Loads of new cuts

Same as mine. The fact that my employer is technically the tax payer makes no difference.

 

Of course it makes a difference.

 

My employer decided that they couldn't afford to continue to fund a defined benefit pension, so pulled the plug on it. There are a lot of people that believe the country (your employer) cant afford to continue to fund a defined benefit pension, but woe betide the Government that tries to pull the plug on them. I get the need to honour the pensions people signed up to (despite the fact that a huge number of private employers, including mine, didn't honour their commitment) but they should be closed to new entrants.

 

Still at least I learnt something today. "Self funded" in public sector speak means funded by the employee and the tax payer.

 

Still at least I learnt something today. "Self funded" in public sector speak means funded by the employee and the tax payer.

 

How exactly do you expect ANYTHING in the public sector to be funded ? Ultimately the money is public money, by definition, and a lot of the 'public' money spent by that sector ends up in the coffers of PRIVATE businesses. So who is funding their pensions, expenses, and bonuses in such instances ?

No, in the same way I cannot choose to stop funding foreign military adventures, or supplying overseas aid to countries with their own space programs.

 

If your company became a supplier to the public sector, you would effectively be paid by public money, would you then decide to not take the benefits of that investment ?

 

I was trying to keep it simple, being paid by a company within the public sector or military adventures are another issue for another day, why should the people of this Country underwrite pensions for others?

Thats not fair, thats what I am saying.

How exactly do you expect ANYTHING in the public sector to be funded ? Ultimately the money is public money, by definition, and a lot of the 'public' money spent by that sector ends up in the coffers of PRIVATE businesses. So who is funding their pensions, expenses, and bonuses in such instances ?

 

And it's not just the revenue private companies may receive from government contracts / procurements that fund that company's private pension scheme. Every time you and I go to Sainsburys, or the petrol station or to Currys, we are funding those companies' pension schemes by contributing to their profits.

on another note. what these cuts pay for.

 

 

£3bn to build 165,000 new affordable homes

£28bn for road improvements, including £10bn for essential maintenance

£10bn to clear a "backlog" of school building repairs

850 miles of railway to be electrified as part of £30bn rail investment

£250m for extended super-fast broadband to rural areas

£370m for flood defences. Agreement with industry to provide affordable insurance for flood-hit homes

£800m extra funding for Green Investment Bank

£150m for health research including into dementia

£100m for a new prison in Wales

I will add I have nothing against public funded jobs and see them as an integeral part of a civilized society, the state has a part to play within the state, if you catch my drift.

. Every time you and I go to Sainsburys, or the petrol station or to Currys, we are funding those companies' pension schemes by contributing to their profits.

 

Do these companies you quote offer their employees a defined benefit scheme?

 

Perhaps they closed them to keep their costs down and make the business more profitable. This is turn has meant they can keep the cost of your shopping lower.

 

And , to go back to Bazza's earlier point. If you don't like your money going towards the Sainsburys pension, don't shop there. How does Bazza do the same to public sector pensions? If they put the price of a loaf up 50% to help fund pensions, you could walk away. If Bazza's taxes go up to fund a defined benefit pension in the public sector, what can he do?

Edited 27 June, 2013 by Lord Duckhunter

on another note. what these cuts pay for.

 

 

£3bn to build 165,000 new affordable homes

£28bn for road improvements, including £10bn for essential maintenance

£10bn to clear a "backlog" of school building repairs

850 miles of railway to be electrified as part of £30bn rail investment

£250m for extended super-fast broadband to rural areas

£370m for flood defences. Agreement with industry to provide affordable insurance for flood-hit homes

£800m extra funding for Green Investment Bank

£150m for health research including into dementia

£100m for a new prison in Wales

 

£100m for a prison in Wales, I dont know why but I laughed out loud when I just read that.

Do these companies you quote offer their employees a defined benefit scheme?

 

Perhaps they closed them to keep their costs down and make the business more profitable. This is turn has meant they can keep the cost of your shopping lower.

 

I doubt it, but they still have to contribute to their employees' pension schemes which is the point I was making.

I was trying to keep it simple, being paid by a company within the public sector or military adventures are another issue for another day, why should the people of this Country underwrite pensions for others?

Thats not fair, thats what I am saying.

 

And what I am saying is that they don't "underwrite" the LGPS.

 

And the irony of today's teachers strike, I get home to find my wife doing lesson plans - but she says she "didn't start until after half past three", so technically the strike day was over.

Good she didn't scab.

I doubt it, but they still have to contribute to their employees' pension schemes which is the point I was making.

 

The tax payer will always have to contribute to Public sector pensions, I cant see how any normal person could disagree with that. However, surely it's a legitimate question as to whether they should continue to fund a defined benefit scheme or move to a money purchase one which will save them a lot of money. It is also incorrect to call them "self funded" .

I think your anger is making you a bit dumb here Wade. Firstly, as I said, I was a teacher... There is no envy.

 

The quote you posted was in response to VFTT saying his salary should be brought into line with the private sector. I took this as general jobs in the private sector not just teaching (as I took when I left). I was simply jokingly highlighting that the holidays are a massive perk and help to bring the salary inline with other private sector jobs requiring similar skills qualifications.

 

My original quote was in response to someone who said teachers pensions should be the same as private pensions. If it's good enough for equality for their pensions, then why not salary?

 

I note that you say you were a teacher, fair play for getting out. The idea of teaching teenagers fills me with horror too.

If would be ok if you were allowed to hit them. I think I would have made a great teacher in the 70s.

The tax payer will always have to contribute to Public sector pensions, I cant see how any normal person could disagree with that.

The taxpayer ( through the good offices of Central or Local Government ) is the employer, so this is hardly a surprise.

However, surely it's a legitimate question as to whether they should continue to fund a defined benefit scheme or move to a money purchase one which will save them a lot of money.

This is up to the Government, who are already making significant changes to the schemes.

It is also incorrect to call them "self funded" .

Semantic argument - the LGPS is funded by 3 sources; the employer, the employee, and investment income from the funds. I suggest that a similar private sector scheme would be funded in exactly the same way. The lack of 'top-up' funding from the Treasury, in my eyes, means it is 'self funded'.

Semantic argument - the LGPS is funded by 3 sources; the employer, the employee, and investment income from the funds. I suggest that a similar private sector scheme would be funded in exactly the same way. The lack of 'top-up' funding from the Treasury, in my eyes, means it is 'self funded'.

 

My son has a private pension. That is self funded.

 

Mine is funded by myself and my company so is not self funded.

 

Yours is funded by you and the tax payer so is not self funded.

Semantic argument - the LGPS is funded by 3 sources; the employer, the employee, and investment income from the funds. I suggest that a similar private sector scheme would be funded in exactly the same way. The lack of 'top-up' funding from the Treasury, in my eyes, means it is 'self funded'.

 

It's just run better.

 

If we are employed by the government then they, as the employer puts in. What's the drama with that?

The idea of teaching teenagers fills me with horror too.

 

They're not that bad. At least once they are past Y9 their not!

 

My Mrs works in a very, very tough school (the estates it serves have one of the highest levels of heroin abuse in England and the same for alcohol) and by god does she earn her holidays. The amount of work she brings home is remarkable as her days are rammed with child protection and SEN issues.

 

In some schools it's teachers like my Mrs who are the only steady, consistent and non drunk/stoned adults the youngsters have.

It's just run better.

 

If we are employed by the government then they, as the employer puts in. What's the drama with that?

 

No drama, provided they are not called "self funded".

 

Do you accept that if defined benefit schemes in the public sector were closed it would save the tax payer money, whilst giving public sector workers similar pension provisions as the vast majority of tax payers have ?

Dont forget that public sector future pensioners are also taxpayers so they're funding my pension at the moment and themselves in the future through their taxes too

No drama, provided they are not called "self funded".

 

Do you accept that if defined benefit schemes in the public sector were closed it would save the tax payer money, whilst giving public sector workers similar pension provisions as the vast majority of tax payers have ?

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05823.pdf‎

"The LGPS is different in that, like Defined Benefit schemes in the private sector, it is funded. This means that contributions are paid into a fund, which is invested, and from which pension benefits are paid. "

"“The LGPS pays out about £5bn each year in benefits and takes in £10bn in income. There is no cash crisis for some time and most schemes are cash positive for the next 14 to 20 years.”"

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05823.pdf‎

"The LGPS is different in that, like Defined Benefit schemes in the private sector, it is funded. This means that contributions are paid into a fund, which is invested, and from which pension benefits are paid. "

"“The LGPS pays out about £5bn each year in benefits and takes in £10bn in income. There is no cash crisis for some time and most schemes are cash positive for the next 14 to 20 years.”"

 

No, no, no. We is ripping off people and theys is paying for us to have MASSIVE pensions. It waz in da Sun.

How does that square with this?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8585225/Local-government-pension-gap-balloons-to-71.5bn.html

I agree with Tokyo, I think you have hit the nail on the head.

 

That is an excellent idea and one that would kill off both sides of the argument. Scrap all half terms, Xmas and summer breaks for the teachers in exhange for a standard annual leave allowance, some of which can be taken in the summer holidays and some during the year. This is a very common practise in many industries where staff agree to not take leave in certain peak times.

 

This would give teachers weeks on end throughout the summer with a completely empty classroom with no distractions (unlike the home/beach) to do their "report writing, teaching preparation, training, classroom preparation" as BTF says... It would be far more efficient for the school system and you could expect to see the quality of teaching improve as all material has been compiled in a learning environment, not at the pub (I know two teachers who do this LOL), not sat on the sofa drinking wine 1/2 watching TV, not in bed hungover FFS!

 

Surely this would have huge benefit to the teachers, all that down time in the classrooms to do their preperations, not only that, it would gain respect from the public who are getting very tired of the victim mentality of the teaching trade.

 

We are all in this together.

 

I can't imagine that you know anyone intelligent enough to be a teacher.

I think your anger is making you a bit dumb here Wade. Firstly, as I said, I was a teacher... There is no envy.

 

The quote you posted was in response to VFTT saying his salary should be brought into line with the private sector. I took this as general jobs in the private sector not just teaching (as I took when I left). I was simply jokingly highlighting that the holidays are a massive perk and help to bring the salary inline with other private sector jobs requiring similar skills qualifications.

 

The most similar private sector job to compare to a teacher in the public sector would be .......a teacher. And private sector teachers get even longer holidays than public sector ones.

The most similar private sector job to compare to a teacher in the public sector would be .......a teacher. And private sector teachers get even longer holidays than public sector ones.

 

Also not forgetting a number of countries who are ranked higher for education give their students even longer holidays...

How does that square with this?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8585225/Local-government-pension-gap-balloons-to-71.5bn.html

 

Maybe you could ask the people who wrote that Parliamentary paper, or Lord Hutton who produced the original report. ( Not that I could possible accuse the Torygraph of having an agenda ).

The problem with Tokyo Saint is that I imagine he couldn't hack teaching, was probably taken through incompetency and now bitter with the headteacher that fired him, is on a crusade to promote the private sector as being the one true career path.

It's nothing to do with envy, unless you think making a system fair is about envy.

 

I have alot of friends who work in the public sector and it seems to be more of a cushty 'job for life' attitude compared to those in the private sector. If they don't get their inflation linked rise every year they cry like babies and have some union going on strike for them whereas in the private sector if your company doesn't make money you are out on your arse.

 

My company has just had to sack someone for not performing 100%, no redundancy pay, just the sack. No-one has had a pay rise for years because of the economic climate. IMO there is a huge gulf between the attitudes of public sector and private. Because of the global economic situation I think there is going to have to be changes made.

 

It's not about making the system fair, though is it? Fair costs too much money, so the politics of envy is applied expertly to get the monkeys to throw their sh!t at each other. No-one will notice the grossly damaging results of these cuts if everyone is looking over their shoulder and moaning about what someone else has got.

 

I don't buy economic climate as a reason for your erstwhile colleague's sacking. Even in the good times, we all operate in a competitive market. A company can be in relative recession when others are booming, for many reasons. A good scandal or bit of bad publicity will keep people at bay, as will poor internal management decisions or technical implementations (but even then, manager shoulda caught it). Cashflow drives it all, and if you're actually telling me that your company accumulated enough evidence to go through the process of sacking someone (and I mean sacking someone, not just letting a contract expire) just because of the economic climate, just to save on redundancy cash (which implies long service), I'd looking for a move if I were in your position.

'Grossly damaging' is stretching it a bit far. We're only looking at putting things back to where they were a few years ago, if that.

'Grossly damaging' is stretching it a bit far. We're only looking at putting things back to where they were a few years ago, if that.

 

I disagree, Whitey Grandad. Even before this range of cuts, we've seen some of the fallout from other ideological cuts, like the caps on Housing Benefit or the "dodge it if you can" bedroom tax. These are crude implements wielded by a government that has no business being in power. The long term costs are impossible to quantify. More prisoners, probably. More opportunities for private industry! Trebles all round, as the Private Eye people like to say.

The problem with Tokyo Saint is that I imagine he couldn't hack teaching, was probably taken through incompetency and now bitter with the headteacher that fired him, is on a crusade to promote the private sector as being the one true career path.

 

That's it exactly. Well done. You know the famous saying, those who can teach, those who can't open a business.

You seem quite bitter, Tokyo-Saint. Did you get struck off for improper behaviour?

You seem quite bitter, Tokyo-Saint. Did you get struck off for improper behaviour?

 

Good timings - +1 nemesis point

Blah

Edited 27 June, 2013 by TopGun

No, no, no. We is ripping off people and theys is paying for us to have MASSIVE pensions. It waz in da Sun.

 

It is a fact that money purchase schemes need less employers Contibutions than a defined benefit one. That's why they are dying out in the private sector. As the taxpayer is the employer of public sector workers, closing defined benefit pensions and starting mps will save the tax payer money but still leave public sector workers with an equivalent pension to nearly all private sector workers.

So only current or previous teachers can passed comment? Christ thats precious.

 

Not really. You're making categoric sweeping statements about a complex and huge endeavour based on your mum and an ex you've not seen in ages. You're proving the old adage about opinions and arseholes.

. These are crude implements wielded by a government that has no business being in power.

 

Damn nuisance these election results aren't they? In future how do we assess whether a government has any business being in power. My suggestion is the party leaders pop round yours for a cuppa and a chat and you decree who forms the government.Much more legitimate than bothering with counting votes ,and in this age of austerity a lot cheaper.

It's déjà vu time and I remember when this topic came up a couple of years back.

 

I'll never understand the rush to the bottom with regards pensions. With the exception of some top end (perhaps comparable to those huge pay offs seen in the Private Sector) and some very old schemes, Public Sector schemes aren't that lucrative and average out at something like £7k a year.

 

I wholeheartedly supported the recent Hutton reforms asking for public employees to contribute a bit more and to look at how payments are earned/paid, but he also spoke of the hidden time bomb in the private sector.

 

The biggest issue is the lack of provision and savings in the Private Sector, because of course who will be fronting up the shortage when these workers retire?????

 

It will be the taxpayer of course, so you can either moan having to pay out ££££s now to fund Public Sector schemes or moan later when you're paying out ££££s to help support those from the Private Sector who retire with poor or even no pensions schemes to fund them.

It's déjà vu time and I remember when this topic came up a couple of years back.

 

I'll never understand the rush to the bottom with regards pensions. With the exception of some top end (perhaps comparable to those huge pay offs seen in the Private Sector) and some very old schemes, Public Sector schemes aren't that lucrative and average out at something like £7k a year.

 

I wholeheartedly supported the recent Hutton reforms asking for public employees to contribute a bit more and to look at how payments are earned/paid, but he also spoke of the hidden time bomb in the private sector.

 

The biggest issue is the lack of provision and savings in the Private Sector, because of course who will be fronting up the shortage when these workers retire?????

 

It will be the taxpayer of course, so you can either moan having to pay out ££££s now to fund Public Sector schemes or moan later when you're paying out ££££s to help support those from the Private Sector who retire with poor or even no pensions schemes to fund them.

 

The 'moan later' brigade have already started complaining about the universal state pension.

 

You can understand a 'lack of provision and savings' when you see the paltry results from annuity and savings interest rates and the constant talk of means-testing those who have made prudent provision.