Public Sector pensions

[StraferJack]

Happy will be the day when youbget given the shove. Again

[sagatelsagouni]

Christ and this from the avatar highway man.

[The Chair]

In the past I have been a benevolent Chair. I have allowed threads to divert from their original scope in oder to foster debate. I have allowed passionate rhetoric in order to nuture radical ideas. I have even tolerated bad language when done with panache.

But some people on here are testing my patience.

I will not tolerate any further personal insults nor persistent bickering. This is meant to be a wood-panelled Drawing Room for sophisticated debate whilst drinking brandy. Some of you seem to have over-indulged.

It is not the Oxford Union so stop behaving like students.

[sagatelsagouni]

I agree, we are trying to have a meaningfull discussion and when some of these posters dont agree they start calling people names. I am glad u have acted on the PM i sent yesterday. I think sometimes something has to be said otherwise the debate descends into purile name calling. Well done chair, its hard to stand upto people who have got their slippers right under the bed.

So looks like this coalition is determined to push our teachers into strike action , they are spinning now that these people are trouble makers and not living in the 'real world'. How many teachers are on bonus schemes ? loads of crap private companies may no longer offer FSP but they all run these incentive schemes to keep staff in lin. How can you pay in for 40 years at RPI then get told sorry we are changing the terms backwards to CPI....its a bloody joke. How about instead of giving money away from the banks to everyone they give it to the public sector pension pots to show that in our society we value the education of our children.

[Townleygreen]

Well said sagatelsagouni.

Trouble is, the right wing press.

And Marmora Man of course.:)

[Marmora Man]

How can you pay in for 40 years at RPI then get told sorry we are changing the terms backwards to CPI....its a bloody joke.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Accrued benefits to date remain unchanged. CPI only applies going forward - there is no retrospective change.

[georgegarrett]

"Private sector pensions cost the taxpayer too. Private sector pension schemes received ?37.6bn in tax reliefs in 2007/08 ? that same year they paid out pensions worth only ?35bn"

Discuss the myriad of thoughts that you may have......

[georgegarrett]

here is some more fun in a bag of spin.

1. Most civil service pensions are around ?4,000 per annum. The average pension paid out last year was ?7,000.

Where ...the coalitions own myth busting website !!!!!...check it out for even more interesting facts.

2. http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/facts/mythbusters/index.aspx#

[Loz]

OK.

First thought: What are these 'tax reliefs'? Do they include the relief at source (the fact my contributions are taken out of pre-tax income)? If so, what at the PS figures for this?

Second thought: Brown abolished the relief on tax dividends paid into pension funds - i.e. the investment part of most pension funds. This was widely seen as a tax on pensions, as it is taxing the actual fund, rather than the contributing corporation. PS pension funds are not, to my knowledge, subject to the same loss.

Final thought: I have no problem with the state - as an employer - contributing to PS pensions. It should, as do private sector employers. What I object to is the ration of the contribution and the guaranteeing of the final result. Otherwise, lets make it 'fair' and make the government pay for ALL pensions on a final salary basis. (Note that this is entirely unaffordable.)

[Loz]

georgegarrett Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> here is some more fun in a bag of spin.

>

> 1. Most civil service pensions are around ?4,000

> per annum. The average pension paid out last year

> was ?7,000.

Poor maths. How much if this 'average' is based on a few years working in the public sector. Or, if you like, what was the corresponding average number of year's service?

>

> Where ...the coalitions own myth busting website

> !!!!!...check it out for even more interesting

> facts.

>

> 2.

> http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/facts/mythbus

> ters/index.aspx#

Now, now, TT3, that is just an out and out lie. That is the 'Civil Service' website, written by civil servants for civil servants. It is not the "coalitions own myth busting website".

Try this one from the Motley Fool - it has less spin. And more information.

[...] the majority of public-sector pension schemes are unfunded. In other words, past and current contributions are not invested with the aim of building a pot large enough to meet pension payouts.

And that is the problem at hand.

[georgegarrett]

....poor maths ?!!

(1) ......mmmm good call sherlock......that's come from the very people who have no doubt provided the government support in putting together the pensions arguments....you choose which way do you want it....either way you lose.

(2)

The Civil Service

'We aim to provide high-quality advice and support to the Government and help deliver world-class public services, while consistently applying our core values of honesty, objectivity, integrity and impartiality.'

Sir Gus O'Donnell

Head of the Home Civil Service

....they themselves call it myth busting

(3) Motley Fool are you serious ? a website dedicated to investing , a global increase of 3% a year is headed only one place dearest.....to oblivion....and your checking that for your facts to decide if a teachers pension represents good value for money, hwo about the community value of educating generations of children from not only this country but others, what's the fool's opinion on that one?

As for the one above that with your other 3 non thoughts ...its simple.....we are left with 2billion surplus just from the tax relief....so what happened to all the money that the private sector actually contributed ?

Are they saying that encouraging business is worth a donation but educating our kids aint worth a subsidy ? oh yes of course that seems right to you, you love the motley fool and its wonderful information after all.

Maybe if you spent less time with your misguided and daft sluething efforts you would contribute somewhat more substantially than a cloud.

[Loz]

1) Maybe not poor maths - but dishonest maths, then. Implying that there are a bunch of retired civil servants trying to get by on on a ?4K civil service pension (and less, since it is an average) is just dishonest.

2) Sorry, but calling it the "coalitions own myth busting website" is an absolute lie. Your 'explanation' confirms that.

its simple.....we are left with 2billion surplus just from the tax relief....so what happened to all the money that the private sector actually contributed ?

You've taken two vaguely connected figures and extrapolated to the entire complexity of the pensions system. And you wonder why everyone on here finds your 'arguments' trivial?

And you didn't answer my 'first thought' question in my other post, either. Unsurprisingly.

[georgegarrett]

Ok i see ....your nuts !

Everyone one here thinks so too ????

[Loz]

I know you get banned about once a fortnight at the moment, TT3, but I do think this forum would be the poorer without your poorly informed playground insults. :)) I'm just not sure the Drawing Room is the right section for you.

[georgegarrett]

oh my god your obssessing, if you carry on i may have to dress up for you as the terminator and PM you....are u flirting ?

anyway some more playground trivia....

The leader of one of the teaching unions which went out on strike over planned changes to their pensions has challenged claims that public sector workers were being unfairly subsidised by those in private schemes.

Mary Bousted, the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), pointed out that the taxpayer funded private sector pensions to the tune of ?37.6 billion in 2007/08, the most recent year for which figures are available, through subsidies and tax reliefs.

This amounted to more than the total ?35 billion paid out to beneficiaries of private schemes that year, she said. And it compares with the ?27.1 billion estimated cost to the taxpayer of public sector pensions in 2011/12, according to figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Ms Bousted said that the Government had shifted its position in the row over public sector pensions and was no longer claiming they were ?unaffordable?, after it was revealed that they are set to decline from 1.9% of national income to 1.4% by 2060. Instead, ministers were now asserting that the public sector scheme was unfair on private sector workers whose taxes help fund it.

But she told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: ?I would like to take that head on. In 2007/08, the last year for which figures are available, the taxpayer subsidised private sector pensions to the tune of ?37.6 billion in subsidies and tax relief.

?When you consider the amount paid out that year in private sector pensions was ?35 billion, the total paid in private sector pensions was actually subsidised by the state.

?This idea that public sector pensions are paid for by the taxpayer and private sector pensions have to go it alone and pay for themselves isn?t true.

?Let?s stop this false pitting of private sector pensions and public sector pensions against each other. The state pays through its taxes for public sector pensions and it pays indirectly through tax relief to pension contributions for private sector pensions, which don?t perform very well.?

Ms Bousted said that teachers had already accepted the need for additional contributions to their pensions in 2007, to cover the additional costs of people living longer.

The real unfairness to private sector workers was that their pension schemes do not perform as well as those in the public sector, she said.

.....another opinion then if you like.

[georgegarrett]

That was on the Today programme , but hey they are all bonkers, always booking loonies that lot. What about that 45minute claim and the scientist...nutters all of em'

[Marmora Man]

GG - a few points:

1. Just because an economically illiterate union leader gets to make a statement on the BBC's Today programme it doesn't add any credence to the statement. The ratio of utter tosh spouted to common sense on that programme is almost about 70:30.

2. Presumably Christine Bousted was referring to tax relief on pension contributions; it was not clear. However, if that is the case - then public sector employee contributions benefit from the same tax relief - so it is not for the private sector alone, it is a sensible tax relief to encourage all employees to make sensible plans for their pension.

3. A notional tax not levied is not the same as a subsidy. Notionally the gov't could tax everyone at 100% - making, in Christine Bousted's view, any money we retain after current gov't taxes a subsidy.

4. Her proposition was rubbish - and the idea's lack of traction, except among the more excitable and foolish left wingers and / or union members, is an indication of how poor a suggestion it was.

[taper]

Are people aware that there is no such thing as a Standard public sector pension? The differences between the pension schemes for teachers, armed forces personnel, civil servants, LG officials are fundamentally different. Some are funded some are not.

[georgegarrett]

Listen socks only, your points are really just pants, stop ranting and start thinking

here is something for you to read, obviously the illiterate Mary Bousted read it.

General Secretary to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), from 2003 to present

Head of School of Education, Kingston University, 1999?2003

Head of Secondary Education, Edge Hill College, 1997?99

Director of Initial Teacher Training, University of York, 1995?97

PGCE Course Leader of English, University of York, 1991?95

Head of English, Whitmore High School, Harrow, 1988?91

English teacher, Bentley Wood High School, Harrow, 1982?87.

Committee Membership/representations:

Guest lecturer at London Metropolitan, Sussex and Kingston Universities

Member of the Teaching Awards Trust Board, 2007 to present

Deputy Chair of Co-ordinating Committee, Justice for Colombia

Chair of Union Learn Board, 2009 to present

Member of TUC Executive, 2008 to present

Member of TUC General Council, 2003 to present.

Now here you go , instead of bathing tonight and polishing your underwater submersible try reading the following

http://www.financeforthefuture.com/MakingPensionsWork.pdf

Good luck but be warned, you may find it is you who is in fact an excitable and foolish rightwing wind bag.

[Marmora Man]

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported (Sept '10) that the average weekly income for a private sector worker is ?465. Average weekly income for public sector worker is ?539 - a difference of ?75 a week.

Add in the fact that > 85% of public sector workers have pensions and < 40% of private sector workers have pensions then the effect is greater (a pension is simply deferred pay / salary / income). Once this is factored in the difference becomes ?136.00.

People choose jobs and careers for all sorts of reasons - at the beginning it seldom has much to do with the pay & pension arrangements - more about - suitability, aptitude, ability, availability, locality and other less financial factors.

However, it is not "fair" to have one sector of the workforce apparently protected from the reality of planning for their future after retirement by a subsidy from the other sector of the workforce. Such a situation, if allowed to prevail, would create all sorts of perverse incentives that would damage British society.

The madness of the Greek economy demonstrates what can happen when a job in the public sector is sought rather than private enterprise because public sector workers earn well over the average wage, retire at 50 on pensions equivalent of 80% of salary - all funded via dodgy bank loans from the EU.

NOTES:

1. All figures taken from Office of National Statistics annual Labour & Workforce survey.

[Marmora Man]

georgegarrett Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Listen socks only, your points are really just pants, stop ranting and start thinking

So on the CV you posted for Mary Bousted, she has spent 9 years teaching in a school, 12 years teaching teachers and 8 years as a full time trades union official. I might, just, listen to Mary Bousted discussing teaching but nothing in that CV persuades me she has any knowledge of economics.

As for "Finance for the Future" - you've posted a link to a left wing think tank with minimal followers and little, if any, impact on current political thinking. It appears to posit the usual left wing view that by taxing everything, everything can be solved.

Reminds me of the quote "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

[Undisputedtruth]

What I found interesting about the East Dulwich Forum is that you have a group of people spouting right wing propaganda.

Mamora Man, is your other alias Huguenot? Anyway here are my following points,

1) using only one month's stat to support your argument on the difference in pay between private & public sector is very misleading, marmora. Why not use the last 25 years stats and you should see the difference in public sector pay lagging behind private sector?

2) it is not fair for the public sector to pay the price for screw ups in the private sector such as the ones created by the banking sector.

3) It was policies supported by the right wing that has caused the financial mess in the UK.

I shall copy the post to PS pensions thread and carry forward discussions there.

[georgegarrett]

Mams man ....

Instead of throwing old washed up qoutes around from the 70's from The Sun , try some progressive contemporary thinking,

How about this.... we think the 3 per cent compound growth rate that constitutes the capitalist juggernaut, as capitalism functions and feeds on itself by constant growth (with three per cent the magical/necessary minimum for economic satisfaction), growth that, periodically (and, of course, over the long term), is impossible to sustain and leads to increasingly severe crises.

" In midsummer of 2009, one third of the capital equipment in the United States stood idle, while some 17 per cent of the workforce were either unemployed, enforced part-timers or 'discouraged' workers. What could be more irrational than that. " David Harvey

So this crises may not have been a case of a lack of liquidty but over-extended (and under-paid) workers were not spending enough to get the business cycle moving again; surplus capital is picky, too.

[????]

edited 'cos I can't actually be ars*d with it anymore

[katie1997]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

Not so much undisputed truth but unbelievable. Funniest thing I have read on here for ages.