Good luck to state workers picketing today

julieq

Interesting idea. Fund better public service pensions in exchange for efficiency improvements. Win win.

noodle_doodle

Solidarity brothers.

Lap it up, private sector burger flippers. You should have tried harder at school.

michaels

Rugged would you disagree that the current system was designed when life expectancy was much lower and wasn't expected to increase so quickly?

So given that life expectancy and thus pension costs have mushroomed far beyond what was anticipated when the schemes were set up, how would you suggest they are paid for?

The bigger the share of national output received by pensionners, the smaller the share available for those who are working - do you disagree with this?

Given that demographics are going to increase the proportion of retired workers to employees can you see any way the current level of pensions can be maintained without sharply increasing taxes on the employed in the future?

Does it not sound unfair to you that workers will benefit from low taxes now because currently there are relatively fewer pensioners and then benefit from the higher taxes paid by future generations to support their retirement? This basically means that over their lifetimes they will get more out of the country than they put in as workers whilst future workers will by definition have the reverse, they will receive less back than they produce. Already we complain about the boomers retiring now who have beneffited from free university education, the transfer of wealth resulting from home ownership and restricted housing supply and low taxes during their working lives as a result of a more favourable demographic profile (less retirees per worker when they work working and being taxed) and govt borrowing shifting current expenditure to future liabilities.

I am not saying the proposed system is fair just that everyone will have to pay more now if they want to receive more pension in future, it is not a political sentiment it is just maths.

Really2

real1314 wrote: »

Travel perks? Cheap Gym? Erm, you're guilty of the same myth spreading. Any evidence of this being COMMON in the public sector?

My wife works in LG and she gets them, and so do most other LG officers across the UK. Some get free gym, lucky begars (that is at the county head office, wife is not covered for that one as she works in a different location).
is it paul1986 who gets discounted travel in his public sector accountancy job?
She as just taken out personal swimming membership at a corporate rate (vastly reduced) at a LG pool just becasue she works for the autority, for me to join the same pool it is nearly twice the price.
Police here have a subsidised bar in the police station.

Myth.................Busted.

Generali

What about the people in the private sector that do civic minded jobs? Mrs Generali looked after children in private nurseries and homes for years. No pension, no perks, no sick pay beyond the legal minimum.

The women that nursed my Dad through the last 18 months of his life while dying of Alzheimer's. Private sector. Similar arrangement to Mrs Generali I would guess.

More money going to the public sector workers is taken directly from the pockets of those workers. These strikers want a bigger slice of a shrinking pie. In the end that has to stop otherwise there is nothing left to take.

ruggedtoast

60% of the actual public support public sector workers strikes today. It looks like 0% of the mean minded dessicated neo-liberal ideologue Daily Mail prunes who populate this dreadful board do.

What a surprise.

abaxas

noodle_doodle wrote: »

Solidarity brothers.

Lap it up, private sector burger flippers. You should have tried harder at school.

2 million 'workers' !!!!ing off the other 26 million.

Looks like government have played you, now everyone knows of your selfish greed.

Good luck with you 'solidarity'. We dont want scum like you anymore.

Aberdeenangarse

I bet Wetherspoons will be busy today.

julieq

real1314 wrote: »

Completely ignoring the fact that the cost of public sector pensions is FALLING, regardless of the proposed reforms.

Meaningless. The cost should fall because some reforms have been implemented. That does not mean they've fallen sufficiently to be affordable.

For God's sake, what is the problem with suggesting YOU should pay more towards YOUR pension so the rest of us can pay more to our own? You're so deep down this crazy union stoked entitlement trip that you forget who it is who has to pick up the tab.

And as soon as anyone makes difficult points there's some diversionary diatribe about bankers and fat cats versus angelic nurses. Well banks make a MASSIVE net contribution to the economy - 11.2% of the total tax take, over £50B a year. "Fat Cats" as a rule is a code for the pension funds who invest in companies and pay the returns to private sector pensioners.

So really, enough of the class war rhetoric and bring it back to why someone else should pay for your comfortable retirement when they're struggling to fund their own.

chewmylegoff

real1314 wrote: »

Completely ignoring the fact that the cost of public sector pensions is FALLING, regardless of the proposed reforms.

Depends who you listen to.

The unions always quote the net figure as a percentage of estimated future GDP (gross payments to pensioners - contributions "paid" by existing employees).

The net cost is only falling because of the increasing number of public sector workers and changes to the contributions. And probably crazy GDP estimates as well I expect.

The gross cost, which is of course the actual cost, because the employee contributions are nothing more than an accounting exercise, is steadily rising and will continue to do so.