Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

real1314

howee wrote: »

ummm, no I pointed out earlier she is paying 6% NOT 20% in. Leaving 14% paid by the taxpayer.

Nothing to do with what she is paid and everything to do with 14% being paid by the taxpayer.

My point being a very easy one to make, Public sector pensions are unaffordable.

PS workers lets say that the gov u turned (as you all scared us to death with your threats), and your pensions continued as they were do you really think they can carry on as they are?

Lets see how many heads come out of the sand?

Doesn't the 6% come from the taxpayer? Taxpayer gives Debbie £30k, of which the taxpayer takes back 6% for the pension to add to the 14% that was part of the package that the taxpayer avoided paying and then recovering?

And what about that NI contribution? All these public sector workers are in gold-plated pensions and have much greater job security than the people in the private sector.

So, why should public sector workers have to pay as much NI as private sector? They have much lower risk of needing JSA, so they should get to pay less. Otherwise the public sector are subsidising the private sector

Anyway, off to Tesco to pay 85% of the till amount, 'cos I ain't paying for private sector pensions or NI, they come from magic money that spontaneously appears in the economy. :cool:

Old_Slaphead

jem16 wrote: »

Would you rather that a teacher is paid an extra 14% and then that teacher pays the whole 20% contribution? Would that somehow be different?

I think it would show that 20% wouldn't cover the cost of the scheme benefits - assuming that was the limit of taxpayer subsidy.

sheffield_lad

jem16 wrote: »

Once again you miss the point that a Teacher's wage is also paid by the taxpayer so with your thinking the taxpayer is paying 20%.

Would you rather that a teacher is paid an extra 14% and then that teacher pays the whole 20% contribution? Would that somehow be different?

Yes teacher paying all 20% is fine with me as a taxpayer, how would it not be. but no I don't see a reason for the extra 14% in her pay packet. Nice idea I would suggest it to my employer but I live in the real world lol.

What I would like to see is public sector pensions, contributions and retirement age pegged to the average private sector pension scheme. Not better no worse.

Unaffordable public sector pensions cannot and won't continue despite all the hot air from unions but above all the arguments over cost I think fairness to the taxpayer especially the taxpayer who has no pension is the priority.

sheffield_lad

real1314 wrote: »

Doesn't the 6% come from the taxpayer? Taxpayer gives Debbie £30k, of which the taxpayer takes back 6% for the pension to add to the 14% that was part of the package that the taxpayer avoided paying and then recovering?

And what about that NI contribution? All these public sector workers are in gold-plated pensions and have much greater job security than the people in the private sector.

So, why should public sector workers have to pay as much NI as private sector? They have much lower risk of needing JSA, so they should get to pay less. Otherwise the public sector are subsidising the private sector

Anyway, off to Tesco to pay 85% of the till amount, 'cos I ain't paying for private sector pensions or NI, they come from magic money that spontaneously appears in the economy. :cool:

There is some ironey in your coments and user name lol,

head, sand out, take, of, your, the

hugheskevi

PS workers lets say that the gov u turned (as you all scared us to death with your threats), and your pensions continued as they were do you really think they can carry on as they are?

Are you talking financially, or from a socially sustainable perspective, or from a political perspective?

If financially, then absolutely they can carry on as they are and there wouldn't be much impact at all. The vast majority of expenditure in the next decade or two is from historic accruals and so won't change much regardless of reforms.

If socially sustainable, as this thread shows, there would be growing hostility between sectors I imagine. However, that would to an extent be tempered by the gradual change in numbers from those on final salary Normal Retirement age 60 schemes (generally pre 2007, or so, depending on scheme) to those with higher Normal Retirement ages. Quite how that manifests itself would probably depend on economy - strong economic growth and decent stock market returns would go a long way to dampening down serious protest.

From a political perspective, I'd expect the issue to be revisited shortly after the next general election, probably regardless of which party won.

One of the most interesting aspects of the settlement which hasn't been discussed much is linking Normal Retirement age to State Pension age. That in the future will bring two hugely powerful interest groups (public sector plus older people) together to protest against any change. Quite surprised about that, as I'd have thought an automatic longevity adjustment factor would have been preferable for both parties.

Old_Slaphead

CLAPTON wrote: »

currently 20% of the population is over pensionable age; more if you include the early retired

what proportion of GDP would you say is affordable to support this 20% of the population?

Great response, God. Ignore the question and ask a completely different one

CLAPTON

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Great response, God. Ignore the question and ask a completely different one

I thought your point was that 1.6% of GDP for public pensions was unaffordable

my answer was relevant to that question
clearly 1.6% of gdp is completely affordable (although it may not be fair) in the context that pensioners make up 20% (and rising ) proportion of the population

I invite you to say what you think is affordable and what is fair.

cyclonebri1

CLAPTON wrote: »

currently 20% of the population is over pensionable age; more if you include the early retired

what proportion of GDP would you say is affordable to support this 20% of the population?

It can't be affordable at present rates,or at the present rate of progress. We aren't making any GDP, it is that simple.:mad:

That's why we cannot support any pension that is not self financed

DomRavioli

As a civil servant, I will NOT be striking, and I am ashamed at those who do. For a very long time we have been getting far too much for far too little, its time the balance was readjusted, and I am happy just to have a job in a time where many do not.

CLAPTON

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

It can't be affordable at present rates,or at the present rate of progress. We aren't making any GDP, it is that simple.:mad:

That's why we cannot support any pension that is not self financed

absolutely meaningless

having you been drinkling