public sector workers are doing, but the problem with that is no one ever hears about the strikes that go on in small private companies as they have little if no effect on the general public so do not even make the news, and private sector workers from several companies cannot take combined action as this would be deemed illegal. Yet the public sector unions can call mass strikes with the aim of holding the country to ransom and forcing the government into concessions. The only private sector strikes you ever hear about are the ones that affect the public such as British Airways, thousands of other private sector workers have their pay and conditions cut and pension schemes mishandled and no one ever hears of it and if they strike the company just folds and the workers lose everything.

So while I can appreciate that people in the public sector may have to work longer and contribute more to get their pensions, I am afraid I cannot have much sympathy as they are still better off than an equivalent paid person in the private sector.

Don't forget though that the only other strikes we do hear about are from ex public sector firms, like BA, Royal Mail, Tubes, Railway. They all strike at the tip of a union hat and we the mugs have to suffer.

Your point is well made but just to add to it the reason private sector employees don't strike is because we know the world has changed and we are living longer, the reason for anyone to be receiving less pension is because they were and in the case of the public sector still are completely unaffordable.

Old_Slaphead

spike9 wrote: »

Nothing but I get 1/80th per year actually. Half salary after 40 years - not exactly raking it in even if you can get that many years in.

It's a helluva lot better than most of us get.

You also get 3x annual pension as a tax free sum & pension from the age 60.

For every pound you contribute (less tax that's just 80p) the taxpayer adds £4 - that's an amazingly good deal.

Koicarp

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

It's a helluva lot better than most of us get.

You also get 3x annual pension as a tax free sum & pension from the age 60.

For every pound you contribute (less tax that's just 80p) the taxpayer adds £4 - that's an amazingly good deal.

Can you "show your working" on the taxpayer's £4?

longleggedhair

Moby wrote: »

Let me explain....

How about the Welfare State, National Health Service, minimum wage, rebuilding crumbling schools, winter fuel allowance, sustaining employment, especially amongst the young.....
....and now what do we have....social unrest and a return to mass unemployment, again especially amongst the young!...... and on these forums we read the comments of retired financial advisers lecturing nurses, doctors, firefighters, paramedics, teachers, police etc with the barb 'welcome to the real world'. It reminds me of one of Thatcher's famous quips.....'unemployment is a price well worth paying'.......As long as someone else is paying it methinks! Yes many of us remember 1979 but from a different perspective to the above!

What complete and utter drivel! Of course life was so much better under Labour,immigration running into the HUNDREDS of thousands per year putting schools, hospitals and housing under pressure. Benefit claiments given money hand over fist, and all paid for by taking out loans future generations will have to suffer for and pay back. The last government was possibly the most irresponsible in British history.

As for Thatcher, she was a leader with guts and courage. She knew some of the things she was going to do would in the short therm prove unpopular, but they were for the long term good of the country, then enter stage Left, Brown & Blair-and look how its ended up.

Dont you think it would be easy for Cameron to say yes we will keep benefit claiments in the lap of luxary, keep the inflated pensions for public sector staff-keep spending money that does not exist just like Labour. He would be really popular but it would ruin the country, as I said in a previous post look at Greece. I dont want to go there-do you?