It is so sad to see all the comments on here from people working in the private sector along the lines of “I haven’t got a pension, why should you have one”. You’ve all fallen for the tactics of this idiotic Government of trying to drive a wedge between private and public sector employees. Never forget, it wasn’t the average public or private sector employee who caused this mess we’re in now, but the greed and stupidity of the banks.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
And tell me, when did the race to earn the worst pension ever begin? Shouldn't we be striving to have a pension for ALL that guarantees us all some respect in our old age? Instead of complaining about the pensions paid to public sector people, and trying to drive them down, we should be trying to raise private sector pensions.
I work in the private sector but bloody good luck to all those striking tomorrow. It shouldn’t be forgotten, when they started work the Government entered into a contract with them about their pensions. Now the Government doesn’t want to honour that contract, it just decides to change its obligations.
Perhaps someone can tell me why low paid private sector workers support this government in promoting the interests of the rich and trying to drive down the benefits of the ordinary working man? It totally baffles me.
The fact of the matter is that unfunded final salary pension schemes are just too expensive to run. END OF. A combination of people living too long, a dwindling workforce and low annuity rates means that The Treasury is having to set aside more & more money every year to pay for this priviledge and it has to stop.
I'm not sure how many of you undestand the workings of a public sector pension scheme (be it the NHS, civil service, Teachers, local government etc) but none of the money paid by employees or employers actually gets invested anywhere. You are not bulding up you own pension "pot" with your 6% or 8% or even 10% contributions - this money is simply going to the Government to pay people retiring NOW. None of this money is being invested and so unlike the millions of workers who are in "funded" pension schemes,public sector workers has not suffered the 20% or so loses that everyone else has suffered due to the Euro problems etc. There are hundreds of thousands of people retireing NOW who have seen their pension "pots" reduced by thousands of pounds and allied to the fact that annuity rates are at their lowest rate ever are now having to retire on a pension a lot less than they were expecting just a few years before.
agreed. no support from anyone i know. Unions with a political agenda
I think you'll find that all the unions are asking for it the maintenance of the status quo; to have agreements honoured. It is the government that has a political agenda, funnily enough.
Rothko I see little difference in Bankers being in a position to plunder the economy because they can and the public sector being able to do the same. How sad and selfish we are to try and drag down Bankers to our level.
Well done at last someone has the balls to admit its all about the Tories ---- its all about supporting an elected Government or attempting to bring it down.
Democracy ----thats only supported by the left when they win
13 years of Labour and what did they do about the "pensions issue" ? nothing why because their PAYMASTERS are The Unions going on strike -----ball less twats.
How about making it 51% of the total people within a Union voting for or against a strike and not 51% of those that can be ARSED to vote.
Seem to recall a financial advisor telling me (some 10 years ago) to ditch my "now" gold plated pension as it wasn't that good. How times change.
Don't expect anyone outside of the public sector to understand why this action is being taken. But people in the public sector are sick to death of being portrayed as the villains.
bollox to you all striking 2morrow against it 110% if thats OK AFKA.
Of course it is. But then again you may not already be tied into a minimum 3 year pay freeze while all your bills have been going through the roof, or already had most of your benefits you signed up for taken away from you.
I'm grateful for having a job. But my employer gained my commitment by offering a decent pension to make up for the far weaker comparative pay. I'm sure there are many in the public sector who feel the same. By all means offer these different terms to those starting New roles and schemes from now, but honour existing contracts offered to some people who may have built their entire careers and lives around them.
well said Dippenhall The public workers should remember that Blair and Brown plundered £20 Bn from private pension funds that affected their retirement
Yes, Brown did more harm to the pension funds than Maxwell ever did. Not to say Maxwell was anything other than a thief, but Brown outdid him many times over. Pity he hasn't a yacht to go sailing on.
13 years of Labour and what did they do about the "pensions issue" ? nothing why because their PAYMASTERS are The Unions going on strike -----ball less twats.
WRONG! As much as it grieves me to say anything in support of the last government, they did in fact re-negotiate civil service pensions in 2005. The National Audit Office has confirmed that not only is this sustainable, but that costs are projected to fall.
How about making it 51% of the total people within a Union voting for or against a strike and not 51% of those that can be ARSED to vote.
The flawed argument here is that it assumes that the people who abstained are anti; this is of course nonsense. Why not apply the same principles to forming a government? You'll find that on a 65.1% turnout, Mr Cameron is Prime Minister at a time when his party has just 23.5% of electorate's support and the coalition combined musters just 38.5%. That's democracy for you!
The argument seems to be that everyone should be driven down to the lowest level, and not that people should be brought up. What a selfish country we are
Sadly that is (unintended probably) a consequence of socialism.
What socialism? We've never had socialism.
Not in it's purest form perhaps but we've certainly had the politics of envy in that the attitude seems to be if it something works for some take it away rather than try and improve the bits that don't work.
An example was grammar schools. Rather than try and improve other schools to aspire to the level of grammar schools Red Labour, Blue Labour and Yellow Labour got rid of them in most areas.
Private health works very well for those who can afford it or haven't had an illness previously yet Red and Yellow Labour say abolish private health rather than work to raise the NHS to those standards.
Hence why I say an unintended consequence of socialism, or what passes for it in this country anyway, is reduction to the lowest common denominator since "excellence" is derided or destroyed.
bollox to you all striking 2morrow against it 110% if thats OK AFKA.
Of course it is. But then again you may not already be tied into a minimum 3 year pay freeze while all your bills have been going through the roof, or already had most of your benefits you signed up for taken away from you.
I'm grateful for having a job. But my employer gained my commitment by offering a decent pension to make up for the far weaker comparative pay. I'm sure there are many in the public sector who feel the same. By all means offer these different terms to those starting New roles and schemes from now, but honour existing contracts offered to some people who may have built their entire careers and lives around them.
The argument seems to be that everyone should be driven down to the lowest level, and not that people should be brought up. What a selfish country we are
Sadly that is (unintended probably) a consequence of socialism.
What socialism? We've never had socialism.
Not in it's purest form perhaps but we've certainly had the politics of envy in that the attitude seems to be if it something works for some take it away rather than try and improve the bits that don't work.
An example was grammar schools. Rather than try and improve other schools to aspire to the level of grammar schools Red Labour, Blue Labour and Yellow Labour got rid of them in most areas.
Private health works very well for those who can afford it or haven't had an illness previously yet Red and Yellow Labour say abolish private health rather than work to raise the NHS to those standards.
Hence why I say an unintended consequence of socialism, or what passes for it in this country anyway, is reduction to the lowest common denominator since "excellence" is derided or destroyed.
But nothing you've stated has anything to do with socialism intended or unintended. You've just equated socialism with envy and have then gone on to talk about the Labour party as if any of those things are related.
I do think the contractual argument re Public sector pensions is valid in principle.
However Brown did raid Private sector pensions, allegedly to boost the economy, so ordinary private sector workers will be worse off when they retire and I didn't hear too many protests from the Public sector then.
Applying the same logic as that applied to the Private sector if the economy needs a further boost then Public sector pensions must also be in line surely?
The real issue though is that much of the EU has poor pension provision and the desire for "greater fiscal union" to save the Euro means that we will have to pay for other EU pensioners. Blue, Red and Yellow Labour won't tell you that though.
The argument seems to be that everyone should be driven down to the lowest level, and not that people should be brought up. What a selfish country we are
Sadly that is (unintended probably) a consequence of socialism.
What socialism? We've never had socialism.
Not in it's purest form perhaps but we've certainly had the politics of envy in that the attitude seems to be if it something works for some take it away rather than try and improve the bits that don't work.
An example was grammar schools. Rather than try and improve other schools to aspire to the level of grammar schools Red Labour, Blue Labour and Yellow Labour got rid of them in most areas.
Private health works very well for those who can afford it or haven't had an illness previously yet Red and Yellow Labour say abolish private health rather than work to raise the NHS to those standards.
Hence why I say an unintended consequence of socialism, or what passes for it in this country anyway, is reduction to the lowest common denominator since "excellence" is derided or destroyed.
But nothing you've stated has anything to do with socialism intended or unintended. You've just equated socialism with envy and have then gone on to talk about the Labour party as if any of those things are related.
Most Labour party members I know describe themselves as socialists so I think Labour and socialism are related.
The point I'm trying to make (badly it seems) is that the laudable socialist IDEAL of improving conditions for all in reality manifests itself as the politics of envy and reduces everything to the lowest common denominator.
I do accept that we have never had "pure" socialism as defined in the text books but, as I say, most Labour party members regard themselves as socialists so we have seen their best stab at it over the years.
In the public sector there is a myth that salaries are low to take account of generous pensions. ONS figures give average public sector weekly wage as £605 and private sector as £581. So if you take what the private sector would need to pay for a public sector style pension, around 30% of pay, public sector pay should average nearer £460 p.w.
The public sector doesn't employ burger-flippers or (sadly, these days) road-sweepers -- low-paid roles have been contracted out to the likes of SERCO (private sector) -- but it is pretty much the only employer of, for example, consultant surgeons, admirals and professors of chemical engineering. Hence the higher average pay in the public sector.
I have always known that politicians of every flavour told lies and half truths but the lies that have been told regarding public sector pensions by this latest shower of shite presently in office has staggered me. For months. In fact since march of this year the government REFUSED to negotiate with the trade unions and only when this day of action was announced did they suddenly want to talk. During all this time the government lied to the people of this country by saying that negotiations were continuing. The public sector pensions are affordable at this time by every measure you care to use including those used by the review bodies appointed by this and the previous administration. Yes things will need to be modified and the vast majority of public sector workers accept that changes will need to be made but what is currently being proposed is not acceptable. Those of you in private sector bellyaching over your pensions should look to change that rather than join a race to the bottom where everyone gets shafted. I am not on strike tomorrow as I work in cancer care and my patients are more important but my wholehearted support goes to all of those workers who are striking.
Ive been watching a shower of lazy council workers,two vans full taking a fortnight to redecorate a one bedroom pensioners house in the village I live. They spend more than half the day sitting in the van being paid a fortune.Things like this don't win them any friends when they are looking for guilt edged pensions paid for by people that actually have to break sweat in the workplace.
Interesting debate, but sadly I've got to go now. There's a champagne and quails eggs party on the Head of Geography's gold plated private yacht then it's straight onto the Learjet and off to my golf course in Barbados for strike day.
Private sector workers who pay into a private pension scheme are paying, lets say Smiths financial institution. Smiths then plays the market with the money, or puts it on deposit, or buys and sells Gold or whatever, and if the enterprise works, then those who pay into Smiths pensions get paid out, maybe with more than they thought because Smiths have been canny when looking after all those private sector pension contributions. Either way, Smiths pension fund remains Smiths pension fund, and whatever is in that fund pays the contributors when they qualify. Smiths pension fund is not used to, lets say, fight a war in Afghanistan.
According to government figures, if the teachers pension, funded by teachers contributions, had been treated like a private pension, and simply put on deposit at base rate, and paid out all the retired teachers their money since the scheme started in the late twenties....then sitting in that teachers pension fund would be £48.4 BILLION (yes BILLION) pounds.
However teachers pensions have been used like car tax to go into the spending pot. If teachers pensions had been treated like private pensions have there would be tons of dosh to dole out to retired teachers, but governments have raided teachers (and other public sector workers) pensions, much like Robert Maxwell raided the Daily Mirror (private company) pension scheme, to among other things, run two roulette tables at a time in casinos.
If private sector workers want to compare pension then compare what has happened over the years to teachers pension contributions with what happens with their contributions to a private pension scheme.
Ive been watching a shower of lazy council workers,two vans full taking a fortnight to redecorate a one bedroom pensioners house in the village I live. They spend more than half the day sitting in the van being paid a fortune.Things like this don't win them any friends when they are looking for guilt edged pensions paid for by people that actually have to break sweat in the workplace.
Ive been watching a shower of lazy council workers,two vans full taking a fortnight to redecorate a one bedroom pensioners house in the village I live. They spend more than half the day sitting in the van being paid a fortune.Things like this don't win them any friends when they are looking for guilt edged pensions paid for by people that actually have to break sweat in the workplace.
Well I'm in the public sector and that pisses me off just like you. Dont equate what you have witnessed on that occasion with me or millions of other very conscientious hard working public sector workers.
Ive been watching a shower of lazy council workers,two vans full taking a fortnight to redecorate a one bedroom pensioners house in the village I live. They spend more than half the day sitting in the van being paid a fortune.Things like this don't win them any friends when they are looking for guilt edged pensions paid for by people that actually have to break sweat in the workplace.
I think we could all play name the bad private/public sector work practise. Not sure what it adds to the debate, but it helps governments to divide and conquer.
By the way who is Dippenhall? Never seen that name on here before and I can assure you when I was unemployed i read evry single thread on here (except for the brand new word game one).
Comments
It is so sad to see all the comments on here from people working in the private sector along the lines of “I haven’t got a pension, why should you have one”. You’ve all fallen for the tactics of this idiotic Government of trying to drive a wedge between private and public sector employees. Never forget, it wasn’t the average public or private sector employee who caused this mess we’re in now, but the greed and stupidity of the banks.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
And tell me, when did the race to earn the worst pension ever begin? Shouldn't we be striving to have a pension for ALL that guarantees us all some respect in our old age? Instead of complaining about the pensions paid to public sector people, and trying to drive them down, we should be trying to raise private sector pensions.
I work in the private sector but bloody good luck to all those striking tomorrow. It shouldn’t be forgotten, when they started work the Government entered into a contract with them about their pensions. Now the Government doesn’t want to honour that contract, it just decides to change its obligations.
Perhaps someone can tell me why low paid private sector workers support this government in promoting the interests of the rich and trying to drive down the benefits of the ordinary working man? It totally baffles me.
The fact of the matter is that unfunded final salary pension schemes are just too expensive to run. END OF. A combination of people living too long, a dwindling workforce and low annuity rates means that The Treasury is having to set aside more & more money every year to pay for this priviledge and it has to stop.
I'm not sure how many of you undestand the workings of a public sector pension scheme (be it the NHS, civil service, Teachers, local government etc) but none of the money paid by employees or employers actually gets invested anywhere. You are not bulding up you own pension "pot" with your 6% or 8% or even 10% contributions - this money is simply going to the Government to pay people retiring NOW. None of this money is being invested and so unlike the millions of workers who are in "funded" pension schemes,public sector workers has not suffered the 20% or so loses that everyone else has suffered due to the Euro problems etc. There are hundreds of thousands of people retireing NOW who have seen their pension "pots" reduced by thousands of pounds and allied to the fact that annuity rates are at their lowest rate ever are now having to retire on a pension a lot less than they were expecting just a few years before.
still happy to strike ?????????
Th
Rothko I see little difference in Bankers being in a position to plunder the economy because they can and the public sector being able to do the same. How sad and selfish we are to try and drag down Bankers to our level.
Don't expect anyone outside of the public sector to understand why this action is being taken. But people in the public sector are sick to death of being portrayed as the villains.
I'm grateful for having a job. But my employer gained my commitment by offering a decent pension to make up for the far weaker comparative pay. I'm sure there are many in the public sector who feel the same.
By all means offer these different terms to those starting New roles and schemes from now, but honour existing contracts offered to some people who may have built their entire careers and lives around them.
Not in it's purest form perhaps but we've certainly had the politics of envy in that the attitude seems to be if it something works for some take it away rather than try and improve the bits that don't work.
An example was grammar schools. Rather than try and improve other schools to aspire to the level of grammar schools Red Labour, Blue Labour and Yellow Labour got rid of them in most areas.
Private health works very well for those who can afford it or haven't had an illness previously yet Red and Yellow Labour say abolish private health rather than work to raise the NHS to those standards.
Hence why I say an unintended consequence of socialism, or what passes for it in this country anyway, is reduction to the lowest common denominator since "excellence" is derided or destroyed.
this
I do think the contractual argument re Public sector pensions is valid in principle.
However Brown did raid Private sector pensions, allegedly to boost the economy, so ordinary private sector workers will be worse off when they retire and I didn't hear too many protests from the Public sector then.
Applying the same logic as that applied to the Private sector if the economy needs a further boost then Public sector pensions must also be in line surely?
The real issue though is that much of the EU has poor pension provision and the desire for "greater fiscal union" to save the Euro means that we will have to pay for other EU pensioners. Blue, Red and Yellow Labour won't tell you that though.
Most Labour party members I know describe themselves as socialists so I think Labour and socialism are related.
The point I'm trying to make (badly it seems) is that the laudable socialist IDEAL of improving conditions for all in reality manifests itself as the politics of envy and reduces everything to the lowest common denominator.
I do accept that we have never had "pure" socialism as defined in the text books but, as I say, most Labour party members regard themselves as socialists so we have seen their best stab at it over the years.
OK here goes.
Private sector workers who pay into a private pension scheme are paying, lets say Smiths financial institution. Smiths then plays the market with the money, or puts it on deposit, or buys and sells Gold or whatever, and if the enterprise works, then those who pay into Smiths pensions get paid out, maybe with more than they thought because Smiths have been canny when looking after all those private sector pension contributions. Either way, Smiths pension fund remains Smiths pension fund, and whatever is in that fund pays the contributors when they qualify. Smiths pension fund is not used to, lets say, fight a war in Afghanistan.
According to government figures, if the teachers pension, funded by teachers contributions, had been treated like a private pension, and simply put on deposit at base rate, and paid out all the retired teachers their money since the scheme started in the late twenties....then sitting in that teachers pension fund would be £48.4 BILLION (yes BILLION) pounds.
However teachers pensions have been used like car tax to go into the spending pot. If teachers pensions had been treated like private pensions have there would be tons of dosh to dole out to retired teachers, but governments have raided teachers (and other public sector workers) pensions, much like Robert Maxwell raided the Daily Mirror (private company) pension scheme, to among other things, run two roulette tables at a time in casinos.
If private sector workers want to compare pension then compare what has happened over the years to teachers pension contributions with what happens with their contributions to a private pension scheme.