30th November Public Sector Strikes

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8866289/Pension-deal-unaffordable-say-directors.html

Pension deal unaffordable, say directors

A new pension deal for public sector workers is too generous to be economically sustainable, business leaders warned last night.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01203/pension460_1203693c.jpg
Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, admitted that private sector workers would need to amass 'enormous' pension pots to enjoy the same retirement incomes that ministers are offering State employees


The improved government offer to public sector workers would mean staff continue to enjoy pensions “insulated from economic reality”, the Institute of Directors (IoD) said. Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, admitted that private sector workers would need to amass “enormous” pension pots to enjoy the same retirement incomes that ministers are offering State employees. Figures compiled by the Treasury showed that many public sector staff will continue to enjoy generous pensions even after reforms that will make them contribute more and work longer.

A nurse retiring on a salary of £34,200 after 40 years would receive a pension of £22,800. To obtain that level of income from a private sector pension at current annuity rates, a worker would need to amass a pension pot of £600,000, the Treasury said. According to pensions experts at Hargreaves Lansdown, a private sector worker on the same income who saved the average of 9 per cent of salary into a pension over a career might build a pension pot of £258,000

They estimated that to save £500,000 into a private pension, a worker would need to start by setting aside £600 a month from the age of 23. Someone who earns £40,000 and puts aside 9 per cent into a workplace pension is only saving £300 a month. Mr Alexander told MPs that the deal on offer to the unions was very generous. “In the private sector an enormous volume of contributions would be necessary to build up the pension pot that is required to fund the pensions that we are discussing today,” he said. “That is a measure of the Government’s recognition of the commitment that public service workers make.”

Simon Walker, director general of the IoD, said the pension deal would not last for the next 25 years because it would cost taxpayers too much. He said: “It is not reasonable that private sector employees who will never enjoy defined benefit pensions should continue to subsidise public sector workers insulated from economic reality. “The previous government watered down reforms to public sector pensions in the face of a general strike threat. The present government risks repeating their mistake. The public sector unions cannot be allowed to hold a gun to the Government’s head in this way.”

Philip Hollobone, a Conservative backbencher, said that unions did not realise what a generous deal they were being offered. “In the private sector, where most people work, getting an annual pension of £10,000 typically requires a pension pot of £200,000,” he said. Mr Alexander said that the fact that ministers found themselves at odds with both union leaders and some business groups was a positive sign. “The government is occupying the centre ground. We are getting the balance right,” he said.

Unions have rejected the deal and the strike is going ahead on the 30th November.

Yet again the Unions are asking for the unaffordable, how is it fair that the private sector (which funds the bloated, expensive and inefficent public sector) are forced to pay huge sums of money into the public sector when the end result will be the public sector workers getting a comfortable pension which is well over what most in the private sector could expect? at the end of the day, the private sector creates the wealth and they should at the very least be equal, if not the private sector having the better deal.

I do sympathise slightly however in that in the bigger picture these reforms are simply meaningless as government debt is still growing, the public sector is still expanding and we continue to give billions and billions away in foreign aid, EU bills, the IMF, foreign wars and so on - i'd much rather it be spent here if we had to spend it at all. But do the Unions/the Labour Party ever complain of this? no, they do not.

First part for pensions discussion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex1uDGYev10

But for the Union leaders, you can see the hypocrisy of them all by a simple search on the internet where they are shown to have been having immense pay rises on ridiculous wages already. I don't take these people seriously. But you know, with pensions the fair thing would be this - introduce a government opt-out of government services; you'd be able to keep 90% of your wages but you don't ever ask the government for education, health services, pensions, welfare and so on - I know i'd take that, and it'd certainly shrink the size of the state enormously.

Thoughts? is the pensions scheme unfair on the private sector? should the strike go ahead?

[Oleh]

But you know, with pensions the fair thing would be this - introduce a government opt-out of government services; you'd be able to keep 90% of your wages but you don't ever ask the government for education, health services, pensions, welfare and so on - I know i'd take that, and it'd certainly shrink the size of the state enormously.



Now that certainly sounds like a good idea, I'd happily forfeit healthcare, pension and all that carp for extra cash (Seriously) as I will probably never utilize any of those services (and if I do e.g. Health care, I'd rather pay for it with the money I'd be saving, as it'd be better service)

[Mathew]

lololol, it's funny because all these teachers will tell children not to have a hissy fit when they don't get their own way. Oh, the irony.

[beth]

i thought the idea of a token 15 minute strike was pretty laughable. i mean i'm not a fan of strikes in general but offering 15 minutes is pretty insulting to all involved haha.

[Chippiewill]

But you know, with pensions the fair thing would be this - introduce a government opt-out of government services; you'd be able to keep 90% of your wages but you don't ever ask the government for education, health services, pensions, welfare and so on - I know i'd take that, and it'd certainly shrink the size of the state enormously.
Means the top 40% wouldn't wouldn't pay taxes and the others would be no better off than without a government.

Great way to destroy the british economy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Means the top 40% wouldn't wouldn't pay taxes and the others would be no better off than without a government.

And thus wouldn't recieve the government welfare that they would usually pay into the system to recieve, reducing the state. Therefore, those who pay into the system would be the only ones recieving the services that the government system offers.

So for instance, at the moment 100% pay into a system that 98% use in some form or other.

When the opt-out is introduced, say 30% opt out of the government services so that only 70% are paying and using the services.

The end result is that the size of the welfare state is reduced in a non-confrontational way by 30%, an excellent move.


Great way to destroy the british economy.

The government is not the economy, nor should you pretend it is or could ever be.

Now could you explain to me how reducing the public sector (which saps wealth) in such a way (as above) is destructive in any sense?

[Catzsy]

Head teachers have never gone on strike before. You bombast the public sector at every opportunity but where would this country be without them our police officers, doctors, nurses, firemen etc etc? Traditionally because of the good pensions they were paid less than the private sector but obviously in a recession this gap has narrowed so it is accepted that something should be done. What the gripe is as far as I can see is that that for every £1 spent on public sector pensions, the tax payer pays £2.50 towards 'fat cat' private pensions. The TUC have explained in here in quite a balanced way:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/733341-report-condemns-fat-cat-pensions
The other argument is how this government can cut the higher rate tax payers by 10% to 40% at a time
when the majority of the country are suffering. it. Nothing has changed - they are not interested in the every day working man or woman whether they work in the public or private sector. They have a right to strike and are exercising that right. The ballot was 3 to 1 in favour and the % those who voted was far higher than the amount of people who voted in the last general election. Their pensions which they thought they were earning and for which they have worked all these years ( earning less comparably than the private sector for the majority of the time) are being radically changed. Whether this is right or wrong why shouldn't they show their opposition for it or should they just lay down and die?

[Recursion]

I don't think people realise how much work teachers (as an example) put in (again, an example, I know it's not like this for a lot of public sector workers). My mum is a headteacher and due to cuts etc the school was pretty much running on no money for two years, teachers were putting in their time they should be at home doing free work so that the school would be able to get more money through grants and what not, It's perfectly reasonable to expect a half decent pension at the end of the day. What is criminal is forcing a state school to pay £4,000 for an internet connection that we could get for half the price at double the speed from the private sector! Hence ask me about the moron county workers and by all means, that's another thing all together.

I think it's pretty fair to say without the public sector you'd pretty quickly lose the private sector... people don't want to outright pay for services like schools and healthcare and are happy enough with everyone putting their money into a big pot and taking some out whenever they need NHS treatment for example. Yes, the private sector is a *****, but it's always been that way and there shouldn't be any change right now. Pensions schemes are one of the major things people should be looking at when they go for a job interview, it's part of the process and as such it's on the particular person's head should they wish to work somewhere with little to no pension scheme, hell, go work in the private sector and then move over to the public :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Head teachers have never gone on strike before. You bombast the public sector at every opportunity but where would this country be without them our police officers, doctors, nurses, firemen etc etc? Traditionally because of the good pensions they were paid less than the private sector but obviously in a recession this gap has narrowed so it is accepted that something should be done. What the gripe is as far as I can see is that that for every £1 spent on public sector pensions, the tax payer pays £2.50 towards 'fat cat' private pensions. The TUC have explained in here in quite a balanced way:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/733341-report-condemns-fat-cat-pensions

Well without such a large public sector to pay for (includes non-jobs such as teaching assistants, schooling councillors, condom outreach workers, local governemnt pencil pushers, enviromental safety officers and the thousands and thousands of other non-jobs we have) we'd have an economy with good growth along the lines of Singapore.

Aa for ' fat cat pensions' thats the private sector - they can decide what they pay themselves because the company they work for generates wealth and produces things, unlike the public sector which simply sucks at our teet. Why do we have so much debt? because of our bloated public sector.


The other argument is how this government can cut the higher rate tax payers by 10% to 40% at a time when the majority of the country are suffering. it. Nothing has changed - they are not interested in the every day working man or woman whether they work in the public or private sector. They have a right to strike and are exercising that right. The ballot was 3 to 1 in favour and the % those who voted was far higher than the amount of people who voted in the last general election. Their pensions which they thought they were earning and for which they have worked all these years ( earning less comparably than the private sector for the majority of the time) are being radically changed. Whether this is right or wrong why shouldn't they show their opposition for it or should they just lay down and die?

Ah right and Labour did look after the 'working man', right.


I don't think people realise how much work teachers (as an example) put in (again, an example, I know it's not like this for a lot of public sector workers). My mum is a headteacher and due to cuts etc the school was pretty much running on no money for two years, teachers were putting in their time they should be at home doing free work so that the school would be able to get more money through grants and what not, It's perfectly reasonable to expect a half decent pension at the end of the day. What is criminal is forcing a state school to pay £4,000 for an internet connection that we could get for half the price at double the speed from the private sector! Hence ask me about the moron county workers and by all means, that's another thing all together.

Nobody is disputing we would all like 'decent pensions' but at the end of the day, in the public sector they don't create wealth, they are highly unlikely to ever loose their jobs for incompetence and have many more sick days taken overall than the private sector along with being more unproductive. They're just the facts and you simply cannot ask the private sector who do not have good pension deals to pick up the bill, it just isn't fair.

I agree on the end though, its just another example of the state being unable to run anything.


I think it's pretty fair to say without the public sector you'd pretty quickly lose the private sector... people don't want to outright pay for services like schools and healthcare and are happy enough with everyone putting their money into a big pot and taking some out whenever they need NHS treatment for example. Yes, the private sector is a *****, but it's always been that way and there shouldn't be any change right now. Pensions schemes are one of the major things people should be looking at when they go for a job interview, it's part of the process and as such it's on the particular person's head should they wish to work somewhere with little to no pension scheme, hell, go work in the private sector and then move over to the public :P

Lets introduce my opt-out then and give people the choice, agreed?

[Catzsy]

Well without such a large public sector to pay for (includes non-jobs such as teaching assistants, schooling councillors, condom outreach workers, local governemnt pencil pushers, enviromental safety officers and the thousands and thousands of other non-jobs we have) we'd have an economy with good growth along the lines of Singapore.

Aa for ' fat cat pensions' thats the private sector - they can decide what they pay themselves because the company they work for generates wealth and produces things, unlike the public sector which simply sucks at our teet. Why do we have so much debt? because of our bloated public sector.

Oh really so you don't mind the taxpayer paying them £2.50 for every £1 paid to the public sector and what exactly do we benefit from them - their wealth does not benefit the UK - they move it offshore. You have a very skewed view on life. Did you or your family not have a free education, free health care, use of libraries, swimming pools etc etc etc.




Ah right and Labour did look after the 'working man', right.

EMA, Working tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Pensions Credit, Winter fuel allowances, the lowest waiting times for hospitals in history.




Nobody is disputing we would all like 'decent pensions' but at the end of the day, in the public sector they don't create wealth, they are highly unlikely to ever loose their jobs for incompetence and have many more sick days taken overall than the private sector along with being more unproductive. They're just the facts and you simply cannot ask the private sector who do not have good pension deals to pick up the bill, it just isn't fair.
I agree on the end though, its just another example of the state being unable to run anything.
Lets introduce my opt-out then and give people the choice, agreed?
This is a very old fashioned view of the public service. They pay for their pensions so it is not the private sector who are picking up the cost. Anybody in the private sector can get a pension as well and they get tax relief on it. Looks like you think that the only thing that matters in life is money - life is so much more than that and you should be proud that we do have such a caring society. Opt out by all means and I think you will find that you are a great deal worse off.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh really so you don't mind the taxpayer paying them £2.50 for every £1 paid to the public sector and what exactly do we benefit from them - their wealth does not benefit the UK - they move it offshore. You have a very skewed view on life. Did you or your family not have a free education, free health care, use of libraries, swimming pools etc etc etc.

Provided its not the taxpayer, if it the taxpayer - then thats what you wanted, government involved in business and thats what you get (corporatism). So I say on your head be it, but on my head aswell sadly along with the rest of us.

As for the awful services provided, i'd like to opt-out - want to allow me to be able to do so?


EMA, Working tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Pensions Credit, Winter fuel allowances, the lowest waiting times for hospitals in history.

Oooh yes, all funded by.. high taxation on us all (remembering that most of us are on lower wages) and also from debt that the majority of us (low wages) will have to pay off along with the added interest.

Thanks Labour!

[Catzsy]

Provided its not the taxpayer, if it the taxpayer - then thats what you wanted, government involved in business and thats what you get (corporatism). So I say on your head be it, but on my head aswell sadly along with the rest of us.

As for the awful services provided, i'd like to opt-out - want to allow me to be able to do so?



Oooh yes, all funded by.. high taxation on us all (remembering that most of us are on lower wages) and also from debt that the majority of us (low wages) will have to pay off along with the added interest.

Thanks Labour!

You don't seem to read other's posts:


The TUC said taxpayers were paying £2.50 each on private sector "fat cat" pensions for every £1 on payouts to retired public servants.
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber is critical of large pensions TUC general secretary Brendan Barber is critical of large pensions

Tax relief was "heavily skewed" towards the better off, with 60% of total relief going to higher rate taxpayers, including 25% - almost £10 billion a year - going to the top 1% of earners, said the report.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "The real pension crisis is the growing numbers of workers in the private sector without any kind of pension, who are now paying almost £10 billion a year to subsidise the pensions of the richest 1% of the population.

"The employer-backed campaign against public sector pensions is right that there is an unfair division between the public and private sectors. But it is a strange idea of fairness to argue that because private sector staff have seen big cuts in their pensions, then so must the public sector.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/733341-report-condemns-fat-cat-pensions#ixzz1dtdlHgcZ


Awful services? Any evidence for that?

As far as tax is concerned I do not think 20% is high for all we get free at the point of delivery and all those initiatives helped those who wanted to work and helped the pensioners of this country.