Public Sector Strike(s)

julieq

As a percentage of GDP that's a fair chunk, and the paper deals with that point anyway. It's reducing but still high. Spending on pensions is more than the Police etc.

Or in other terms, half a bank bailout a year.

kabayiri

thorsoak wrote: »

Did I say that it was his own work? No I did not - I said that I copied it from his facebook page!
...

So you admit copying something from him?

Strife! It runs in the family

macaque_2

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne wrote: »

No. It is not our money. You payed tax to the government and it became the state's money for the state to spend as it sees fit. This is not the fault of public sector workers. The notion of 'taxpayer's money' is convenient only to justify one's moral outrage.

It is our money and the public sector would do well to remember that. The state is the representative of the people and people pay tax by consent. When state forgets that, people take their jobs and taxable income elsewhere.

noodle_doodle

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i hope he doesn't teach anything that requires logical reasoning.

Indeed, as a teacher supervising 30 children you should only get a wage 5 times that of a nursery worker who can legally supervise up to 6 children by themselves. That would get them £6.94 (average nursery wage) * 5 = £34.70 an hour, times by 6.5 hours that would be £225.25 a day. Times by 195 days (39 5-day weeks) and thats £43,923 a year

As a standard teacher at the top of the scale earns £34,000 that extra £9,000 will nicely cover the NI and pension contributions from the gubment. Some will earn more, but many more will earn less. If you want to pay for buildings/lighting etc we'll charge you more for actually educating them ;-)

So, they seem to pay for themselves.

dtsazza

I've seen the word "fair" in quite a few posts, and I really don't think it adds anything to the discussion.

Excluding some particularly vicious sociopaths, I expect that everyone wants wages and pensions to be fair. (As well as benefits, taxes, hospital waiting lists; everything).

So the dispute is really those who believe that the current level represents "fair" and thus the proposed changes are too low, and those who believe the current level is too high and the proposed changes are closer to "fair".

To that extent if you're going to say that something is "fair" or otherwise, it's just tubthumping unless you also explain exactly what you mean by the term and why your definition is more correct than other peoples'.

daveyjp

So julieq makes products which are bought by the NHS, for thjis she gets paid a wage and invests it in a pension. This wage is from cash provided by the NHS which is funded by taxpayer. QED julieq's pension is paid for via taxation.

If you follow the money you quickly realise there is no such thing as "public cash" and "private cash" - its all the same cash which simply circulates around a huge system and for many companies no public sector means no private sector.

I suggest anyone with a private sector income thinks who buys the products which generate their wealth. At some point public sector cash will be involved so an element of taxation funds everyone's pension at some point.

chewmylegoff

noodle_doodle wrote: »

blah blah blah

I hope you don't teach anything that requires logical reasoning either.

julieq

Hutton defines fair, and he means two things. Firstly within the scheme, it's not fair that the lower paid should receive a worse deal proportionately than the higher paid. And then outside the scheme there should be an equitable split between the employee, employer and taxpayer.

It's really a very well set out set of proposals. That's the frustrating part of this, the strikers appear to have been brainwashed into thinking they're getting a poor deal - the "race to the bottom" fallacy, when in fact it's fantastic.

CLAPTON

julieq wrote: »

As a percentage of GDP that's a fair chunk, and the paper deals with that point anyway. It's reducing but still high. Spending on pensions is more than the Police etc.

Or in other terms, half a bank bailout a year.

the paper simply says without any consideration of why it's unaffordble or indeed any analayis atall.



1.10 With rising costs in healthcare and other demands on taxpayers, this is not affordable




what calculation to you do to justify the affordability of pensions either state, public or private as a percentage of GDP
bearing in mind that about 20% of the population are retired

julieq

daveyjp wrote: »

So julieq makes products which are bought by the NHS, for thjis she gets paid a wage and invests it in a pension. This wage is from cash provided by the NHS which is funded by taxpayer. QED julieq's pension is paid for via taxation.

If you follow the money you quickly realise there is no such thing as "public cash" and "private cash" - its all the same cash which simply circulates around a huge system and for many companies no public sector means no private sector.

I suggest anyone with a private sector income thinks who buys the products which generate their wealth. At some point public sector cash will be involved so an element of taxation funds everyone's pension at some point.

OK (I don't fully accept the argument but that's not important), but the pensions being offered to public sector workers are more generous (cost less, return more) than those in the private sector. So let's balance it. That means saving more from income, just as the private sector employee does.