So where's the Public Sector Strike thread at???

1234568»

Comments

  • nozzac
    nozzac Posts: 408
    edited December 2011
    Godders1 wrote:
    NozzaC wrote:
    Who said anything about "we pay their wages"? That's a strawman.

    I'm happy to pay their wages. The jobs (well most of them anyway) need doing and people need paying a fair wage. They also need to be paying into their pension from that wage, like everyone else.

    What I'm not happy to do is to pay for a guaranteed pension better than any I can afford to pay for just because their job is in the public sector or allowing them to retire earlier than most private sector workers.
    You said “A lot of them also seem to forget that it's the private sector that pays their wages...and that's the large majority of the working population”. I’m struggling to understand how me paraphrasing with “we pay their wages” (on the assumption that you work in the private sector) is meaningfully different.

    You are aware that public sector workers do pay into their pension from their wages? And it’s hard to separate pay from pensions (and other conditions of employment) in the real world. When people make career decisions they will (if they’re sensible) consider all conditions as well as pay.


    The confusion is based upon the fact that I didn't say it at all. You must have me confused with someone else.

    Yes they pay some money into their pension and the government/we pay the rest. The problem lies in the fact that what they pay into their pension does not cover what they get out of it. If it did then we wouldn't be having these discussions nor strikes because the system would be self-sustainable. But is isn't so we are.
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    notsoblue wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    notsoblue wrote:
    Honestly, I just want you to say out loud that you don't think people deserve a 5.2% increase in benefits.
    Well why don't you do your usual trick and just presume it if that would make you happy?

    "Deserve" is like "fair". It is increasingly misused.

    I don't think it's a bad deal compared to those who are not on benefits who are facing real reductions in wages - but I've said that already. Do you disagree?
    Bored with arguing semantics. You win.

    A significant number of those on benefits are living near the "breadline" - a less than inflation rise in those benefits might drop them below it. So while a drop in my wages in real terms might mean that i have to cut back on certain things - shorter holidays, no new lights for the bike, etc - I'm still not going to have to worry about paying the mortgage, heating bills, or money for food while a real term fall in benefits might mean that the budget for food or heating has to fall in order to pay the rent.
  • nozzac
    nozzac Posts: 408
    I hope it doesn't get so bad they're forced to get a job
  • graeme_s-2
    graeme_s-2 Posts: 3,382
    NozzaC wrote:
    I hope it doesn't get so bad they're forced to get a job
    Isn't it funny how every time the economy gets worse more people strangely get lazier and can't be bothered to work any more? :roll:
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    If only these people had a bike to get on!
  • TheStone
    TheStone Posts: 2,291
    Paulie W wrote:
    A significant number of those on benefits are living near the "breadline" - a less than inflation rise in those benefits might drop them below it. So while a drop in my wages in real terms might mean that i have to cut back on certain things - shorter holidays, no new lights for the bike, etc - I'm still not going to have to worry about paying the mortgage, heating bills, or money for food while a real term fall in benefits might mean that the budget for food or heating has to fall in order to pay the rent.

    This is certainly the case for some people.

    However, I broadly agree with some of the other benefit limits they're introducing. It's absolutely crazy to be paying over £400/week in housing benefit (I'd suggest it should be a lot lower). An overall limit of £500/week for all benefits sounds high too.
    exercise.png
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,499
    TheStone wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    A significant number of those on benefits are living near the "breadline" - a less than inflation rise in those benefits might drop them below it. So while a drop in my wages in real terms might mean that i have to cut back on certain things - shorter holidays, no new lights for the bike, etc - I'm still not going to have to worry about paying the mortgage, heating bills, or money for food while a real term fall in benefits might mean that the budget for food or heating has to fall in order to pay the rent.

    This is certainly the case for some people.

    However, I broadly agree with some of the other benefit limits they're introducing. It's absolutely crazy to be paying over £400/week in housing benefit (I'd suggest it should be a lot lower). An overall limit of £500/week for all benefits sounds high too.
    In reality its only £350 a week once you take out Sky and the car payments. kl

Categories