Government "trap" or not?

markos1963

What I haven't heard from the Government is what they are going to spend the extra six years of income tax and Ni contributions from the public sector workers that they will get?

rick_chasey

markos1963 wrote:

What I haven't heard from the Government is what they are going to spend the extra six years of income tax and Ni contributions from the public sector workers that they will get?

Servicing the deficit presumably.

Most cuts are implicitly assumed under the 'austerity' umbrella.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

There was a Unison rep on Radio 5 the other day saying that taxpayers money doesn't help fund public sector pensions much as it all comes from the employees and the employers - where does she think the employers contributions come from?

That's not how it works though, is it?

If you count back far enough you could make anything be paid for by anyone.

They've worked, provided an economic function, and get paid the market value for that.

The only difference is is that the state has decided to command a proportion of your salary and spend it for you (tax) since you can't be trusted to spend it on stuff that helps the greater good.


Surely, by your logic anyone ever is funded by 'us'.

Not really, it is far more direct. Taxpayer / council tax money goes directly to the government or Council and a part of that is used to make the employers contributions. I say all this as a public sector pension holder - I'm very grateful for the system but when I look at what I will get compared to what I paid in I just can't see how it will be sustainable. I paid in 8 or 9 years on a salary varying from about £6k to £17.5k and get on current levels about £3k a year as a payout so with an average life expectancy about £36k in today's money.

StillGoing

In times of prosperity, the private sector live the high life at the expense of the public sector,(no cries of we're earning bucket loads, how about bringing the public sector in line) in times of need, the public sector are now expected to pay for the problems being experienced in the private sector. The coalition government have one aim in my book; to make every part of the public sector attractive to privitisation and the biggest hurdle to that is pensions. The public sector aren't on massive earnings for what they do, but they were recognised by the award of a good pension. Now this coalition want to take that away. "We're in this together" is the cry. Not if you're an MP or a judge and if you're a banker, feel free to carry on enjoying those obscene bonuses.

Valy

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Valy, where do I mention cutting public services by 50%?
Cutting MPs by 50% yes (Arguably about waist level would be good! )
Tom, click the link, in 1960, the life expectancy of someone who had been born in Britain was 70 years. Retire at 65, likely to be dead by 70. In 2009, you were likely to live until you were 80, so retire at 65, another 15 years of life left.

Proof that careful reading some times pays off... but you laid a trap!!!!!

shouldbeinbed

squired wrote:

More likely pension provision for private companies should be increased rather than those for the public sector decreased.

That would never work. As verylonglegs said, it is a global game. If we tried to force private companies to increase pension provisions for workforces that are already expensive many will just find staff in another country. Politicians are always talking about what is "fair". In a situation where public sector workers (on average) now earn more than the private sector, plus have better pension provisions, that simply isn't "fair".

The role of the banks was obviously very important, but Labour were simply spending too much. It is funny really, because the Government tells you that you should save in the good times so that you have money for a rainy day, yet they were spending public money like a drunken sailor. Had Labour kept spending under control and actually built up a surplus we could be in a pretty good position right now.

So in the interest of fairness, will all those fortunate to have perks in the private sector be foregoing the Christmas and productivity bonuses, company cars, heathcare, gym & other benefits, staff discounts for even the newest & lowest ranked shop staff etc?

And offthebackadam, jesus christ man we're not all Sir Humphrey. There are vast differences in what the wider public service entails. But the tiny minority of hugely costly & privileged mandarins are held up as the norm. Don't be so gullible.

Police your own streets? Nurse yourself better when A&E is shut down, (ever paid an overnight vet bill? Pay for your own hospital will bankrupt you very quickly) Find some way of disposing of your rubbish with no bin men or local tip to take it for free, up a ladder to fix your own streetlights? Fill that pothole yourself? Define which 50% go and which of the remaining 50% have to stop doing what they're doing to backfill? I could hand on heart identify approx 10 out 70 in my place that we could assimilate the loss of before front line services get hit or corners get cut so far then it will cause more problems for everyone than it solves. Private sector companies make millions from public sector purchasing, you up to get rid of that buying power & money going directly to private industry (who have profiteered through witless tendering for decades) there are large private companies that will haemmorage staff or die overnight. If I were a private sector consulrant, about a dozen jobs a year (paid from public funds/legal aid) would pay my annual salary. The private sector is a big factor in ripping the arse our of the public purse.

Retire at 55, lovely. 10 years less than I signed up to 20 years ago then? And find a better situation, where do you suggest? I'm a specialist in my trade, the opportunities aren't ten a penny in the public sector, they're damn near non existent in private enterprise. Please spare us the Daily Heil rhetoric & accept a few of us aren't millionaire salaried whitehall mandarins or rafia basket weaving or training convicts in clowning skills & actually do a longstanding job of some usefulness to private individuals & businesses.

snailracer

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

...
Tom, click the link, in 1960, the life expectancy of someone who had been born in Britain was 70 years. Retire at 65, likely to be dead by 70. In 2009, you were likely to live until you were 80, so retire at 65, another 15 years of life left.

You are quoting a statistic irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. The correct stat is the life expectancy at 65 (not at birth), which has only increased by about a quarter since 1960.

For example, a man retiring at 65 in 1960 was likely to live to about 77 (not 70). And even longer for women.

Tom Butcher

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Valy, where do I mention cutting public services by 50%?
Cutting MPs by 50% yes (Arguably about waist level would be good! )
Tom, click the link, in 1960, the life expectancy of someone who had been born in Britain was 70 years. Retire at 65, likely to be dead by 70. In 2009, you were likely to live until you were 80, so retire at 65, another 15 years of life left.

You are making a schoolboy statistical error there - a 65 year old is likely to live to an older age than an infant. Early death brings life expectancy down quite a bit - but a 65 year old by definition has not died an early death - so they will obviously tend to die later on average.

There are easily available stats on life expectancy at 65 - in other words how much longer you are likely to live once you reach that age - this is a better measure of how much longer people will live in retirement.