It's not just the public sector....

Jennifer_Jane

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Public sector workers will stand shoulder to shoulder with unilever employees in their struggle against an unaccountable elite for a fair retirement.

Ha! Ha! Very good - you mean like they did when the AstraZeneca employees went on strike about their pensions - which, incidentally, weren't nearly as generous as Unilever's moving from final salary to career average - but remaining a defined benefit plan?

drwho2011

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's about time that all salaries were quoted gross i.e. including basis salary, employer pension payments, benefits in kind, bonuses etc and then were would be less nonsense about private sector paying for public sector pensions (which of course they do, just as they also pay for public sectors workers food, boozing, housing, holidays, gym membership, cloths etc etc.)

As a former civil servant I used to get "reward statements" each year detailing the effect of employer pension contributions and my gross salary (I was in one of the more recent schemes, not final salary).

Anyhow switched to the private sector doing a similar job, yes the pension is significantly worse but is offset against salary increase (£7,000 higher), I could if I choose add that into the company pension which would be matched by my employer would give me a comparable pension to my civil service one.

Twice of the three times I was employed by the public sector I couldn't have afforded to have been part of the pension schemes offered because of the lower salaries offered.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I absolutely bet you that your pension wouldn't be worth anything without the public sector.

So it's a bit silly to look at it from the viewpoint you have done.

Without the public sector, there would be no regulations surrounding pensions. Therefore, yours would be worthless at best.

No public sector = no government. No government = no regulation.

We are not talking about public sector workers, but public sector retirees.

mr-angry

ILW wrote: »

I fail to understand why public sector employees do not understand why that annoys people.

I fail to understand why some people do not understand that they do not pay public sector pensions as they, along with every other tax payer pay public sector salaries of which the pension is part of.

ILW

mr-angry wrote: »

I fail to understand why some people do not understand that they do not pay public sector pensions as they, along with every other tax payer pay public sector salaries of which the pension is part of.

Sounds like a blank cheque being written.

ruggedtoast

Road_Hog wrote: »

Can I have my 25% back please? I'm happy to fund my own pension and I don't expect you to pay towards it, but why do I have to fund your gold plated pension?

Are you getting the message that private sector workers are fed up of your whinging, striking and moaning about your pension?

You aren't because I haven't retired.

My pension is funded by my contributions from my salary and my employer. As a tax payer you are funding a minute part of that, but as I'm willing to bet that the industry my colleagues and I work in is about seven thousand times more useful than your job, you should probably be ok with that.

RenovationMan

mr-angry wrote: »

I fail to understand why some people do not understand that they do not pay public sector pensions as they, along with every other tax payer pay public sector salaries of which the pension is part of.

Except that the pension contributions are not held anywhere and so when the public sector workers retire their pensions are funded by tax payers. Interestingly enough, the people who will be paying for those currently employed in the public sector are our children; the future earners who will already be labouring under their student loans, high house prices and a large population of pensioners in the state pension system.

In the mis-quoted words of Vinny Gambini, "STATE PENSION, - student loan, high houseprices, public sector pensions, and let me see, what else can we pile on? Is there any more S4it we can pile on to the top of them? Is it possible? "

CLAPTON

RenovationMan wrote: »

Except that the pension contributions are not held anywhere and so when the public sector workers retire their pensions are funded by tax payers. Interestingly enough, the people who will be paying for those currently employed in the public sector are our children; the future earners who will already be labouring under their student loans, high house prices and a large population of pensioners in the state pension system.

In the mis-quoted words of Vinny Gambini, "STATE PENSION, - student loan, high houseprices, public sector pensions, and let me see, what else can we pile on? Is there any more S4it we can pile on to the top of them? Is it possible? "

yes that is true

and people with funded pension schemes, will be paid by those same children who will have to work to produce high levels of profits to pay out to the 'funded' sector.

the facts are that there is very very very little difference between the 'burden' on our children and grandchildren to support funded (mainly private sector workers) or unfunded (mainly public sector workers)


the simple facts are that if the 'retired' i.e. economically inactive people have a pension income that MUST be at the cost of the working (economically active) people.

so the more the retired people have the less the workers have ... it's really that simple

michaels

In a closed economy yes, but in an open economy we could save now by purchasing a claim on the future output of foreign workers much as the Chinese are doing with their huge trade surplus.

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes that is true

and people with funded pension schemes, will be paid by those same children who will have to work to produce high levels of profits to pay out to the 'funded' sector.

the facts are that there is very very very little difference between the 'burden' on our children and grandchildren to support funded (mainly private sector workers) or unfunded (mainly public sector workers)


the simple facts are that if the 'retired' i.e. economically inactive people have a pension income that MUST be at the cost of the working (economically active) people.

so the more the retired people have the less the workers have ... it's really that simple

RenovationMan

CLAPTON wrote: »

the facts are that there is very very very little difference between the 'burden' on our children and grandchildren to support funded (mainly private sector workers) or unfunded (mainly public sector workers)

The 'burden' of producing a profit for companies (which then indirectly fund pensions via dividends, share price increases, etc.) is already there for people who work in the the private sector, it's part of their job. They are then put under an additional burden through taxation to fund the gilt-edged pensions of public sector workers and let's not forget the state pension.

With the increase in the numbers of pensioners and the increase in life expectancy, the government have grasped the mettle and increased the state pension retirement age, etc. They now need to grasp the mettle with public sector pensions (which is simply a more generous version of the state pension) in the same way.

The country simply cannot afford to put the burden of generous public sector pensions, state pensions and pensioners healthcare on top of the shoulders of a population of workers who are already carrying their student loan debts, high mortgages and pension contributions, their own children, the army of loafers on benefits and their children, etc. etc.

It's time people woke up and smelled the coffee. The country simply cannot afford to be this generous to one sector of employees just because they are heavily unionised and unbelievably short-sighted and selfish.