And another one....
Comments
-
notsoblue wrote:Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"?
Equitable Life?
If the well is dry, it's dry.0 -
Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"?
Equitable Life?
If the well is dry, it's dry.
What causes a private fund to fail like that?0 -
notsoblue wrote:Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"? The impression I get is that you don't think that the public sector should really exist at all, and that anything they get is too much because by definition it comes from the government. Is that accurate?
You have this charming habbit of presuming and paraphrasing what you want people to think/be saying, without them actually thinking or saying it. You have done it countless times and I can't fathom whether you are are deliberately obtuse or just unable to comprehend. Either way, no, that's not accurate.
Interesting that you use the word "promised". Was it in their employment contract, or was it in fact a "forecast"? Because my pension is based on a forecast, and is in no way guaranteed. I can't sue my employer if the forecast is wrong. Was it right that the government changed the pension rules for private pensions after people had been paying into them? I don't see the difference to that compared to what has been proposed for the public sector.0 -
Well then correct me. What *are* you saying? I'm not trying to trap you, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. You're too busy insulting people for their views rather than actually trying to communicate your point clearly.W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"? The impression I get is that you don't think that the public sector should really exist at all, and that anything they get is too much because by definition it comes from the government. Is that accurate?
You have this charming habbit of presuming and paraphrasing what you want people to think/be saying, without them actually thinking or saying it. You have done it countless times and I can't fathom whether you are are deliberately obtuse or just unable to comprehend. Either way, no, that's not accurate.0 -
time for...
Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
notsoblue wrote:Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"?
Equitable Life?
If the well is dry, it's dry.
What causes a private fund to fail like that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equita ... Hyman_case
In the simplest of terms, it contracted with its policyholders to provide benefits (guaranteed annuity rates) that it then found it could not afford to provide.
It's not quite the same as final salary pensions, but the root problem is similar. You, the employer, take and make contributions now to a pot. You promise your employee that when they retire, they will get an annuity that is a proportion of their final salary. You don't know how inflation will run between now and then, and you don't know what their final salary will be. You make some estimates. And you rely a bit on having money from future entrants to the scheme to pay this employee when the time comes. Fundamentally though you the employer take the risk that you'll have enough money in the future to make good on your promise. Ulp.
Personal pensions put the risk on the employee. They are really nothing more than a saving scheme with tax breaks and restrictions on how you can take the money out at the end, with the savings being invested by a fund manager in the meantime.
I've seen both sides of the coin: Dad was on a final salary scheme, and was pretty comfortable in retirement. Some of the older guys I used to work with had their pensions wiped out by the Equitable collapse. They had to knuckle down and defer their retirements for a few years. Sub-optimal.0 -
Why don't you read what I wrote? Did I say anything that is contrary to the notion of a public sector per se? No, so it was a presumption on your part, without foundation - again. I'm not, in fact, (in the post you quoted) trying to say anything about the public sector as a concept - that is just your (incorrect) "impression".notsoblue wrote:
Well then correct me. What *are* you saying? I'm not trying to trap you, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. You're too busy insulting people for their views rather than actually trying to communicate your point clearly.W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"? The impression I get is that you don't think that the public sector should really exist at all, and that anything they get is too much because by definition it comes from the government. Is that accurate?
You have this charming habbit of presuming and paraphrasing what you want people to think/be saying, without them actually thinking or saying it. You have done it countless times and I can't fathom whether you are are deliberately obtuse or just unable to comprehend. Either way, no, that's not accurate.0 -
Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"?
Equitable Life?
If the well is dry, it's dry.
What causes a private fund to fail like that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equita ... Hyman_case
In the simplest of terms, it contracted with its policyholders to provide benefits (guaranteed annuity rates) that it then found it could not afford to provide.
It's not quite the same a final salary pensions, but the root problem is similar. You, the employer, take and make contributions now to a pot. You promise your employee that when they retire, they will get an annuity that is a proportion of their final salary. You don't know how inflation will run between now and then, and you don't know what their final salary will be. You make some estimates. And you rely a bit on having money from future entrants to the scheme to pay this employee when the time comes. Fundamentally though you the employer take the risk that you'll have enough money in the future to make good on your promise. Ulp.
Personal pensions put the risk on the employee. They are really nothing more than a saving scheme with tax breaks and restrictions on how you can take the money out at the end, with the savings being invested by a fund manager in the meantime.
I've seen both sides of the coin: Dad was on a final salary scheme, and was pretty comfortable in retirement. Some of the older guys I used to work with had their pensions wiped out by the Equitable collapse. They had to knuckle down and defer their retirements for a few years. Sub-optimal.
Cool, ta. So the main difference between private and public sector pensions is that a private pension scheme can default on a shortfall but the government can't, leading to a situation where money from the general taxation pot is used to make it up? i.e. If you have a private pension and it fails its tough luck, but a public pension is almost guaranteed? And *this* is what is considered fundamentally unfair?0 -
notsoblue wrote:Cool, ta. So the main difference between private and public sector pensions is that a private pension scheme can default on a shortfall but the government can't, leading to a situation where money from the general taxation pot is used to make it up? i.e. If you have a private pension and it fails its tough luck, but a public pension is almost guaranteed? And *this* is what is considered fundamentally unfair?
You also cannot ignore the much higher pension payments that the public sector get, bearing in mind that are often final salary schemes (rather than based on the amount you put in).
It's not just the guarantee, it's the amount compared to contributions too.0 -
notsoblue wrote:MaxwellBygraves wrote:Right wing are panicking, as widely expected.
I really don't think this is the case, Maxwell. The conservatives can't really do any wrong at the moment. The state of the economy means that the changes they would want to make to the public sector anyway can be done under the guise of austerity.
I disagree. Organised labour really is their worst nightmare, see Cameron on This Morning a few minutes ago. See the headlines in all the Conservative papers, 'futile' 'damp squib' 'all gone shopping'. They want to dispell any sense of unity in case people start to see through their bullsh!t. All over the place, denying this and getting quite confused over that. Never thought I'd say this, but Phillip Schofield did a good job in exposing this!"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
notsoblue wrote:Cool, ta. So the main difference between private and public sector pensions is that a private pension scheme can default on a shortfall but the government can't, leading to a situation where money from the general taxation pot is used to make it up? i.e. If you have a private pension and it fails its tough luck, but a public pension is almost guaranteed? And *this* is what is considered fundamentally unfair?
I *think* what is generally considered unfair by the private sector is that public sector pension provision remains generally based on final salary, with (as you say) the Govt through tax revenues underwriting the bill for those pensions. The employees' contributions are not directly related to what they get out, and they don't have any of the risk of poor investment performance or scheme maladministration. The taxpayer does.
In the private sector, OTOH, final salary schemes are now virtually dead, because no one can afford to run them. By "dead" I mean that they are closed to new entrants. Whether existing members will get their pension at their prescribed % of final salary largely depends on how big the pot is. Hence why British Airways is sometimes described as a pension scheme with an affiliated airline. Its pension liabilities looking forward are massive, and there's against question mark over the ability of the fund to meet them, and/or BA to underwrite any shortfall.
Private sector pensions are therefore moving (have moved?) towards what's called the defined contributions model, which means you pay in a specific amount and what you get out is directly related to that amount, financially managed over time. The risk of Stock Market low performance, stagnation, etc all fall on the employee.
What the public sector is now protesting about therefore, is that their pensions might have to take a cut. They don't want that, and the consequence is that they want more taxpayers' money to be made available to underwrite their pension schemes. The private sector doesn't care for the idea of giving more money to the public sector so that the public sector can have better pensions than the private sector.
And yes, there used to be a large pay differential between public and private sector, and pension benefits were perceived to be one of the compensations to the public sector for that differential. But the last Govt narrowed, if not eradicated the pay differential.
At least, that's how I understand it.0 -
W1 wrote:You also cannot ignore the much higher pension payments that the public sector get, bearing in mind that are often final salary schemes (rather than based on the amount you put in).
It's not just the guarantee, it's the amount compared to contributions too.
I don't have a problem with this though (and I have a private sector pension). As has been said elsewhere, most people in the public sector accept lower pay because of the quality of the pension. Its all part and parcel of their overall remuneration. Besides, complaining about how good someone else's deal is does smack a bit of resentment. Unless you think that public sector pay doesn't deserve to be that good in the first place?0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:I disagree. Organised labour really is their worst nightmare, see Cameron on This Morning a few minutes ago. See the headlines in all the Conservative papers, 'futile' 'damp squib' 'all gone shopping'. They want to dispell any sense of unity in case people start to see through their bullsh!t. All over the place, denying this and getting quite confused over that. Never thought I'd say this, but Phillip Schofield did a good job in exposing this!
Yeah, but for the moment thats just Philip Scofield... I think they would only really seriously consider Organised Labour a threat if the opposition actually supported it. But at the moment, they don't actually support it at all. Theres some flimsy pro-worker rhetoric but they aren't supporting it in a tangible way. So theres no political incentive for the coalition to actually take serious notice of organised labour.0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:notsoblue wrote:MaxwellBygraves wrote:Right wing are panicking, as widely expected.
I really don't think this is the case, Maxwell. The conservatives can't really do any wrong at the moment. The state of the economy means that the changes they would want to make to the public sector anyway can be done under the guise of austerity.
I disagree. Organised labour really is their worst nightmare, see Cameron on This Morning a few minutes ago. See the headlines in all the Conservative papers, 'futile' 'damp squib' 'all gone shopping'. They want to dispell any sense of unity in case people start to see through their bullsh!t. All over the place, denying this and getting quite confused over that. Never thought I'd say this, but Phillip Schofield did a good job in exposing this!
But it was a damp squib, and they did all go bloody Christmas shopping........!?!?!?! About as organised as a herd of cats.FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
notsoblue wrote:. But at the moment, they don't actually support it at all. Theres some flimsy pro-worker rhetoric but they aren't supporting it in a tangible way. So theres no political incentive for the coalition to actually take serious notice of organised labour.
In the same way the Tories get their cues from the City which gives them half of all party funding, Labour get a serious chunk of funding from TUs...
I'd say that's pretty tangible.0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:You also cannot ignore the much higher pension payments that the public sector get, bearing in mind that are often final salary schemes (rather than based on the amount you put in).
It's not just the guarantee, it's the amount compared to contributions too.
I don't have a problem with this though (and I have a private sector pension). As has been said elsewhere, most people in the public sector accept lower pay because of the quality of the pension. Its all part and parcel of their overall remuneration. Besides, complaining about how good someone else's deal is does smack a bit of resentment. Unless you think that public sector pay doesn't deserve to be that good in the first place?
Is that pay argument still going on, when all the studies I have seen reported show that the public sector get paid more?
The public sector schemes are barmy and glaringly at odds with the private sector schemes. They are unsustainable, it really is as simple as that, and the public sector cannot carry on in it's unionised protectionist bubble.
It is absurd to accept that people are living longer, yet not accept that those same people have to pay more to fund their longer retirement. If public sector workers weren't living longer, they wouldn't have to change their pensions. Whose fault is that? Would the public sector prefer to keep their pensions and shoot themselves at 75? It's so blinkered to the fact that we are getting older, and that's more expensive, that it's unreal.0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:notsoblue wrote:MaxwellBygraves wrote:Right wing are panicking, as widely expected.
I really don't think this is the case, Maxwell. The conservatives can't really do any wrong at the moment. The state of the economy means that the changes they would want to make to the public sector anyway can be done under the guise of austerity.
I disagree. Organised labour really is their worst nightmare, see Cameron on This Morning a few minutes ago. See the headlines in all the Conservative papers, 'futile' 'damp squib' 'all gone shopping'. They want to dispell any sense of unity in case people start to see through their bullsh!t. All over the place, denying this and getting quite confused over that. Never thought I'd say this, but Phillip Schofield did a good job in exposing this!
Is that what the Socialist Worker told you?
There is no unity - the strikes did not even have the popular support of their own members!
Jeez, you're getting your news from This Morning - the preserve of the feckless. Jeremy Kyle is more "real world".0 -
Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Cool, ta. So the main difference between private and public sector pensions is that a private pension scheme can default on a shortfall but the government can't, leading to a situation where money from the general taxation pot is used to make it up? i.e. If you have a private pension and it fails its tough luck, but a public pension is almost guaranteed? And *this* is what is considered fundamentally unfair?
I *think* what is generally considered unfair by the private sector is that public sector pension provision remains generally based on final salary, with (as you say) the Govt through tax revenues underwriting the bill for those pensions. The employees' contributions are not directly related to what they get out, and they don't have any of the risk of poor investment performance or scheme maladministration. The taxpayer does.
In the private sector, OTOH, final salary schemes are now virtually dead, because no one can afford to run them. By "dead" I mean that they are closed to new entrants. Whether existing members will get their pension at their prescribed % of final salary largely depends on how big the pot is. Hence why British Airways is sometimes described as a pension scheme with an affiliated airline. Its pension liabilities looking forward are massive, and there's against question mark over the ability of the fund to meet them, and/or BA to underwrite any shortfall.
Private sector pensions are therefore moving (have moved?) towards what's called the defined contributions model, which means you pay in a specific amount and what you get out is directly related to that amount, financially managed over time. The risk of Stock Market low performance, stagnation, etc all fall on the employee.
At least, that's how I understand it.
I see. I suppose the response from those who have public sector pensions is that they've taken the hit on lower pay and consider their pension part of their overall remuneration. But the point about average public sector pay seems to be pretty contentious. Anecdotally though, I don't know anyone who works in the public sector for the money. They (in my experience) do it because of academic interest or a feeling of civic duty (they're a bit lefty). Anyway, I don't really have a problem with the situation as you've described it above for public sector pension members. Personally I think that clearly there needs to be *some* change to pensions to make them more sustainable but I don't think they need to be on a par with the poor standard of private pensions. But thats a pretty unpopular view around here
0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:You also cannot ignore the much higher pension payments that the public sector get, bearing in mind that are often final salary schemes (rather than based on the amount you put in).
It's not just the guarantee, it's the amount compared to contributions too.
I don't have a problem with this though (and I have a private sector pension). As has been said elsewhere, most people in the public sector accept lower pay because of the quality of the pension. Its all part and parcel of their overall remuneration. Besides, complaining about how good someone else's deal is does smack a bit of resentment. Unless you think that public sector pay doesn't deserve to be that good in the first place?
Is that pay argument still going on, when all the studies I have seen reported show that the public sector get paid more?
The public sector schemes are barmy and glaringly at odds with the private sector schemes. They are unsustainable, it really is as simple as that, and the public sector cannot carry on in it's unionised protectionist bubble.
It is absurd to accept that people are living longer, yet not accept that those same people have to pay more to fund their longer retirement. If public sector workers weren't living longer, they wouldn't have to change their pensions. Whose fault is that? Would the public sector prefer to keep their pensions and shoot themselves at 75? It's so blinkered to the fact that we are getting older, and that's more expensive, that it's unreal.
Was this the ONS data? Didn't they say that the public sector average was skewed by most of the minimum wage jobs having been outsourced?
Anyway, I still think you're just against the public sector in general. You (appear to) have a very negative view of it in principle and this colours your opinion.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:notsoblue wrote:. But at the moment, they don't actually support it at all. Theres some flimsy pro-worker rhetoric but they aren't supporting it in a tangible way. So theres no political incentive for the coalition to actually take serious notice of organised labour.
In the same way the Tories get their cues from the City which gives them half of all party funding, Labour get a serious chunk of funding from TUs...
I'd say that's pretty tangible.
Maybe, but didn't Ed Milliband stick to his line about not being for strikes while negotiations were ongoing? Thats hardly massive support.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:notsoblue wrote:. But at the moment, they don't actually support it at all. Theres some flimsy pro-worker rhetoric but they aren't supporting it in a tangible way. So theres no political incentive for the coalition to actually take serious notice of organised labour.
In the same way the Tories get their cues from the City which gives them half of all party funding, Labour get a serious chunk of funding from TUs...
I'd say that's pretty tangible.
Maybe, but didn't Ed Milliband stick to his line about not being for strikes while negotiations were ongoing? Thats hardly massive support.
It's political suicide to support strikes.
It's difficult for him in that respect and the Tories know that.
His hands, in short, are tied.0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:You also cannot ignore the much higher pension payments that the public sector get, bearing in mind that are often final salary schemes (rather than based on the amount you put in).
It's not just the guarantee, it's the amount compared to contributions too.
I don't have a problem with this though (and I have a private sector pension). As has been said elsewhere, most people in the public sector accept lower pay because of the quality of the pension. Its all part and parcel of their overall remuneration. Besides, complaining about how good someone else's deal is does smack a bit of resentment. Unless you think that public sector pay doesn't deserve to be that good in the first place?
Is that pay argument still going on, when all the studies I have seen reported show that the public sector get paid more?
The public sector schemes are barmy and glaringly at odds with the private sector schemes. They are unsustainable, it really is as simple as that, and the public sector cannot carry on in it's unionised protectionist bubble.
It is absurd to accept that people are living longer, yet not accept that those same people have to pay more to fund their longer retirement. If public sector workers weren't living longer, they wouldn't have to change their pensions. Whose fault is that? Would the public sector prefer to keep their pensions and shoot themselves at 75? It's so blinkered to the fact that we are getting older, and that's more expensive, that it's unreal.
Was this the ONS data? Didn't they say that the public sector average was skewed by most of the minimum wage jobs having been outsourced?
Anyway, I still think you're just against the public sector in general. You (appear to) have a very negative view of it in principle and this colours your opinion.
Take your pick, the conclusions are much the same.
I think you're very naiive with regards to the public sector and pensions in general, and if you think my view is coloured, then it is apparent so is yours (albeit from the opposite end of the spectrum).
There is collossal waste, mismagement, burdensome red-tape, dinosaur unionism, lack of accountability, lack of responsibility, and ultimately bad value associated with the public sector. And it's paid for under threat of imprisonment, meaning that it should be fully efficient and accountable, because there is no competition and no-one has any choice but to pay. Whether that's a complaint about "big government" or the public sector per se, I'll leave you to decide.
Suffice to say that, in contrast to your presumptions, I have a similarly broad support for the need for public servants as I do for benefits - that in principle I do not begrudge contributing, (and contributing a greater proprtion than others, if the systems are in place to ensure those principles are met - I am just far from convinced that what we have now is working. There are too many holes, too many stories of gross waste, corruption and financial incompetence - with what consequences? For the individuals involved, apparently very little.
The attitude of some of the strikers clearly shows a lack of touch with the private sector, and with the "real world" in general. Look what happened when the private sector pensions were raided? Strikes? Blackmail? Intimidation? Support from the public sector? No.
For what it's worth, my dad was in the public sector.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"? The impression I get is that you don't think that the public sector should really exist at all, and that anything they get is too much because by definition it comes from the government. Is that accurate?
I asked about this in the other thread but no-one answered - if this was in their contracts, how is the government changing it? Presumably can just be taken to the courts?FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
0
-
jds_1981 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"? The impression I get is that you don't think that the public sector should really exist at all, and that anything they get is too much because by definition it comes from the government. Is that accurate?
I asked about this in the other thread but no-one answered - if this was in their contracts, how is the government changing it? Presumably can just be taken to the courts?
Don't worry, the question has been dodged in this thread too.0 -
Excellent use of Union money.Greg66 wrote:0 -
If the opposition can't take advantage of this worker discontent, then what do the tories have to fear?Rick Chasey wrote:It's political suicide to support strikes.
It's difficult for him in that respect and the Tories know that.
His hands, in short, are tied.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
If the opposition can't take advantage of this worker discontent, then what do the tories have to fear?Rick Chasey wrote:It's political suicide to support strikes.
It's difficult for him in that respect and the Tories know that.
His hands, in short, are tied.
Who said the Tories are fearing anything?
They're sh!tting the bed about the economy. They're loving the strikes. Blame strikers for general economic malaise. Like they'll vote for tories anyway.0 -
Maxwellbygraves did, which is what I was responding to, and what you in turn responded toRick Chasey wrote:Who said the Tories are fearing anything?
They're sh!tting the bed about the economy. They're loving the strikes. Blame strikers for general economic malaise. Like they'll vote for tories anyway.
We're in agreement it would seem. 0 -
I'm not sure, Greg might know?jds_1981 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Ok, so you're saying that public sector workers don't deserve the pensions they were promised when they signed their employment contracts because in retrospect, they were "unfair"? The impression I get is that you don't think that the public sector should really exist at all, and that anything they get is too much because by definition it comes from the government. Is that accurate?
I asked about this in the other thread but no-one answered - if this was in their contracts, how is the government changing it? Presumably can just be taken to the courts?0
