egg

The employers contribution is notional. The money doesn't go into a pot. That's the part yuu seem to me misunderstanding. The schemes (save LGPS) are unfunded. The schemes are annual accrual by reference to the salary and the pension division, ie 1/40, 1/49, etc. If (and you still haven't answered the question) you're advocating a higher salary, but the divider remains, the pension actually increases, albeit paid for by the governments when the employees scheme falls into payment. So, if you want more pay, accept that pension costs wll increase over time. If you want less pay, or a reduced pension, accept that we won't recruit them public servants we need.

Seems fairly typical of the spread in a comparable role. Factor in that the LGPS is a 49th scheme, so that person will get a pension worth about £920 a year in retirement in today's money. Buying an annuity for that amount would cost about £12-16k. Total the two, and the public sector person is still out of pocket to the private sector person coming in anywhere above the very bottom of the pay scale.

Are we now talking about a performance rated public service pension?

If I did the nearest equivalent of my public role in a private setting the remuneration would be (and has been) much more than double. But, the pension is great, and public service life in my situation is much easier than the reality of a commercial environment.

It's vague to refer to unspecified sectors. If you refer to sectors, say which sectors. If in reality you actually don't know, then just admit what's obviously the case. Back to my yes or no question on public sector pay. Are you calling for a reduction or increase? I've said I'll return to pensions once you've addressed that simple question.

Putting your valid point to one side, I'm unsure what he's saying here. Have we now moved into lower PS pay and pension territory? Earlier I thought it was increase the pay and lower pension. That was certainly Iansums point.

Because many PS roles don't have a private sector comparison. What does a private sector army officer get paid? Fireman? Judge? Etc. I'll repeat my question to Ralph. The PS needs staffing. Are you suggesting that the government of this day increases it's costs by increasing PS pay? That's a yes or no. I'll return to pensions after

Again you're vague. If you spell out the other sectors that you refer to, that'd help. Regardless, the PS needs staffing. Let's take this in stages. Are you suggesting that the government of this day increases it's costs by increasing PS pay? That's a yes or no. I'll return to pensions after.

Quite. I think we have people arguing to increase public sector pay, make spending cuts, and save for future PS pensions. Regardless, any attempt to significantly alter PS pensions will lead to another McCloud situation. The impact and cost of that is another timebomb this government has has had to absorb, and we haven't yet felt the full impact of.

It's a false comparison. The government is obliged to pay pensions in payment. They can't do that whilst paying higher wages.

I don't misunderstand. The country needs public services and people to operate it.

Public sector roles are only available in the public sector. I haven't seen many private sector firemen, soldiers, civil servants, judges, etc. Are you saying that people shouldn't do those jobs and go and do something else in the private arena?

The point is that it suits the present government to pay less and use the pension contributions of those currently contributing towards the pensions in payment. It's always been that way. You advocate spending cuts, so I'm not sure where you're going here. The only realistic change is for government to increase public sector pay, to bank people's pension contributions for the future, and pay existing pensions entirely from tax and borrowing. What are you actually saying should happen?

No. Public sector roles by nature are only available in the public sector.

Yep. All the traitors were superb though. I think Alan's popularity clouded peoples judgement a bit though.

Absolutely not. It's locked in and I know what I'm getting and when. A stocks and shares based scheme doesn't give that certainty. Also, as said, the cost to me of buying the equivalent pension would require a massive hike in the salary. Also bear in mind that if public sector pay increases now, the money has to be paid now. Most public sector pensions are unfunded schemes (local government schemes being the main exception) so the current government merely provide a guaranteed future benefit. It's the problem of future governments to actually pay them. The teachers contribute a lot to theirs (well a lot to paying the pensions currently in payment), but, they'd be paying much more to buy the equivalent pension benefits in the public sector.

I do some work in the public sector and have a pension. It'd cost a fortune to buy an equivalent scheme privately. The role doesn't pay brilliantly though, and the pension is the sweetener. If they dilute it I'm out, and that'll happen across the public sector.

That's a different issue entirely to people suddenly not feeling English, and believing that every brown person is a rapist.

Done what, made people become angry/feral lunatics? That's down to people and their perception of the world.

Very interesting, and I share your view. I had a run in with one of his fans yesterday. Complete stranger who I happened to be sat next to. Pertinent part of the conversation began with comment from him that it's a strange world. He said it'll get worse. I asked why, he says immigrants. It went downhill from there. Apparently people who don't agree with flags on lampposts aren't English enough. It's good that the flags are divisive. All the boat people should be shot on the beaches. Apparently I "wanted" his kids to be raped because I disagreed. He's convinced himself that every woman and child is at risk of being raped by an illegal. Wouldn't have it that white natives rape people too. He got angrier when I asked how he feels about his kids growing up with division. It's ok apparently though, cos they won't be safe otherwise. We're breeding a load of MAGA type loons who are properly convinced that Nigel is the saviour of good old England. It'll take some real effort to keep Reform out, and yep, lots of tactical voting will be needed.

Absolutely shocking, but it's a win, and will hopefully breed some much needed confidence. Has that performance pushed SR towards RM?

I wouldn't. I've said for ages that we need a proper manager, not a pushover coach. Ducks post the other day nailed it.

Why would we spend £60m or whatever on players that can't be used effectively. It makes no sense...unless it's the players who are putting their foot down over the team shape.

Not sure I agree. It'll be 3 up top I reckon. We need more communication in the team, and we'll have that in that back 3. Fellows will be further up the pitch for sure. Midfield worries me though. Bazunu aside, I don't have an issue with that side, although I still don't know why we aren't playing 4231 or 433.

Yep. Feels very much like player power has won. Not good.