Grangemouth dispute: Ineos says petrochemical plant will close

Thrugelmir

chucknorris wrote: »

I believe that the university pays about 14% into the pension fund, so presumably the taxpayer pays the extra cost. But I am merely a lecturer and I have no inside knowledge of the universities administration, so it is quite possible that there are gaps in my understanding of the way the system works.

No taxpayer funding. The black hole is significant enough to be causing concern. Which suggests that both higher employee contribution levels and lower benefits are on the cards.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

probably the employee works council representatives were not committed communists dedicated to overthrowing the German government.

You must stop fretting about communists.

All that money we ploughed into American armaments rather than investing in our own industries saw to that.

They are now our friends we are going to be hock to them soon for our power. Don't choke on your Weetabix and if you Bank with Barclays hope your money is safe.

vivatifosi

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm in the TPS (teachers' pension fund) my contributions have gone up from 6.4% to (approx.) 12% next year (currently 10.1%) and it also moves to career average (from final salary) and to CPI from RPI inflation. But I would class it as moving from unbelievably excellent to excellent (rather than merely 'not a bad deal'). It is IMO still far too much for the tax payer to subsidise, people might think that I am a hypocrite or greedy for having that opinion and not opting out, but obviously if I am in it I intend to take advantage.

EDIT: I wouldn't like it if they moved to a DC pension but I would understand why, although I would immediately retire (subject to notice period and replacing me) if that happened.

Any DB scheme will clearly be better than a DC one, however, the reasons I see it as not a bad deal are.. 1) my previous private sector scheme was better, and 2) I can earn more doing my job in the private sector, therefore I would have more salary to put in. This is not a moan, I do my job because I enjoy it rather than the money. I would not get the same variety if I did not deal with the public.

If I was moved to a DC scheme I would expect a higher base salary, in line with it a little under the private sector equivalent. If as I suspect, that would not be forthcoming, then like you, I would leave because the job would no longer suit my purpose.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

You must stop fretting about communists.

All that money we ploughed into American armaments rather than investing in our own industries saw to that.

They are now our friends we are going to be hock to them soon for our power. Don't choke on your Weetabix and if you Bank with Barclays hope your money is safe.

I'm sure the East Europeans shared your commendable ability not to fret about the communists during those post war years.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm sure the East Europeans shared your commendable ability not to fret about the communists during those post war years.

No qualms about Chinese communists are then. They are no doubt pink and fluffy.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

No qualms about Chinese communists are then. They are no doubt pink and fluffy.

I'm sure you have no qualms about foreign communists just as you had no qualms about the home grown ones that did so much damage to the UK in the post war era.

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No taxpayer funding. The black hole is significant enough to be causing concern. Which suggests that both higher employee contribution levels and lower benefits are on the cards.

Surely someone is paying the difference in cost for the pensions between the employer/employee contributions and the true cost! If not the tax payer, then who?

The Telegraph seems to think that it is the tax payer, from the link:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010692/how-much-would-you-need-to-save-to-buy-a-public-sector-pension/

Specifically, how much enthusiasm will there be to go on paying higher taxes to subsidise pensions for the public sector which people in the private sector can never hope to enjoy themselves?

CLAPTON

chucknorris wrote: »

Surely someone is paying the difference in cost for the pensions between the employer/employee contributions and the true cost! If not the tax payer, then who?

The Telegraph seems to think that it is the tax payer, from the link:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010692/how-much-would-you-need-to-save-to-buy-a-public-sector-pension/

Specifically, how much enthusiasm will there be to go on paying higher taxes to subsidise pensions for the public sector which people in the private sector can never hope to enjoy themselves?

It would seem to be, that the options are not only between the guaranteed nature of defined benefit and the very risky defined contributions.
It is totally unacceptable that some-one's pension can be set by the political agenda to undertake QE.

We need a proper debate about pensions for all the people and how they can be afforded.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm sure you have no qualms about foreign communists just as you had no qualms about the home grown ones that did so much damage to the UK in the post war era.

Communists and socialists with fat cheques books now welcome apparently. Economic subservience is presumably acceptable in your eyes.

Originally Posted by grizzly1911
The companies were badly managed, complacent and didn't keep up. There was a lack of investment and they became uncompetitive. We had pilaged an empire and in turn sold them our poor goods for so long we didn't lift our game soon enough.

Germany and Japan were rebuilt after the second world war whilst we "invested" our money on defence and an arms race.

The unions played their part but it wasn't their fault in the way you portray.

Sad but true.

Heaven forbid the working populace should expect reasonable pay and conditions. They should be grateful for the scraps under the table.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Communists and socialists with fat cheques books now welcome apparently. Economic subservience is presumably acceptable in your eyes.

Originally Posted by grizzly1911
The companies were badly managed, complacent and didn't keep up. There was a lack of investment and they became uncompetitive. We had pilaged an empire and in turn sold them our poor goods for so long we didn't lift our game soon enough.

Germany and Japan were rebuilt after the second world war whilst we "invested" our money on defence and an arms race.

The unions played their part but it wasn't their fault in the way you portray.

Sad but true.

I have expressed no support whatsoever for communists or their money.

You have continually been an apologist for communism and have told me to get over my 'fretting' about them

You must stop fretting about communists.

All that money we ploughed into American armaments rather than investing in our own industries saw to that.

They are now our friends we are going to be hock to them soon for our power. Don't choke on your Weetabix and if you Bank with Barclays hope your money is safe.

You continue to be an apologist for communists and do not accept any of our post war industrial problems were due to the home grown communists.

The continual strikes: dockers, steel, car, miners, three day week, printing union, winter of discontent all stirred up by committed communists wanting to score political points and encourage dissent and revolution.


Instead, you see our expenditure on arming ourselves against the very real USSR threat as the main post war problem.

Certainly a lot of the industrial leadership was poor but introducing new working practices and machinery virtually always led to strikes and refusal to work the new machinery properly.

Your rediculous suggestion that new productive machinery could always avoid job losses by simply increasing sales, just shows your total lack of any commercial knowledge or experience or even common sense.