Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

NAR

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Medicine, food, fuel to keep you warm, housing to protect you from the elements etc etc. We may not have been born but, for the few short years you managed to survive without private industry, life would be very grim.

Yes and pensioners wouldn't be living longer - that private sector has a lot to answer for!

DCodd

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Medicine, food, fuel to keep you warm, housing to protect you from the elements etc etc. We may not have been born but, for the few short years you managed to survive without private industry, life would be very grim.

We need both public & private and a fair and equitable share of the national wealth to each. Far too much is being spent by the government and it's strangling the 'milsch cow' private sector.

We do need both, one could not survive without the other. where I disagree with you is in the parity argument. There is an equality in the economy but it is not Private vs Public sector but PAYE vs self employment, Director taxation etc etc.

There are perfectly legitimate tax avoidance vehicles available for the self employed etc and IMHO there should be, but where the disparity comes into play is the exploitation of dubious loopholes, whereby £Bns of tax revenue can't or won't be received. I know HMRC are the devil incarnate but they have been banging on about this disparity for years.

Should you be able to ask a creditor to reduce your liability because you couldn't be bothered to collect monies owed to you? No.. so why ask the Public Sector to bank roll the "lost" revenues of tax from the non PAYE tax payer?

The_Angry_Jock

NAR wrote: »

Yes and pensioners wouldn't be living longer - that private sector has a lot to answer for!

How did you work that one out?

The_Angry_Jock

DCodd wrote: »

We do need both, one could not survive without the other.

Surely the only public servants a country could operate with are politicians? ie caretakers. Everything else could be privatised.

I'm not advocating this in any way though

DCodd

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

Surely the only public servants a country could operate with are politicians? ie caretakers. Everything else could be privatised.

I'm not advocating this in any way though

You could but the Country would be bankrupt with 5 years. Imagine a private Company acting as HMRC:eek:

The_Angry_Jock

We're almost bankrupt now :rotfl:

Out of interest, why would a private HMRC bankrupt us?

Old_Slaphead

DCodd wrote: »

There are perfectly legitimate tax avoidance vehicles available for the self employed etc and IMHO there should be, but where the disparity comes into play is the exploitation of dubious loopholes, whereby £Bns of tax revenue can't or won't be received. I know HMRC are the devil incarnate but they have been banging on about this disparity for years.

Should you be able to ask a creditor to reduce your liability because you couldn't be bothered to collect monies owed to you? No.. so why ask the Public Sector to bank roll the "lost" revenues of tax from the non PAYE tax payer?

As you say the loopholes are legitimate - it's in the power of government (of all persuasions) to stop them. It's hardly the fault on (most of) the private sector if public sector governance (ie MPs) is too incompetent to manage things properly. Same goes with defence spending , IT waste etc etc.

As for public sector enforcement of "legitimate debts" - haven't HMRC agreed to a recent £18bn w/o with Goldman Sacs & Vodaphone - who should pay for that ?

DCodd

The_Angry_Jock wrote: »

We're almost bankrupt now :rotfl:

Out of interest, why would a private HMRC bankrupt us?

Too many opportunities for creative accounting;), but seriously, any Company big enough to handle the job would more than likely be a plc, whose main legal requirement is to provide best return for their shareholders and not best return for the Country.

dshart

DCodd wrote: »

We do need both, one could not survive without the other. where I disagree with you is in the parity argument. There is an equality in the economy but it is not Private vs Public sector but PAYE vs self employment, Director taxation etc etc.

There are perfectly legitimate tax avoidance vehicles available for the self employed etc and IMHO there should be, but where the disparity comes into play is the exploitation of dubious loopholes, whereby £Bns of tax revenue can't or won't be received. I know HMRC are the devil incarnate but they have been banging on about this disparity for years.

Should you be able to ask a creditor to reduce your liability because you couldn't be bothered to collect monies owed to you? No.. so why ask the Public Sector to bank roll the "lost" revenues of tax from the non PAYE tax payer?

Even if they closed all tax loopholes and collected every penny in tax owed and there was no tax avoidance, it would still not get away from the fact that public sector pensions are paying out more than they take in and require additional funding from government.

People say that their public sector scheme is fully funded and taking in more than they are paying out and I believe the figures for some of the schemes bear this out. But at the end of the day there is a net deficit and this is what needs to be sorted out. So if you are in a scheme that is fully funded or takes in more than it pays out then you should be asking the question as to why other public sector schemes are not the same. You should be fighting for the other sectors to contribute as much as you do so there is no overall deficit.

It is notable that the people arguing here all tend to be from the NHS and teachers schemes where employee contributions are relatively higher, but we do not appear to hear from people who are only contributing 1.5% to their schemes. Maybe they are just keeping their heads down and praying the arguments of others get the government to change so they can keep their miniscule contributions.

DCodd

dshart wrote: »

Even if they closed all tax loopholes and collected every penny in tax owed and there was no tax avoidance, it would still not get away from the fact that public sector pensions are paying out more than they take in and require additional funding from government.

People say that their public sector scheme is fully funded and taking in more than they are paying out and I believe the figures for some of the schemes bear this out. But at the end of the day there is a net deficit and this is what needs to be sorted out. So if you are in a scheme that is fully funded or takes in more than it pays out then you should be asking the question as to why other public sector schemes are not the same. You should be fighting for the other sectors to contribute as much as you do so there is no overall deficit.

It is notable that the people arguing here all tend to be from the NHS and teachers schemes where employee contributions are relatively higher, but we do not appear to hear from people who are only contributing 1.5% to their schemes. Maybe they are just keeping their heads down and praying the arguments of others get the government to change so they can keep their miniscule contributions.

I'm sorry dshart but you are fixated on "balancing the books" for the pensions scheme. It is the aim of the Government to guide the general public down this route to deflect the public attention from the Government's obligations.

It matters not a jot if the "figures" say that there is a deficit in some of the schemes because that deficit is the result of the agreed remuneration package and therefore not a deficit at all but defered earnings, rightfully claimed by the employee but wrongfully spent by this and previous Governments. This is the reality that the Government wish to deflect your attention from. In the Private sector that would equate to theft.

I may be out of date and very open to be corrected here, but if a private occupational pension scheme suffered such a theft, is it still the case that the employees can seek compensation upto 90% of the loss and would that still be the Government that underwrites that compensation?


For the record, I'm in accounting, employed within the Construction industry, not PS at all.