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.
Bit off the point but Margaret Thatcher closed more grammar schools than any other education secretary. It's precisely the selection process for grammar school that caused the other schools to be less successful. Grammars have zilch support among the teachers I meet as a governor in the primary and secondary sector. But I accept they are fine if you only care about a quarter of the kids.
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.
Bit off the point but Margaret Thatcher closed more grammar schools than any other education secretary. It's precisely the selection process for grammar school that caused the other schools to be less successful. Grammars have zilch support among the teachers I meet as a governor in the primary and secondary sector. But I accept they are fine if you only care about a quarter of the kids.
I am sitting here now still feeling guilty about my decision because the loss of a days pay will have a direct impact on my families income at a time when we are already aware that we are not as well off as when I worked in the public sector.
Don't feel guilty Kigelia, you have taken your time, listened to the arguments and made a decision that I'm sure had your family at the heart of it. Sure, it will be a tough month as a result of losing a day's pay, but the cost of the potential losses month in month out if these changes happen are far greater. Of course, going on strike is no guarantee that your pension will be preserved, put if you don't do something now, there's no chance of it. Good luck.
I worked for the civil service a few years back. At the time I was there it was 15% decent hard working people, 50% incompetent idiots and 35% freeloading time wasting do-nothing fuckwits. ("Whitley day" anyone?)
By the way, love the argument that your original contract says your entitled to certain benefits and that is somehow set in stone and can't be changed - in the same way that Fred the Shred's was. We all know that old Fred was an incompetent money-grabbing c**t out to get everything he could. Yep, I think that sums up my thoughts on the "stikers". Sure, they didn't create the mess - but neither did I and if I'm having to tighten my belt to provide for my family then I expect others to do the same.
But I don't expect to change anyones views with my comments.
1. Are you saying you can't leave early - for less pension - you have to work until you are 67 to get any NHS pension?
2. You may feel you don't want to go on beyond the existing pension date now. How do you know you won't feel differently when you reach that age? I meet people all the time in their sixties who love working and don't want to retire. Why, if we are all living so much longer, should people be expected to pack it all in at 60, 65 or 67. Many of those I knew who retired at 60-65, didn't reach 70. Paradoxically those I know who carried on working all thrived and survived way beyond 70.
My Dad decided to retire when he was 70. (He was in the private sector with only his private pension pot and the state pension to sustain him). He couldn't afford to retire at 65. At 70, he tried to pack things in - found he still wanted to carry on. He worked until he was 80 with purpose, drive, great skill. He was more economically successful in his last 10 years than he was in his previous 40. He went into hospital just after his 80th Birthday and never came out. He said to me in a philosophical moment that he had never been happier work-wise than he was in his last 10 years.
I realise we are all built differently but only focusing on the negative of pension reform doesn't tell the full story.
Why, if we are all living so much longer, should people be expected to pack it all in at 60, 65 or 67.
For one reason, because with youth unemployment now at 1m and rising at a rate of 21% the current generation of youngsters won't get any work if everyone is expected to work longer. Good luck to people like your dad that want to work their whole lives, for those of us that would like a break before we drop dead there shouldn't be a compulsion to keep going.
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.
But Seth with respect, this is like saying, if you want to go to London, don't start from here. The fact is that Governments have not managed pension funds on an actuarial basis and thus payments to future pensioners have to be funded out of current expenditure. The state nicked the money, spent it on other stuff and now future tax payers will have to stump up.
Given that scenario, is it right to pay Public workers pensions at a level which is far greater than the kind of pensions the likes of people like me in the private sector would be completely unable to fund, and be paid out of the taxes that we all pay. Is it right that low earners in both public and private sectors who pay taxes should pay out big pensions for higher paid workers in the public sector?
Ideally everyone should get a final salary pension of a large multiple of their final salary. Sadly in the private sectors these types of pension have disappeared most of them several years ago. I had one. If I had stayed employed and without any changes, I would have retired on around 50% of my final salary. At the time I joined that scheme, the day after I joined the company reduced the multiple to around 40% for new joiners. Corporate Pensions in the private sector were being eroded gradually even as far back as the late 90's when this all happened.
Fair play to your Dad bingaddick who lived to work and enjoyed it but the vast majority of people work to live and I am so glad I retired early and have had the oportunity to enjoy the friuts of my labours. I fear for what my grown up children have to look forward to though when they approach retirement age in 30 years time.
Why, if we are all living so much longer, should people be expected to pack it all in at 60, 65 or 67.
For one reason, because with youth unemployment now at 1m and rising at a rate of 21% the current generation of youngsters won't get any work if everyone is expected to work longer. Good luck to people like your dad that want to work their whole lives, for those of us that would like a break before we drop dead there shouldn't be a compulsion to keep going.
Well dealing with your first point, it is even more imperative that we create real jobs in the private sector because if the state only provides additional jobs like it has over the past few years, and like they have done in Greece for example, the fallout will be even worse than it is now.
The only long-term answer is a highly educated, highly employable workforce of young people in an entrepreneurial culture in which new business can thrive and grow into bigger businesses.
We need to create a much higher number of jobs for young and old alike and as quickly as possible.
As regards you point about dropping dead, will as I said, my experience which may or may not be typical is that the longer people work, the greater chance they have of living longer.
Fair play to your Dad bingaddick who lived to work and enjoyed it but the vast majority of people work to live and I am so glad I retired early and have had the oportunity to enjoy the friuts of my labours. I fear for what my grown up children have to look forward to though when they approach retirement age in 30 years time.
I said it depends on the individual. i was just suggesting that there are some positives of the later retirement scenario than what most commentators and nay sayers seem to present.
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).
What's your point? I've been here since 2007. Happen to run company pension schemes for a living.
The private sector pension system needs reforming but not known by all, but from next year ALL employees will be required to join a workplace pension scheme. Small employers might be exempt and there is phasing in. The truth is that the current private pension system is broken and has failed us. A new private system is developing to replace the current one no one trusts. Current schemes do not offer good value for small savers and do not give enough certainty of outcome. I'm involved in developing a completely new model which cuts out the middle man and gives access to funds at institutional prices by aggregating the funds of the different employers and passing on the benefits of scale to savers, not the institutions. Investment is carried out to meet pension goals, not to provide commisssion to intermediaries.
I am committed to the cause of improving the pensions in the private sector but I know too well the true cost of pensions savings and that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The public sector, through no fault of their own, don't. They are oblivious to the fact that a far lower claim is being made on their salary to support their pension than they would see if they relied on a private sector employer for their total remuneration. As I've already said, have your good pension, but pay for it like anyone else would have to, don't abuse a priviledged position. That is why I am against the strike.
The complexities of public sector schemes, some funded, some unfunded, some partially funded, some contributory, some non-contributory, some insured, some invested in the market means Unions can spin whatever story suits the argument and allow misunderstandings to flourish. The public sector suffer the worst employer imaginable, a government, which is why we might have some sympathy. They have to rely on what they are fed by Unions, no different from any other vested interests group, and employees are open to manipulation as a result.
The hypocrisy is lost on those railing against bankers for having their snouts in the trough of our savings when the public sector has its snout in the trough of our taxes.
Why, if we are all living so much longer, should people be expected to pack it all in at 60, 65 or 67.
For one reason, because with youth unemployment now at 1m and rising at a rate of 21% the current generation of youngsters won't get any work if everyone is expected to work longer. Good luck to people like your dad that want to work their whole lives, for those of us that would like a break before we drop dead there shouldn't be a compulsion to keep going.
Well dealing with your first point, it is even more imperative that we create real jobs in the private sector because if the state only provides additional jobs like it has over the past few years, and like they have done in Greece for example, the fallout will be even worse than it is now.
The only long-term answer is a highly educated, highly employable workforce of young people in an entrepreneurial culture in which new business can thrive and grow into bigger businesses.
We need to create a much higher number of jobs for young and old alike and as quickly as possible.
As regards you point about dropping dead, will as I said, my experience which may or may not be typical is that the longer people work, the greater chance they have of living longer.
This is the key! Listening to the radio this morning and all the talk is about falling living standards and higher unemployment - how is that going to help? We need to be more positive - it seems this government is quite happy to put 700,000 public sector workers out on the streets and feels no obligation to help them back into work.
The World is in financial meltdown, the percentage of our population who are of pensionable age will always increase, creating enormous pressure on the working population, how dumb are these people ?
Trade union dinosaurs flexing their muscle, brainwashing the sheep once again. I pay 12% of my salary into a pension fund, what makes them think they can get a large pension without paying more into it or working longer to finance it?
They need a serious reality check!
Their employers (the Government, the nation, us!) have big financial problems and cuts have to be made so why do the unions demand big pensions, are they paying for it?
For years the unions have ruined this country, our once great industries killed off by successive communists like Jack Dash, Red Robbo and Arthur Scargill and now the idiots at UNISON will go down the same road.
I would like to see the Government take them on and retract the latest offer, I think the majority of decent folk in this country support the Government.
I agree that there is a real issue with the bosses pay and bankers bonuses that must be sorted and I hope the Government will take them on too but we need good bosses and to attract the best they need good salaries.
A problem is that a lot of public sector workers are on pretty low wages with relatively low pensions - Some do well but isn't that the same in the private sector? A lot of the people having a go are people who have poor or no pensions - and their argument is that I don't have a decent pension so why should they. I don't think that needs any more comment! Can't see how the low paid civil servant who has to find another £60-£90 per month and work for an extra 7 years for a worse pension can be despised or criticised for fighting against that sort of attack - wouldn't you?
If you want to see the best public pension scheme ever, look at the MP,s pensions. It is astounding - why didn't they fix their pensions first or at least at the same time to give their proposals credibility? Why do chief executives who used to get paid about 20-30 times the average salary in their company, now get paid 400 times when their companies are doing worse? Why are the bankers (not all bankers) whose greed got us into this mess be allowed to continue paying themselves record bonuses with only token action by teh Government?
We are part of a country that is run for the benefit of a few and now the squeeze has come, the last to suffer will be those few. One day all of the workers on low to middle pay (Private and Public) will understand that they are in this together and work towards a fairer economy. The longer this austerity goes on, the more likely some form of change will happen.
The hypocrisy is lost on those railing against bankers for having their snouts in the trough of our savings when the public sector has its snout in the trough of our taxes.
The public sector is not some alien body arriving on these shores to steal taxes. Taxes are gathered to pay for a public sector because they are needed. If everything was private we would really be screaming. The public sector provides services at a very good rate, compare our health care with America for example. The public sector is good value for money for the most part, it is not a phenomena magicked out of nowhere to spirit taxes away.
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.
If the public sectore exists solely to eat our taxes, we should be delighted thay are having a day where they will not be doing so - strikes are unpaid are they not? What are we complaining about? Oh but the jobs they do affect us and it is a nuisance when they don't do them - maybe it would be better to force slaves to do their work - it worked for the Romans!
I have a friend who is a public servant who has never had a sick day - I have friends in private sector who do. My friend says that sickness rates where he works are very low- the problem is that if somebody has a serious long term illness -even if they are not paid any more- their sickness is still counted in the public sector. Long term sickness apparently contributes to over 60% of sickness days lost where he works. Wouldk be good if teh Daily Mail did some proper analysis as I accept, that is what he says and doesn't cover rhe whole civil service. It seems plausible because sickness is counted differently all around the private sector and in some cases seriously ill employesss are let go of sooner. That is what he told me and would be good to see some like for like analysis to identify the truth on this rather than Daily Mail headlines.
Oldbloke - staff are getting sacked all the time for sick absence in the Public Sector. There is no such thing as sick allowance - staff will be sacrificing a day's pay which they can ill afford to do, but feel that they have no choice because of the principles involved. It's not just about pensions, it's about job cuts and privatisation as well.
I think you can change the goalposts but you have to be fair about it. Everybody has a part to play to get this country back on track, but that includes the elite untouchables that amazingly so many are untroubled by the fact they are awarding themseves massive pay rises and bonuses in the current climate. Even those who carry a large degree of responsibility for the mess we are in which is even more amazing!
Muttley, I suspect a large number of public sector will use their "SICK ALLOWANCE" today, this a foreign concept to my staff.
Sorry but that is typical of the out of date, tired old bollocks that is swallowed by those too lazy to understand the real issue at hand. Yeah much easier to brand everyone in thr public sector as a workshy scivver only interested in getting their nose in the tax payers trough then sitting back at 50 with their gold plated pensions laughing at the rest.
What they are is ordinary people doing their best for little thanks in the most difficult of circumstances in the hope that they might get a few years at the end of their lives without spending every minute worrying about the gas bill.
No doubt it helps you justify your views though.
I tell you what, you won't agree here and now but you WILL miss the public sector when this lot have finished with it and you're paying seperately for what little you can get! You try getting your bin collected for less than the price of a stamp!
is this a party political broadcast or something (original post)?
Having said that I agree pensions should be equalised across private and public nowadays, there is no longer such a disaparity in wages with the average public and private sector employee, and less pressure on the public
Although I think folk should be allowed to retire at 65, expecting them to be effective workers at that age is just silly..
Muttley, I suspect a large number of public sector will use their "SICK ALLOWANCE" today, this a foreign concept to my staff.
Sorry but that is typical of the out of date, tired old bollocks that is swallowed by those too lazy to understand the real issue at hand. Yeah much easier to brand everyone in thr public sector as a workshy scivver only interested in getting their nose in the tax payers trough then sitting back at 50 with their gold plated pensions laughing at the rest.
What they are is ordinary people doing their best for little thanks in the most difficult of circumstances in the hope that they might get a few years at the end of their lives without spending ever minute worrying about the gad bill.
No doubt it helps you justify your views though.
I tell you what, you won't agree here and now but you WILL miss the public sector when this lot have finished with it and you're paying seperately for what little you can get! You try getting your bin collected for less than the price of a stamp!
I starting writing in this thread about three times and stopped because it is inhabited by people who have an 80s view of the public sector. It's really not worth trying to explain what this strike is actually about to those who refuse to listen. Better to take comfort from the fact that 2 in 3 do actually suport this strike (and the theory that the other third just don't understand it).
Labour knew and knows that we cant afford to carry on paying state pensions at this rate----they did nothing about it because the very same Unions striking are there pay-masters------ ball-less twats
Private health care ---under labour in England if you brought private medicine for a loved one you could be removed form geting ANY care from the NHS ----- how "socialist--and EVERY one on here would have brought that service for a loved one---- so dont give it hypercriticak boolox
When thatcher took on Scargill there was mountains of coal all over the UK, where id it come from ? the USSR and POland good old socailist countrys ---solidarity--my arse.
These Unions want to bring down the Government -----------as elected by the people----if you dont like it tough ----democracy to this left wing shit is only when they win.
2 pn 3 support this strike what utter utter bull shit where did you get that ? not even 50% of the Union members voted for a strike so how do you work that one out
Comments
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.
Bit off the point but Margaret Thatcher closed more grammar schools than any other education secretary. It's precisely the selection process for grammar school that caused the other schools to be less successful. Grammars have zilch support among the teachers I meet as a governor in the primary and secondary sector. But I accept they are fine if you only care about a quarter of the kids.There are one or two observations I would make
1. Are you saying you can't leave early - for less pension - you have to work until you are 67 to get any NHS pension?
2. You may feel you don't want to go on beyond the existing pension date now. How do you know you won't feel differently when you reach that age? I meet people all the time in their sixties who love working and don't want to retire. Why, if we are all living so much longer, should people be expected to pack it all in at 60, 65 or 67. Many of those I knew who retired at 60-65, didn't reach 70. Paradoxically those I know who carried on working all thrived and survived way beyond 70.
My Dad decided to retire when he was 70. (He was in the private sector with only his private pension pot and the state pension to sustain him). He couldn't afford to retire at 65. At 70, he tried to pack things in - found he still wanted to carry on. He worked until he was 80 with purpose, drive, great skill. He was more economically successful in his last 10 years than he was in his previous 40. He went into hospital just after his 80th Birthday and never came out. He said to me in a philosophical moment that he had never been happier work-wise than he was in his last 10 years.
I realise we are all built differently but only focusing on the negative of pension reform doesn't tell the full story.
No wonder they lost the election (or was it the erection?).
Given that scenario, is it right to pay Public workers pensions at a level which is far greater than the kind of pensions the likes of people like me in the private sector would be completely unable to fund, and be paid out of the taxes that we all pay. Is it right that low earners in both public and private sectors who pay taxes should pay out big pensions for higher paid workers in the public sector?
Ideally everyone should get a final salary pension of a large multiple of their final salary. Sadly in the private sectors these types of pension have disappeared most of them several years ago. I had one. If I had stayed employed and without any changes, I would have retired on around 50% of my final salary. At the time I joined that scheme, the day after I joined the company reduced the multiple to around 40% for new joiners. Corporate Pensions in the private sector were being eroded gradually even as far back as the late 90's when this all happened.
The only long-term answer is a highly educated, highly employable workforce of young people in an entrepreneurial culture in which new business can thrive and grow into bigger businesses.
We need to create a much higher number of jobs for young and old alike and as quickly as possible.
As regards you point about dropping dead, will as I said, my experience which may or may not be typical is that the longer people work, the greater chance they have of living longer.
What's your point? I've been here since 2007. Happen to run company pension schemes for a living.
The private sector pension system needs reforming but not known by all, but from next year ALL employees will be required to join a workplace pension scheme. Small employers might be exempt and there is phasing in. The truth is that the current private pension system is broken and has failed us. A new private system is developing to replace the current one no one trusts. Current schemes do not offer good value for small savers and do not give enough certainty of outcome. I'm involved in developing a completely new model which cuts out the middle man and gives access to funds at institutional prices by aggregating the funds of the different employers and passing on the benefits of scale to savers, not the institutions. Investment is carried out to meet pension goals, not to provide commisssion to intermediaries.
I am committed to the cause of improving the pensions in the private sector but I know too well the true cost of pensions savings and that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The public sector, through no fault of their own, don't. They are oblivious to the fact that a far lower claim is being made on their salary to support their pension than they would see if they relied on a private sector employer for their total remuneration. As I've already said, have your good pension, but pay for it like anyone else would have to, don't abuse a priviledged position. That is why I am against the strike.
The complexities of public sector schemes, some funded, some unfunded, some partially funded, some contributory, some non-contributory, some insured, some invested in the market means Unions can spin whatever story suits the argument and allow misunderstandings to flourish. The public sector suffer the worst employer imaginable, a government, which is why we might have some sympathy. They have to rely on what they are fed by Unions, no different from any other vested interests group, and employees are open to manipulation as a result.
The hypocrisy is lost on those railing against bankers for having their snouts in the trough of our savings when the public sector has its snout in the trough of our taxes.
I pay 12% of my salary into a pension fund, what makes them think they can get a large pension without paying more into it or working longer to finance it?
They need a serious reality check!
Their employers (the Government, the nation, us!) have big financial problems and cuts have to be made so why do the unions demand big pensions, are they paying for it?
For years the unions have ruined this country, our once great industries killed off by successive communists like Jack Dash, Red Robbo and Arthur Scargill and now the idiots at UNISON will go down the same road.
I would like to see the Government take them on and retract the latest offer, I think the majority of decent folk in this country support the Government.
I agree that there is a real issue with the bosses pay and bankers bonuses that must be sorted and I hope the Government will take them on too but we need good bosses and to attract the best they need good salaries.
Up the Workers!
If you want to see the best public pension scheme ever, look at the MP,s pensions. It is astounding - why didn't they fix their pensions first or at least at the same time to give their proposals credibility? Why do chief executives who used to get paid about 20-30 times the average salary in their company, now get paid 400 times when their companies are doing worse? Why are the bankers (not all bankers) whose greed got us into this mess be allowed to continue paying themselves record bonuses with only token action by teh Government?
We are part of a country that is run for the benefit of a few and now the squeeze has come, the last to suffer will be those few. One day all of the workers on low to middle pay (Private and Public) will understand that they are in this together and work towards a fairer economy. The longer this austerity goes on, the more likely some form of change will happen.
The public sector is not some alien body arriving on these shores to steal taxes. Taxes are gathered to pay for a public sector because they are needed. If everything was private we would really be screaming. The public sector provides services at a very good rate, compare our health care with America for example. The public sector is good value for money for the most part, it is not a phenomena magicked out of nowhere to spirit taxes away.
Sadly that is (unintended probably) a consequence of socialism.
Muttley, I suspect a large number of public sector will use their "SICK ALLOWANCE" today, this a foreign concept to my staff.
IMO you cant change the goalposts half way through. Honour it but new staff coming on board be told this is the new deal
What they are is ordinary people doing their best for little thanks in the most difficult of circumstances in the hope that they might get a few years at the end of their lives without spending every minute worrying about the gas bill.
No doubt it helps you justify your views though.
I tell you what, you won't agree here and now but you WILL miss the public sector when this lot have finished with it and you're paying seperately for what little you can get! You try getting your bin collected for less than the price of a stamp!
is this a party political broadcast or something (original post)?
Having said that I agree pensions should be equalised across private and public nowadays, there is no longer such a disaparity in wages with the average public and private sector employee, and less pressure on the public
Although I think folk should be allowed to retire at 65, expecting them to be effective workers at that age is just silly..
I starting writing in this thread about three times and stopped because it is inhabited by people who have an 80s view of the public sector. It's really not worth trying to explain what this strike is actually about to those who refuse to listen. Better to take comfort from the fact that 2 in 3 do actually suport this strike (and the theory that the other third just don't understand it).
2 pn 3 support this strike what utter utter bull shit where did you get that ? not even 50% of the Union members voted for a strike so how do you work that one out