Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

dshart

payvpac wrote: »

I believe that your figures re pension costs are flawed. The public sector pension funds are currently cash rich - i.e. we are paying more in contributions than are being paid out in pensions to the retired. Yes, I realise this will change over time with increased life expectancy, but not to the degree that the government are cutting the pensions. The problem is that the government are not using this surplus to invest in the future pension fund. They are using it to cut the deficit elsewhere. Effectively this is a public sector tax.

Again I am not saying that the pensions should not be reformed. They should, but not to the degree the government are talking about. It would be nice whilst we are on a pay freeze (then a 1% pay rise cap in the following years), not to have to pay increased contributions to our pensions. I would then accept a reduction in pension.

Finally in terms of the unions holding the country to ransom, well firstly, I did not go on strike and will not because I have patients to look after. Again, this is why I get particuarly annoyed when labelled greedy. At the end of the day though, employees do have the right to strike if their terms and conditions are under threat. If you walked into work on monday and was told your pay was being halved for example, you would be on strike im sure and I would not be labelling you greedy, nor holding anyone to ransom.

As you admit the government do not invest your contributions into a pension fund, and although some pensions may be cash rich at present you accept that the future liabilities will outweigh this (possibly part of the reason they are in surplus at present is the recruiting that went on through the labour years which has made parts of the service workforce heavy and although gives the short term advantage of additional contributions, eventually leads to higher liabilities) thus the reason change is required.

The only reason I have used private sector pensions to compare is to show that even with the changes the public sector pensions will still be better to the equivalent private pension.

I do not believe that I have ever labelled anyone as greedy although I do admit that some people have done so. I just believe people need to be realistic as to what they ask for especially in the current recession. If I walked into work on Monday and was told my salary was being halved, off course I would be upset and ask why this was necessary. But I hope I would be able to at least try and understand the reasons behind it rather than fight to keep my wages the same while watching the company go under.

You say you would more readily accept the changes to your pension if you were not also under a pay freeze at present, but isn't this the whole point, the government are trying to make cuts across the board, it would be self defeating if they were to increase your pension contributions by 3% at the same time as giving you a wage rise of 3% (I know this over simplifies the equation, but you get my meaning). For too long budgets have been balanced by fudging the figures, decreasing tax in one area while increasing it in others with a net effect of zero, but with the current recession it is becoming harder to fudge the figures and real cuts are required before we end up in the same situation as Greece.

I do not think that the argument is whether public sector workers are greedy or that they are better off than private sector workers, the argument is are changes required and if so what changes to make public sector pensions affordable. Some here believe they are affordable and require no change, others feel that changes that were brought in a few years ago should be sufficient, others feel the changes as proposed are necessary and still others feel more harsher changes are required.

I personally have tried to keep my debate to changes that I believe are necessary and why they are necessary and avoided looking at personal issues and cases and name calling. I am not saying all my views are correct but it is what I believe and until convinced otherwise my view will remain.

Backbiter

dshart wrote: »

In the current years budget the cost of public sector pensions is £129bn while total borrowing is £122bn and what we spend on healthcare is £123bn. 18% of the budget is on pensions and it is the largest single category of government spending.

A classic example of twisting the facts. 'Public sector pensions' are not the same as 'pensions'. 'Public sector pensions' are the occupational pensions paid to NHS workers, state-sector teachers, council employees, police, fire service,the armed forces...
According to Hutton, these currently cost 1.9% of GDP, which is around £1.5 trillion, (or £1,500 billion). 1.9% of that is around £30 billion.

Manipulating statistics - inaccurately - to equate 'public sector pensions' with 'the deficit', as you did, is just wrong, and, dare I say, politically motivated. It's typical of the attempt to 'demonise' the public sector as leeches who contribute nothing.

dshart

Backbiter wrote: »

A classic example of twisting the facts. 'Public sector pensions' are not the same as 'pensions'. 'Public sector pensions' are the occupational pensions paid to NHS workers, state-sector teachers, council employees, police, fire service,the armed forces...
According to Hutton, these currently cost 1.9% of GDP, which is around £1.5 trillion, (or £1,500 billion). 1.9% of that is around £30 billion.

Manipulating statistics - inaccurately - to equate 'public sector pensions' with 'the deficit', as you did, is just wrong, and, dare I say, politically motivated. It's typical of the attempt to 'demonise' the public sector as leeches who contribute nothing.

I refer you to my post #1027, you obviously chose to ignore that.

It strikes me that the people who bring up the word "greedy" and "leeches" seem most of the time be people who are trying to defend the public service pensions. I have never tried to say public sector workers are greedy or leeches or did not deserve to get good pay or pensions, you just choose to believe that so you can feel aggrieved rather than try and see the real reasons why change is required. Even at £30bn it is a huge chunk of the budget and like everything else needs to be trimmed back.

Just be thankful that DC did not hand over budget control to Europe or you could be seeing even larger cuts to pay and pensions and I would like to see the union trying to negotiate with some unelected body in Europe.

Moby

dshart wrote: »

Moby, I note you choose to ignore my comments to your previous post on this subject.

I read what you said but it was inaccurate i'm afraid

You want the government to sign up to this deal that gives budgetary control to some unelected Eurozone body, yet you find it difficult to accept the budget cuts being implemented by our own elected government, how are you going to accept those from Europe.

Again inaccurate...we were not being asked to sign up to anything or give anything away we didn't agree with. Other countries also didn't sign up to the whole deal....but we imposed the veto because of the proposed financial transactions tax which isolates us as a minority of one!

Look at the austerity measures Greece has had to implement in order to get the bail out, their public sector pay and pensions have had to be cut drastically, it is a similar story in Ireland, and now these countries are being forced to hand over budget control to Germany and France. In the UK if the budget cuts get to much we have the choice of voting in someone who will be more lax in a few years, but with Europe control it will not matter who is in power the hardship of cuts will remain.

We are not in the same position as Greece or Ireland. Our debt is high but long term and managed. Again we were not being asked to sign over any power to France and Germany...this is simply wrong!

In Europe at present Germany has the manufacturing base, France the agricultural and Britain has the Financial sector. DC is correct to try and protect that otherwise we lose control of one of the main streams of tax revenues in the country. (I do believe that the industry needs better regulation but not at the expense of it moving elsewhere).

So answer me this what did he actually bring back from the conference??? What will stop the other 26 countries still going ahead and introducing a transaction tax? What will we do in those cirumstances.... not trade with those 26 countries which are on our borders? Cameron achieved nothing except placing us in a minority of one and placed us on the fringes of events and decision making!

If Germany want to solve the crisis why do they oppose the issue of Eurobonds that would share the risk of debt throughout all the Euro members. The reason is that they do not want to take the risk of someone else's debt but they still want these countries to be able to buy their goods.

Yes agree....and how much influence will we have now over this? Answer:nada! Cameron did nothing that will alter this!

The main players in Europe all have their own agendas and are all looking after their own interests. DC was between a rock and a hard place with the decision he took, but I think he made the correct choice.

Europe is not yet ready for a United States of Europe, there are still too many differences.

Cameron was between a rock and a hard place because of his own europhobe headbangers on the right and having to defend the tory paymasters in the City. Their interests are not mine! He is not now even aligned with the other right of centre parties within europe. I repeat history teaches us that no matter what the issue is..... it is crucial you always keep your place at the table where the decisions are made.

The fundamental point is no matter what your views are on the politics/economics of this....the Cameron muppet has put us in the position in which we will still be affected by decisions/events but are badly weakened in affecting them. Anyone with credibility is saying this apart from the Tory right and the City spivs!....and what's more he has done this through weakness ie inability to face up to his own extreme europhobes!

I hear Clegg is not a happy man......does he have a backbone though or will he continue to take it because he's Deputy PM!:rotfl:

Flyboy152

UglyMug wrote: »

A Public Sector worker earning £30,000 contributing 10% (£3,000) a year for 40 years will get an index linked pension of £20,000 (based on 1/60ths). Current life expectancy means they’ll receive this for about 20 years. This was acceptable, a few years ago when life expectancy meant they’d receive it for about 5 years. This is not acceptable now, annuity rates have dropped to a third (a £100,000 annuity now pays £3,333, it paid £10,000 twenty years ago), in the last 6 months alone annuities have gone down by almost another tenth. In twenty years the cost of private pensions has gone up threefold whilst Public Sector pensions have remained unscathed.
When they retire their pension contributions and national insurance payments will cease (thus saving them over 20%), their (age related) tax code will commence and they’ll also get a state pension (it’s being proposed this is raised to circa £7,000 a year soon). Their net income will be greater during retirement than when they worked. This is totally unjust and a mockery to other pensioners. The vast majority of this injustice will be funded by the Tax Payer.
Paying £3,000 a year for 40 years to receive £20,000 a year for 20 years is an exceptional deal. It’s absolutely ludicrous that they’re going on strike because they’re expected to pay a bit more, or work a bit longer, or receive a bit less.
In the Private Sector paying this £3,000 a year may just mean one escapes means testing in retirement. Any insurance company that forecasts a pension even close to £20,000 a year for this sum is lying.

I now expect to receive various responses to this post from the feel sorry for the Public Sector brigade saying that I’ve got the wrong view of how the deck chairs are arranged on their Titanic:

Namely:

1) The figures are incorrect – They’re close enough.
2) They’re on a 1/80ths scheme - Oh dear they might have to take a slight drop in income when they retire compared to when they worked.
3) They haven’t had a pay rise for 3 years – One way of reducing the costs of their final salary based pension is to slowly reduce their final salary.
4) They earn less than £30,000 – Then the comparable increase in their income during retirement will be even greater.
5) Their pensions are fully funded – These types of pensions ceased in the Private Sector because their liabilities can not be calculated, the shortfall in their schemes will have to be met by the tax payer.
6) They work very hard – Don’t we all?
7) They can’t work when they get too old – Neither can the rest of us.
8) Their employer makes additional pension contributions - This is in effect extra pay, do their Unions add this when negotiating their salaries?
9) They don’t have 40 years in the Public Sector – Then they should have funded the rest of their pension from their time in the Private Sector and realise what a wonderful scheme they’re now on.
10) Everyone in the Private Sector has a company car – Which planet are these people on?
11) They also pay taxes – Which is 20% of their income, do they go to the pub with their mate and buy them a pint after they’ve been bought 5?
12) The Private Sector should demand better pensions – If Private Sector companies had to fund similar schemes they wouldn’t survive and there wouldn’t be a Private Sector and then there wouldn’t be a Public Sector.

They’ll have a million other reason for these strikes and believing the utter rubbish spouted to them by their Unions. The real and only reason is their unfettered and totally blinkered GREED.

I really don't think I have read so much male cow poop in one post, than I have read here.

I can't be bothered to read the while thread (because it is likely to be more of the same as usual), but has the OP ever produced any independent sources for their rant?

Flyboy152

dshart wrote: »

In the current years budget the cost of public sector pensions is £129bn while total borrowing is £122bn and what we spend on healthcare is £123bn. 18% of the budget is on pensions and it is the largest single category of government spending. So saying the pensions are not part of the country's debt problem is wrong. Yes people should get a decent pension for their years of service but not at the cost of everything else. The government has to look at all ways of cutting its spending and with any budget balancing exercise you always look at the big cost items first and then go down the list.

I think you have been going to the same economic lessons as the OP. The person who taught you two how to read economic data needs to have their qualifications withdrawn.

dshart

Moby wrote: »

I read what you said but it was inaccurate i'm afraid



Again inaccurate...we were not being asked to sign up to anything or give anything away we didn't agree with. Other countries also didn't sign up to the whole deal....but we imposed the veto because of the proposed financial transactions tax which isolates us as a minority of one!




We are not in the same position as Greece or Ireland. Our debt is high but long term and managed. Again we were not being asked to sign over any power to France and Germany...this is simply wrong!




So answer me this what did he actually bring back from the conference??? What will stop the other 26 countries still going ahead and introducing a transaction tax? What will we do in those cirumstances.... not trade with those 26 countries which are on our borders? Cameron achieved nothing except placing us in a minority of one and placed us on the fringes of events and decision making!





Yes agree....and how much influence will we have now over this? Answer:nada! Cameron did nothing that will alter this!




Cameron was between a rock and a hard place because of his own europhobe headbangers on the right and having to defend the tory paymasters in the City. Their interests are not mine! He is not now even aligned with the other right of centre parties within europe. I repeat history teaches us that no matter what the issue is..... it is crucial you always keep your place at the table where the decisions are made.

The fundamental point is no matter what your views are on the politics/economics of this....the Cameron muppet has put us in the position in which we will still be affected by decisions/events but are badly weakened in affecting them. Anyone with credibility is saying this apart from the Tory right and the City spivs!....and what's more he has done this through weakness ie inability to face up to his own extreme europhobes!

I hear Clegg is not a happy man......does he have a backbone though or will he continue to take it because he's Deputy PM!:rotfl:

So if my post was inaccurate then please tell me what they were voting on. They were voting on giving budgetary and tax setting control to Europe where all national budgets would have to be accepted by Europe before they could be implemented. Britain may have been agreeable to the budget controls as I believe they try to keep the budget under control even though it may mean some hardships for its citizens, but what was not agreeable was handing over tax powers to Europe as then it would mean Britain losing one of its largest tax incomes, which comes from the financial services sector. Love or hate the banks they do bring in tax revenues that the country requires and Germany and France would love to get their hands on some of that.

As I have stated elsewhere accepting the deal would probably have had a worse effect as it may have forced a referendum and I think majority of the UK population would have voted us out of Europe without really understanding why we need Europe. Just wait till the other countries that have been bullied into accepting this FrancoGerman deal start having to sell it at home, I am sure we will start to see a different picture emerge then, with countries looking for ways to get out of it.

Clegg has to say he is not happy about it to keep his own party happy as with most things that happen the politics tends to override what is best for the nation.

Moby

So if my post was inaccurate then please tell me what they were voting on. They were voting on giving budgetary and tax setting control to Europe where all national budgets would have to be accepted by Europe before they could be implemented. Britain may have been agreeable to the budget controls as I believe they try to keep the budget under control even though it may mean some hardships for its citizens, but what was not agreeable was handing over tax powers to Europe as then it would mean Britain losing one of its largest tax incomes, which comes from the financial services sector. Love or hate the banks they do bring in tax revenues that the country requires and Germany and France would love to get their hands on some of that.

You just don't seem to understand the simple point that we didn't have to accept these new controls ourselves. We would have been signing up to a deal that would allow a 'two speed' europe. Those countries that wanted to move ahead with what you said above would do so and the rest wouldn't!

As I have stated elsewhere accepting the deal would probably have had a worse effect as it may have forced a referendum and I think majority of the UK population would have voted us out of Europe without really understanding why we need Europe. Just wait till the other countries that have been bullied into accepting this FrancoGerman deal start having to sell it at home, I am sure we will start to see a different picture emerge then, with countries looking for ways to get out of it.

Totally unbelievable! As an act of self defeating, crass stupidity what the Cameron muppet has done has rarely been equalled in British foreign policy.He has antagonised all of our neighbours and made it much harder for them to introduce policies that will save the Euro.......and by the way if the Euro did collapse.....who is more exposed than most? that's right the City of London!

Clegg has to say he is not happy about it to keep his own party happy as with most things that happen the politics tends to override what is best for the nation.

Again totally wrong....Clegg is genuinely pro-European. He is actually curbing his own european instincts in order to protect the coalition.

The muppet Cameron represents the worst of upper class home counties England. He understands his own party and the instincts of the tories but beyond that he cannot empathise or understand others...such as public sector workers. He makes decisions about peoples lives as if he was involved in manoeuvres in a company boardroom! and what's more he completely misunderstood how his manoeuvres would be seen by other leaders in Europe!

His biggest fault in my view is that his policy was totally dedicated towards managing his own tribe. He couldn't stomach having to take a treaty change through the commons relying on Lib Dem, Labour and a minority of Tories, (even though he would have been still able to have his opt outs). He put his party interests above the country and we will all suffer for it in the coming years. I personally think he is turning into the worst Prime Minister we have had in this country for many years.

MikeR71

Can some one please show me an official stat where it shows people are living longer? I personally don't believe what politicians tell us because it seems there is always something in it for them to push their unpopular policies through. Unfortunately others simply parrot them and they become a cliche.

I would like to see the results of a proper survey with detailed analysis showing we are indeed living longer. Thanks

dshart

Moby wrote: »

You just don't seem to understand the simple point that we didn't have to accept these new controls ourselves. We would have been signing up to a deal that would allow a 'two speed' europe. Those countries that wanted to move ahead with what you said above would do so and the rest wouldn't!




Totally unbelievable! As an act of self defeating, crass stupidity what the Cameron muppet has done has rarely been equalled in British foreign policy.He has antagonised all of our neighbours and made it much harder for them to introduce policies that will save the Euro.......and by the way if the Euro did collapse.....who is more exposed than most? that's right the City of London!




Again totally wrong....Clegg is genuinely pro-European. He is actually curbing his own european instincts in order to protect the coalition.

The muppet Cameron represents the worst of upper class home counties England. He understands his own party and the instincts of the tories but beyond that he cannot empathise or understand others...such as public sector workers. He makes decisions about peoples lives as if he was involved in manoeuvres in a company boardroom! and what's more he completely misunderstood how his manoeuvres would be seen by other leaders in Europe!

His biggest fault in my view is that his policy was totally dedicated towards managing his own tribe. He couldn't stomach having to take a treaty change through the commons relying on Lib Dem, Labour and a minority of Tories, (even though he would have been still able to have his opt outs). He put his party interests above the country and we will all suffer for it in the coming years. I personally think he is turning into the worst Prime Minister we have had in this country for many years.

You still fail to answer my question as to whether you would accept budget cuts and cuts to public service pensions if they were demanded by Europe? and if you think it would not be the case then take a look at what Greece and Italy are having to do to their budgets to get bailed out.

Whats the point in accepting something if you have no intention of going along with it. The new proposals allow for new rules to be pushed through with a majority vote, so at some stage down the line we would still be in this same position where the majority voted for something and we would not have the option of opting out apart from leaving the EU.

There are those who believe the Euro was doomed from the start because you cannot have a single currency when you have different countries with different tax systems. The Euro will only work if you have a united Europe and I am afraid at the moment the only thing that unites them is the fear of the Euro collapsing. If closer integration and fiscal union in Europe is the best option why has it taken a crisis to bring it about, why were these powers of budgetary control not pushed for before now? or was it because in the good times of excessive spending and easy money all these Euro members couldn't agree.

If Germany really wants to save the Euro then why do they strongly object for the issue of Eurobonds which would share the risk between all the Euro using countries. The reason is they are hedging their bets in case the Euro cannot be saved, then at least Germany can come out okay at the end. France also has self interest at heart so why shouldnt Britain. Why did the Merkozy partnership have a separate meeting on the 5th December to thrash out a deal suitable to them without inviting DC if Britain was to be such a major player? They met and arranged a deal that they knew would be unacceptable to DC.

I think only time will tell whether the decision was right or wrong. The BBC website gives an interesting interactive scenario for the Euro at this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16098582 and to tell the truth not many of the options look good.