Derek Hatton Speaks

Rochdale_Pioneers

RenovationMan wrote: »

The public sector pensions that people are moaning about are funded from taxes when the state employee retires. Your 'just means higher bills for the state later' statement doesn't make any sense. The gilt edged civil service pension would be paid at the same time as any state aid, except of course the state aid would be less money and would be means-tested.

A huge step forward would be to make all of the public sector pensions fully funded, i.e. just like private sector pensions. At least then the burden will be on the current tax payer and not our children (seems fair as we are the ones receiving the 'service' from the public sector).

What gilt-edged pensions? have you seen how much actual cash your average public sector worker will have as a pension? Its hardly laden with gold and won't be enough. Nor are private sector pensions fully funded - how many big schemes have a big hole from the long term underperformance of the stock market? My biggest pension is with a global manufacturing giant. It was cut from final salary to defined benefit, we all increased our contributions at the same time and the company still keeps having to find large pots of cash to fill the hole.

Your point about the means test is exactly the point I was making - so many pensioners will be in poverty that the state will be having to pay out more to make up for their lack of any other pension. It'll be that or they die off in large numbers every winter.

RenovationMan

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

What gilt-edged pensions? have you seen how much actual cash your average public sector worker will have as a pension? Its hardly laden with gold and won't be enough. Nor are private sector pensions fully funded - how many big schemes have a big hole from the long term underperformance of the stock market? My biggest pension is with a global manufacturing giant. It was cut from final salary to defined benefit, we all increased our contributions at the same time and the company still keeps having to find large pots of cash to fill the hole.

Your point about the means test is exactly the point I was making - so many pensioners will be in poverty that the state will be having to pay out more to make up for their lack of any other pension. It'll be that or they die off in large numbers every winter.

I hardly think that the proposed changes to public sector pensions will beggar them, they are still far, far better than most private sector employees will ever receive, with the added bonus that the payments are guaranteed (or gilt-edged) instead of relying on the stockmarket, like so many public sector pensions.

As far as the state pension is concerned, if the future tax payers don't have the burden of public sector pensions around their necks (i.e. if the public sector pensions become fully funded) then they will be able to afford to pay higher state pensions for everyone and we wouldn't need means-testing.

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I've been having similar discussions on some Labour boards. Some people think the unions should keep saying no, others like me point to reality and want them to cut the best deal they can.

And why will we all be working to 70+? Look at it like this - with private sector pensions already downgraded, and public sector pensions now following, there will be a lot of people retiring on not a lot. Factor in the ever-increasing cost of living and you're going to have a lot of pensioner poverty. As rich countries tend not to like teh sight of their elderly freezing to death en masse, that means more state aid - so the "we can't afford pensions" argument from the Tories now just means higher bills for the state later.

And as people get towards what is currently retirement age and think "how will I live" - thats when the effective retirement age will keep going upwards.

The problem really is the ever growing sense of entitlement - people want everything without giving real thought to how it is paid for. The problem is that if too many people get things without paying for them, then everyone risks bankruptcy (as in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland). This sense of entitlement is typical in "shortchanged" and the likes of the rioters and the likes of Sam Main (the passenger removed from a Scot Rail train).

Labour were the worst protagonists for propagating the fantasy that we could have it all without paying for it and now trying to reason with folk that they can't just isn't really working.

That's why I think this country does need a full blown sovereign debt crisis. Only then, when we are totally bankrupt will people realize that things have to be paid for.

ruggedtoast

FTBFun wrote: »

You've lost me. Labour will win by a landslide if there was an election tomorrow, but without either Miliband brother as leader, except one is?

Look, they just need to offload the Millibands and then they will win by a landslide. People are desperate to like someone, just not them.

Personally I like this one:

shortchanged_2

Wookster wrote: »

This sense of entitlement is typical in "shortchanged" and the likes of the rioters and the likes of Sam Main (the passenger removed from a Scot Rail train).

Yes while I agree with some of what you say Wookster, I don't see it as an entitlement but as having earned it.

I think if someone has worked all their life, payed taxes etc then why should you not be able to have a couple of years in the latter part of your life to enjoy a few things before you get too old and decrepit to do anything.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes while I agree with some of what you say Wookster, I don't see it as an entitlement but as having earned it.

I think if someone has worked all their life, payed taxes etc then why should you not be able to have a couple of years in the latter part of your life to enjoy a few things before you get too old and decrepit to do anything.

Why should this be limited to just public sector workers?

p.s. you didn't answer my other question about your suggestion that I am living beyond my means.

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

Why should this be limited to just public sector workers?

p.s. you didn't answer my other question about your suggestion that I am living beyond my means.

I'm talking about a state retirement age of 70 - 75, that affects everyone, public or private sector..

Wookster

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes while I agree with some of what you say Wookster, I don't see it as an entitlement but as having earned it.

I think if someone has worked all their life, payed taxes etc then why should you not be able to have a couple of years in the latter part of your life to enjoy a few things before you get too old and decrepit to do anything.

Simple point is that the money isn't there.

And your payment has been lost in the pot of demands of the rest of the UK (free NHS, welfare state etc etc) because they were never ring-fenced in a pension fund.

shortchanged_2

Wookster wrote: »

Simple point is that the money isn't there.

And your payment has been lost in the pot of demands of the rest of the UK (free NHS, welfare state etc etc) because they were never ring-fenced in a pension fund.

Well if that's the case there's no point in living. We only live once and to spend all your life working yourself to death isn't particularly appealing.

Does this mean that society as we know it has failed?

lisyloo

I am delighted we will all be living longer, but with one parent with cancer and another disabled after removal of a brain tumour (both mid-60's) I believe that if people are going to have to work from their mid-60's onwards then there will be a high incapacity level - by high I mean something like 50% of people unable to work.