Osborne loses his nerve in the face of Union solidarity

Andy_L

ILW wrote: »

As a public sector worker, you should worship Gordon Brown.

Why? Unless you were in the golden children of the NHS or education you did not do at all well under him

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

Would I notice a difference if you was on strike?

No, but you are not paying my wages.

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

No, but you are not paying my wages.

Why, are you a housewife?

The_White_Horse

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Actually, over 60% of the country supported public sector workers' strike action. This may not have been overly apparent to you, what with you being trapped in your Daily Mail bubble of perpetual indignation and all.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15910621

get back to work and stop moaning you public sector greedy filth.

Generali

Killmark wrote: »

The public has benefited from the use of public sector pension contributions being spent through short sighted planning rather than being invested, as a result the taxpayer should carry the burden.

My point is that the taxpayer can't carry the burden because they haven't got the money.

Public sector employees signed a contract and should get what they are entitled to contractually IMO. Unfortunately if the money isn't there they can't have it.

Lots of people seem to want to make denying public sector workers into a moral case, that somehow they don't deserve it. That's crap, with respect. Life isn't fair and never will be. Winston Bogard made about £8,000,000 gross in 4 years for warming a seat in the stands from Chelsea Football Club. Meanwhile my Dad lost a good part of his pension in the Equitable Life thing. That's not fair but it is life.

The only case that anyone that is expecting to retire for 30-40 years on an index linked pension is how it is going to be paid. I can't see where the money will come from and all I ever seem to get in response when I ask the question is 'tax the rich' (there aren't enough rich people) or some rubbish about bankers (there are even fewer of them).

Generali

Andy_L wrote: »

The teachers scheme is unfunded.

By Civil Service I suspect you mean Public Sector as the CS is a small sub-group of the Public Sector.

The £1 trillion number is based on some comedy assumptions. eg every worker does the full 40 years & gets pay rises/career progression of rpi+2.75%pa for all those 40 years.

http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/sir-humphreys-legacy-facing-to-the-cost-of-public-sector-pensions

Not true. When showing examples of how various estimates of pension liabilities the authors use that as the 4th of 5 examples (see pages 45-51).

The only reasons the authors use to push up the calculation of expected liability from the Government's official figure (produced by the GAD) are as follows:

1. The GAD assumes wages will rise at 1.5% over inflation. Over the 5 years prior to the report, public sector wages rose at RPI + 2.23% (RPI + 3.13% for the health sector). The authors take an assumption of RPI + 2% as the average wage increase.
2. The authors claim that the GAD has consistently understated longevity (pages 66-68)
3. The authors believe that the GAD has overstated the likely change in interest rates. The authors have been shown to be right since 2005.

Using the GAD's figures from March 2005 and using the above 3 assumptions were used to adjust the figures (page 72). Not anything about people working from age 20-60 etc. If you're going to criticise the report, at least read the blasted thing rather than taking what you read in a newspaper article at face value.

The authors reach a further conclusion. They say that it may be reasonable to assume that interest rates for the purposes of measuring the current value of future pension promises should be just the rate of inflation, not the rate of interest payable on index linked gilts (Government bonds that pay interest of inflation +x%). If you do that, the current value of the future bill is £1,406,000,000.

For the record, if you go to the DMO (Government) website you can see the yield on index linked Gilts. As these are all negative and also because the Government payroll has increased since 2005, it is reasonable to assume that the future value of the bill at todays prices is considerably more than stated above.

http://www.dmo.gov.uk/reportView.aspx?rptCode=D3B.2&rptName=95939423&reportpage=Gilts/Daily_Prices

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

Why, are you a housewife?

Your posts get more and more desperate, Stevie.

What on earth do you mean by this?

IronWolf

Generali wrote: »

My point is that the taxpayer can't carry the burden because they haven't got the money.

Public sector employees signed a contract and should get what they are entitled to contractually IMO. Unfortunately if the money isn't there they can't have it.

Lots of people seem to want to make denying public sector workers into a moral case, that somehow they don't deserve it. That's crap, with respect. Life isn't fair and never will be. Winston Bogard made about £8,000,000 gross in 4 years for warming a seat in the stands from Chelsea Football Club. Meanwhile my Dad lost a good part of his pension in the Equitable Life thing. That's not fair but it is life.

The only case that anyone that is expecting to retire for 30-40 years on an index linked pension is how it is going to be paid. I can't see where the money will come from and all I ever seem to get in response when I ask the question is 'tax the rich' (there aren't enough rich people) or some rubbish about bankers (there are even fewer of them).

Noone is talking about changing pensions that have already accrued. That £1tn figure is nonsense, but even if it was true it is over the next 80 or so years, when the government will receive over £300tn in tax revenue.

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

RJP33 wrote: »

Vast majority of people in this country do not agree with you. The public sector is overbloated, overpaid, inefficient and needs at least a 20% reduction and it's impossible to sack people who are not competent. That is from personal experience.

Perhaps you should think of the plumber or builder who contribute towards the pensions that they can only dream of.before being so selfish.

The vast majority of people in this country make baseless claims that imaginary majorities support their view.

Generali

IronWolf wrote: »

Noone is talking about changing pensions that have already accrued. That £1tn figure is nonsense, but even if it was true it is over the next 80 or so years, when the government will receive over £300tn in tax revenue.

I agree that the trillion is wrong. Reading the analysis I reckon it's far too conservative a figure. £1,400,000,000,000 is a far more accurate figure to use as at 2005 and it's worth noting that the longer no provision is made, the bigger the shortfall.

The public sector will not be getting what has been promised. That's just maths. Having said that, many of those that think they have a cast iron promise in private sector defined benefits schemes are likely to be disappointed too.

Don't forget, Generation X outnumbers baby boomers already and Gen Y is paying tax and, in many cases, considerable student debts too. It would be understandable for Gen Y in particular to say, "You didn't pay for my education so why should I pay for you to put your feet up for 20-40 years?"