15 % pay cut for Public sector
Comments
-
Of course, blurting "typical daily mail readers reaction", by contrast, is incisive and informed debate...:roll:
Edit: I prefer johnfinch's answer as it does that rather strange thing in online debates - offer real evidence.0 -
DavidJB wrote:ShinyHelmut wrote:johnfinch wrote:Smokin Joe wrote:And nobody forced anyone to work in the public sector either. What I and millions of others arebeing forced to do is subsidise public sector pensions
No. Wrong. The pension is part of pay and conditions (to make up for generally lower salaries). Don't give public sector workers that and you will have to pay higher wages to make up for it, unless you want shortages in the public services.Smokin Joe wrote:when we haven't a hope in hell of affording one ourselves.
Funny how in many other European countries workers can afford decent pensions but we can't. Maybe that's because they have the balls to actually do something about it .
Countries like Greece,Portugal,Spain,Italy for example?
First go to argument of any under-informed individual is 'loads of other countries can do x' when it's clearly poo. You hear everyone moan when snow causes disruption about how other countries can handle it and it causes no issues...cities like Moscow are still brought to a standstill every year from snow.
Typical daily mail readers reactions to everything.
Are you calling me a DM reader?
I say this having worked on the continent quite a bit in very cosmopolitan environments, so speak from experience, not just an ignorant knee-jerk reaction.
And by the way, many other countries CAN handle far more snow than the UK. Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary and Austria (all countries in which I've worked) manage to keep things going very efficiently - I used to take the train when the snow was about 2ft deep. However, snow is a very different issue to pensions.0 -
bompington wrote:Of course, blurting "typical daily mail readers reaction", by contrast, is incisive and informed debate...:roll:
Edit: I prefer johnfinch's answer as it does that rather strange thing in online debates - offer real evidence.
Why, thank you my dear Bompington.0 -
All these people who seemingly begrudge people working in the public sector just bu99er off and live in a country where there are a lot fewer public services, schools,hospitals,roads,police, etc,etc.
As they keep saying, nobody makes you work in the public sector,well, nobaody makes you live here. I'm happy to pay my tax for public services; thing is I'd sooner pay taxes to keep people in work rather than pay to put them then keep them out of work. :roll:Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
daviesee wrote:johnfinch wrote:No. Countries like the Netherlands or the Scandinavian ones, for example.
Have you seen the Scandanavian tax rates? Or their cost of living?
Nothing comes for free.
Get paid more too
Check it out, on the Human Development Index (best finite way of measuring quality of life by country that I'm aware of)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ment_Index
UK barely makes the top 30.
UK was also declared bottom of all developed nations to bring up a child by UNICEF.
http://www.unicef.org.uk/Latest/Publica ... countries/
http://www.unicef.org.uk/Latest/News/Re ... stic-trap/
UK certainly has problems.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:UK certainly has problems.
Agreed!
I am of the opinion though that most of the problems at a personal basis are due to life style choice and lack of work ethic. A generalisation but I know dozens of examples.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:All these people who seemingly begrudge people working in the public sector just bu99er off and live in a country where there are a lot fewer public services, schools,hospitals,roads,police, etc,etc.
As they keep saying, nobody makes you work in the public sector,well, nobaody makes you live here. I'm happy to pay my tax for public services; thing is I'd sooner pay taxes to keep people in work rather than pay to put them then keep them out of work. :roll:
The Tories must be loving this. They get an ‘excuse’ to decimate the public services, probably with the ultimate aim of enabling more of it to be privatised. See Ed Balls on the BBC this morning discussing Dave and Georges plans for enticing and provoking Union action...
At the same time they infuriate those public sector workers further with the pensions reform, the announcement of the 1% wage increase cap, further redundancies and other reforms. All whilst their friends, the right wing media, push out the anti union, anti Great Britain vilification of the strikers.
The Tories will have heard Mervyn King’s comments last year about how the party to win the election would not be electable due to the austerity that was going to ‘have’ to be implemented. Their plan, divide and rule. Its working too.
People are always going to have more right or left wing economic views, and the more these views are separated and forced to be highlighted amongst the electorate the less power and potential impact the electorate will have. We shouldn’t fall into this trap.Mañana0 -
daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:UK certainly has problems.
Agreed!
I am of the opinion though that most of the problems at a personal basis are due to life style choice and lack of work ethic. A generalisation but I know dozens of examples.
Hold the presses.
Daviesee's called the UK lazy!0 -
johnfinch wrote:DavidJB wrote:ShinyHelmut wrote:johnfinch wrote:Smokin Joe wrote:And nobody forced anyone to work in the public sector either. What I and millions of others arebeing forced to do is subsidise public sector pensions
No. Wrong. The pension is part of pay and conditions (to make up for generally lower salaries). Don't give public sector workers that and you will have to pay higher wages to make up for it, unless you want shortages in the public services.Smokin Joe wrote:when we haven't a hope in hell of affording one ourselves.
Funny how in many other European countries workers can afford decent pensions but we can't. Maybe that's because they have the balls to actually do something about it .
Countries like Greece,Portugal,Spain,Italy for example?
First go to argument of any under-informed individual is 'loads of other countries can do x' when it's clearly poo. You hear everyone moan when snow causes disruption about how other countries can handle it and it causes no issues...cities like Moscow are still brought to a standstill every year from snow.
Typical daily mail readers reactions to everything.
Are you calling me a DM reader?
I say this having worked on the continent quite a bit in very cosmopolitan environments, so speak from experience, not just an ignorant knee-jerk reaction.
And by the way, many other countries CAN handle far more snow than the UK. Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary and Austria (all countries in which I've worked) manage to keep things going very efficiently - I used to take the train when the snow was about 2ft deep. However, snow is a very different issue to pensions.
I'm calling whoever reads the DM a DM reader.0 -
Redjeep! wrote:johnfinch wrote:Smokin Joe wrote:And nobody forced anyone to work in the public sector either. What I and millions of others arebeing forced to do is subsidise public sector pensions
No. Wrong. The pension is part of pay and conditions (to make up for generally lower salaries). Don't give public sector workers that and you will have to pay higher wages to make up for it, unless you want shortages in the public services.Smokin Joe wrote:when we haven't a hope in hell of affording one ourselves.
Funny how in many other European countries workers can afford decent pensions but we can't. Maybe that's because they have the balls to actually do something about it .
Are Public Sector salaries really lower than the Private Sector. Not trying to start a flame war as I honestly don't know about the situation in the UK, but in Ireland all the surveys show that the Public Sector earn around 30% more than the Private Sector.
There's a podcast called 'More or Less', I think it's from Radio 4. Their aim each week is to cut through the various stats reported and give a real, fairer interpretation.
There's one on Public Sector pay, which was to refute a Daily Mail claim that the Public sector earned 40% more than the Private Sector. They concluded that, like for like, it was around 8% more ... plus the pensions.
0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Hold the presses.
Daviesee's called the UK lazy!
A large percentage, yes.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Hold the presses.
Daviesee's called the UK lazy!
A large percentage, yes.
I’m not sure lazy is the correct word. I think it is more people don’t realise how good things actually are, don’t appreciate this fact, and therefore can tend to rest on their laurels.Mañana0 -
Possibly a "lazy" response on my partpb21 wrote:I’m not sure lazy is the correct word. I think it is more people don’t realise how good things actually are, don’t appreciate this fact, and therefore can tend to rest on their laurels.
You are right that it is probably the wrong word, and too simplistic but there are a LOT of people out there who could do a whole lot better for themselves. If they could be bothered.
And don't skip by the lifestyle part. That is a huge problem in this Country.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Cheaper to keep them on the dole than pay them inflated salaries to do a non-job.Frank the tank wrote:random man wrote:Smokin Joe wrote:And nobody forced anyone to work in the public sector either. What I and millions of others arebeing forced to do is subsidise public sector pensions when we haven't a hope in hell of affording one ourselves.
Never mind - you'll be able to complain about having to pay to keep them on the dole as well soon
Just love the way "random man"s comment is conveniently ignored by "smokin Joe".0 -
I doubt that very much.Smokin Joe wrote:
Cheaper to keep them on the dole than pay them inflated salaries to do a non-job.Frank the tank wrote:random man wrote:Smokin Joe wrote:And nobody forced anyone to work in the public sector either. What I and millions of others arebeing forced to do is subsidise public sector pensions when we haven't a hope in hell of affording one ourselves.
Never mind - you'll be able to complain about having to pay to keep them on the dole as well soon
Just love the way "random man"s comment is conveniently ignored by "smokin Joe".Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
If it was cheaper to keep people in work for the sake of it rather than laying them off and putting them on welfare there would be no such thing as unemployment, not only here but in any of the world's developed countries.Frank the tank wrote:I doubt that very much.
As no-one anywhere seems to have cracked that one it can't be.0 -
The problem with pensions debate is that people don't seem to have all the facts (myself included). The following is as I understand it.
The government intend to start using someone's average earnings to calculate their pension rather than their final salary. They also want people to delay their retirement, work longer hours and switch from the RPI to CPI to inflation proof their pensions.
The current model isn't sustainable because of it's expense. It was designed in a time when only the higher paid had pensions - it was never designed to support all a company's/government's employees. As more and more people expected pensions the cost of providing them all sky rocketed. As a result more affordable alternatives have been created but they are no where near as good as the old ones.
On the face of it this is a very sensible and fair solution. Private sector employees see this and and have all experienced it in the last 10 or 20 years and think, "It's about f*cking time!'. Public sector workers don't understand it properly and come on forum's and Facebook etc saying, "We're being asked to work longer and harder for less". And??
Maybe if they put forward more information we would be more sympathetic.
Again this is as I understand it.
The total cost of providing the pensions is £150billion per year. The savings are only going to be £2billion per year. That's a lot of money but not a massive saving in the grand scheme of things and they can certainly afford it by saving in other areas.
The plot thickens though. Not everyone is being asked to accept these new terms. Some higher paid workers are getting to keep their original deal and only the lower levels are having it forced on them. That's not fair. The government are targetting the lower paid as they are easier to replace to make these, comparitively, small savings.
I agree with the changes proposed but they should be forced on everybody, not just the lower paid. The government is doing this as a PR exercise to make it look like they're doing something radical.
I think the public workers need to strike. It's grossly unfair just not for the reasons that the Facebook warriors are complaining about.0 -
So roscobob, to clarify.
You don't know all the facts yet you agree with the changes proposed?If suffer we must, let's suffer on the heights. (Victor Hugo).0 -
TheStone wrote:There's a podcast called 'More or Less', I think it's from Radio 4. Their aim each week is to cut through the various stats reported and give a real, fairer interpretation.
There's one on Public Sector pay, which was to refute a Daily Mail claim that the Public sector earned 40% more than the Private Sector. They concluded that, like for like, it was around 8% more ... plus the pensions.
Is that current or based on, say, a 10 year time period?
At the moment I would say that following massive pay cuts in the private sector for the working and middle classes, I can well believe it, but that would just be a temporary situation.0 -
daviesee wrote:johnfinch wrote:No. Countries like the Netherlands or the Scandinavian ones, for example.
Have you seen the Scandanavian tax rates? Or their cost of living?
Nothing comes for free.
Sir, I reject your argument thus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... P_(nominal)_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita0 -
johnfinch wrote:daviesee wrote:johnfinch wrote:No. Countries like the Netherlands or the Scandinavian ones, for example.
Have you seen the Scandanavian tax rates? Or their cost of living?
Nothing comes for free.
Sir, I reject your argument thus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... P_(nominal)_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
and I reject your arguement as GDP is not the same as tax levels or living standards. Point?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:johnfinch wrote:daviesee wrote:johnfinch wrote:No. Countries like the Netherlands or the Scandinavian ones, for example.
Have you seen the Scandanavian tax rates? Or their cost of living?
Nothing comes for free.
Sir, I reject your argument thus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... P_(nominal)_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
and I reject your arguement as GDP is not the same as tax levels or living standards. Point?
Oops, sorry, forgot to make my point, which is that it is better to pay 50% tax on £2 than 40% tax on £1.50.
EDIT: GDP (PPP) takes into account the cost of living.0 -
If I retire in 2021, I will have to pay in an extra £6800 in pension contributions
for the same pension projected on last month's pension forecast statement.
On top of two years of pay freeze and the 1% pay increase the chancellor
has now given us, I'm not happy. :x0 -
johnfinch wrote:Oops, sorry, forgot to make my point, which is that it is better to pay 50% tax on £2 than 40% tax on £1.50.
EDIT: GDP (PPP) takes into account the cost of living.
I prefer the 20% on 1.50 scenario but anyone can make statistics say what they want and we go round in circles.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Achhhh never mind we'll all get an extra + 5% for sitting on our A"£$£$ at home on benefits, why work for it when you can have it for free ??????????????0
-
The interesting thing about 'average' pay in the public/private sector is that for many years average public sector pay was quite low. Now it isn't :? What has changed is that many low paid public sector jobs are now in the private sector. Nursing/care home assistants, cleaners, bin-men, etc have been privatised. Whole swathes of low paid jobs have moved out of the public sector. Those employees who remain have not got better paid, it is just statistics.The older I get the faster I was0
-
It does amaze me the number of people I see on TV etc who are so against those in the public sector striking (generally because it caused them some minor inconvenience today!!).
For years the private sector has gradually seen the demise of the old style "Final Salary" style schemes which have been closing one after another to new members for a decade or more. Most companies now offer "Money Purchase" schemes where every employee has their own "pot" invested with the pension providers. What doesn't happen however is that those who have private Final Salary schemes aren't suddenly seeing the rules being changed on the pension they receive and when they receive it.
It makes me sick when the government claim that public sector pensions are no longer affordable. Well why's that then - simply put, its down to the fact that for years there was more funds going in than coming out, and now that "people are living longer" - according to the government, and that after all the massive culls to the number of workers who are making contributions into the scheme (which the government conveniently forget to mention), there's a shortfall that the taxpayer is having to fund.
They also forget to mention that successive governments have used the surplus as an interest free loan / revenue free to spend in the past (for 80+ years) before trying to twist the facts to try to justify the changes they are proposing now!!
Oh - no i dont work in the public sector and never have.0
