Public Sector Pension Strikes – A JOKE !

dshart

Moby wrote: »

Really?? the privately owned banks didn't indulge themselves in a feeding frenzy of speculation and bad debt then??
Then they didn't draw up the drawbridge and refuse to lend further money thereby leading to the financial crisis that forced the Govmt to bail them out with our money. So none of that happened.....it must be a bad dream I'm having!

The banks may have been the straw that broke the camels back but it is incorrect to blame the banks for the country's debt. For years there has been talk of the growing country debt and ways to tackle it, in good times it is not a noticeable as everyone is making money there is plenty of work, tax revenues are high and the government can get loans at cheap rates.

But since the financial crisis things are different, it exposed the weak financial state of the country and how the overspend in the public sector in the boom years is now coming home to roost. People say the government managed to find money to bail out the banks, but the reality was they could not afford not to bail them out as the repercussions would have been huge. Millions of people would have lost everything and the knock on effect on the economy would have been huge. So when you look at bank bailouts think about how many ordinary peoples savings, pensions and mortgages have been saved.

I disagree that public money should be used to bail out private companies but sometimes it is necessary for the general good. Just the same way that some of the Eurozone countries need bailing out, if they were left to go bankrupt then the knock on effect for our own economy would be much worse.

worldwheeler

howee wrote: »

but remember that money has not gone its in the bank shares, something I dabble in lol, they will make a good profit out of this eventually,

Has that money gone into bank shares OR did it purchase the toxic loan book??Remember the banks have had the fees and any payments from these loans and paid them out in bonuses. Where did the money come from? £1.4 trillion over night.

Thanks for the link to the debt bomb.

worldwheeler

dshart wrote: »

But since the financial crisis things are different, it exposed the weak financial state of the country and how the overspend in the public sector in the boom years is now coming home to roost. People say the government managed to find money to bail out the banks, but the reality was they could not afford not to bail them out as the repercussions would have been huge. Millions of people would have lost everything and the knock on effect on the economy would have been huge. So when you look at bank bailouts think about how many ordinary peoples savings, pensions and mortgages have been saved.
.

It would have been far better to let all the banks fail, then the gov't produces a new bank that is the peoples bank. All the savings from the bust private banks are re-introduced to this peoples bank and the parasitical bank system is removed from the economy. Nobody loses their savings. Things carry on, this time in a system that is sustainable and not like the current system which is mathematically impossible to sustain.

dunstonh

Really?? the privately owned banks didn't indulge themselves in a feeding frenzy of speculation and bad debt then??

And the public sector in the form of the Govt and the regulators didnt encourage them to do so and the significant tax raised in that period didnt get used?

You have to be blinkered beyond belief if you just point the blame at the banks.

Credit-Crunched

dunstonh wrote: »

And the public sector in the form of the Govt and the regulators didnt encourage them to do so and the significant tax raised in that period didnt get used?

You have to be blinkered beyond belief if you just point the blame at the banks.

Agreed, during labour rule the public sector became a bloated burden. Too many quangos, and wastage like you would not believe.

Yes the banks did not help themselves or the country, they were however just feeding the frenzy that was New Labour.

If you really want to be pedantic about it, everyone who took a negative equity mortgage, or a credit card or a Personal Loan, or missed a payment on a financial agreement, or took an IVA or declared bankrupt is to blame. Basically everyone is to blame to a certain degree.

dshart

worldwheeler wrote: »

It would have been far better to let all the banks fail, then the gov't produces a new bank that is the peoples bank. All the savings from the bust private banks are re-introduced to this peoples bank and the parasitical bank system is removed from the economy. Nobody loses their savings. Things carry on, this time in a system that is sustainable and not like the current system which is mathematically impossible to sustain.

Well that is a theory that I have often wondered whether it would work especially with all these countries with so much debt and needing bailouts. What if they all just defaulted and refused to pay their creditors thus wiping the slate clean and starting again......

To me it seems that the whole world economic situation is just based on fictitious money, A lends to B who lends to C who lends back to A and so on. If just about every country in the world is in debt then there must be some very rich countries lending to the rest of the world............. or is it all make believe.

BTW I think on the level of your suggestion it would have cost the government a lot more than they spent bailing out the banks.

sheffield_lad

I hope Unison members are a 'tad' embarrassed to be in that union after the hysteria over Jeramey Clarkson's opinions over the strike lol

I really don't think he meant all the Public sector workers, just the one's with the loudspeakers & banners lol

dunstonh

howee wrote: »

I hope Unison members are a 'tad' embarrassed to be in that union after the hysteria over Jeramey Clarkson's opinions over the strike lol

I really don't think he meant all the Public sector workers, just the one's with the loudspeakers & banners lol

If he had said shoot the Union leaders then it would be very popular.

How he said it was wrong. He went too far. However, the responses from various Union representatives is just as ridiculous. One on the BBC news said people were now scared because of what he said. Another said that it was inciting hatred against public sector workers. But a few minutes later went on to slag off the private sector. Another went on to claim that David Cameron was supporting his friend. This was directly after a segment where David Cameron said what Clarkson said was very silly and no support was offered to Clarkson at all.

sheffield_lad

dunstonh wrote: »

If he had said shoot the Union leaders then it would be very popular.

How he said it was wrong. He went too far. However, the responses from various Union representatives is just as ridiculous. One on the BBC news said people were now scared because of what he said. Another said that it was inciting hatred against public sector workers. But a few minutes later went on to slag off the private sector. Another went on to claim that David Cameron was supporting his friend. This was directly after a segment where David Cameron said what Clarkson said was very silly and no support was offered to Clarkson at all.

It could be a lot worse he could have said only female strikers, going by the hysteria over feminism recently that could also have been a tad worse. In other words at least he's not sexist he just wanted to shoot the lot of them lol.

fluffymovie

I will admit straight away that I have not scanned all 41 pages of comments but have read some views on both sides which I feel are a little inflamatory.

However, I work in the public sector in a local council and will be affected by a number of the changes being made to the public sector. I think that some of the personal stories are being overlooked in anti public sector rhectoric and mud slinging on both sides.

I have worked in the public sector since finishing university. I worked in the NHS and for the last 11 years, in a benefit department for a local authority. I have paid into the pension scheme since I turned 21 because I wanted to provide for my later years.

I had the choice to follow a legal career but felt that I wanted to do something that I felt would help people. I have never enjoyed great financial wealth from this choice but feel that what I do matters. I have friends who work in high powered jobs earning 5 times what I do but I don't feel resentment at them for this - we all make choices in life afterall. The fact that their's have led to big houses, big cars, business trips abroad is great for them.

However, I have never been without a job and I have paid tax since starting work. When people say that their wages pay for my wages, can I ask, what happens to the tax I pay? I also work and pay into the system and over the last few years in my job, have seen blame apportioned to my career as a public servant.

My job as a Housing and Council Tax Benefit officer, will be lost when Universal Credit comes in. My wages have been frozen for 2 years and a 1% pay rise has been legislated with no consulation. Like those who work in the private sector, my bills have increased. My husband is a Fraud investigator in the public sector so his pay has also been frozen. I cannot work any more hours and all the time I have spent in studying to become better at my job (IRRV), means nothing.

Those people who look after our sick relatives, work in Jobcentres to assist those who have already been hit by the financial crisis, who put out fires and save lives, are paid by the state, there is no question about that. However, are these same people responsible for all that ails us in this society? I don't feel that they are and that the Govt's intention is to pit private against public. I say, people need to stand up for the public sector without whom, life would be very much different and not for the better

I believe that paying more would be reasonable but wonder where the additional money is supposed to come from with wage freezes - I can't see any way out of it