# Public sector pensions



## Wundahorse (3 December 2011)

Following from the outrage caused by Jeremy Clarksons unfortunate rant about the strikes, I felt inspired to challenge the misnomer perpetrated by the media about so called,"gold plated pensions".Firstly most front line staff will only receive a modest pension,which accounting for inflation will not keep them from the breadline in years to come.NHS senior managers i.e directors,assistant directors,chief executives,and all of that ilk,will get huge pensions,as they earn vast salaries compared to the front line staff who deliver patient care.Most of these managers are usually incompetent practitioners who then make incompetent decisions in their managerial roles,often making massive cut backs to front line services while ensuring their own jobs are preserved. mp's and Ministers also receive platinum encrusted with diamond pensions,protected from inflation,and not necessarily earned over a career span.For instance,if "call me Dave" loses the next election,he is likely to be booted out with a massive pension,for what,serving only 5 years in office.I wont rant about their expenses either,but have to stress that as a community Nurse,i only receive 11p per mile for work mileage.With the price of fuel,the maths do not add up,and i am paying to deliver a service to my patients.I gather Mp's get 50p per mile!There is so much inequality in this great British system,all of it deriving from the top.
I pay around £400 each month into my public sector pension so after 32 years in practice so far,i think my hard working colleagues and i deserve a reasonable pension.All fans of Jeremy Clarkson also need to appreciate that this "buffoon" receives a big salary from the BBC,which i understand as a corporation,makes it a public service.Such hypocrisy.
I realise there are probably people who think all Nurses neglect their patients on the wards,and in the community,but will point out that the Nurse to patient ratio is so low that inevitably they cannot manage the case loads,or provide the service they want to deliver.This is the product of legislation and sweeping cut backs.Do not believe the myth that front line staff have been protected from the cuts.The reality is they are the first to be made redundant,while managers retain their jobs.


----------



## VikkiL (3 December 2011)

Yup totally agree. I am also public sector, and its driven me mad the misreporting of our pensions- sure the senior managers etc may have great gold plated pensions, but our front line pensions arnt quite so brilliant.

In the area of the sector I work in the contribution rate is 9%, which I simply cant afford, so I currently do not have a pension.

It is planned that the contributions increase to over 11%- looks like I wont be in the pension scheme for a good while!

I do appreciate times are hard for everyone, and that everyone has to make sacrifices at the moment- but I am so totally fed up by public sector bashing by people misinformed by the media!


----------



## FairyLights (4 December 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...sector-pensions-reform-may-not-be-enough.html


----------



## katherine1975 (4 December 2011)

Well said Wundahorse. I am struggling now and work full time as a nurse. It is hard enough not having a pay rise for two years, I wouldn't be able to afford to pay extra into my pension as well!


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2011)

VikkiL said:



			Yup totally agree. I am also public sector, and its driven me mad the misreporting of our pensions- sure the senior managers etc may have great gold plated pensions, but our front line pensions arnt quite so brilliant.

In the area of the sector I work in the contribution rate is 9%, which I simply cant afford, so I currently do not have a pension.

It is planned that the contributions increase to over 11%- looks like I wont be in the pension scheme for a good while!

I do appreciate times are hard for everyone, and that everyone has to make sacrifices at the moment- but I am so totally fed up by public sector bashing by people misinformed by the media!
		
Click to expand...

Can you afford to keep a horse? If so, you are making a choice to have a horse now rather than pay into a pension scheme which, even after the reforms, is beyond what most private sector employees can even dream of.

Remember that when you are 70 and can't afford to heat your house.


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			I felt inspired to challenge the misnomer perpetrated by the media about so called,"gold plated pensions".Firstly most front line staff will only receive a modest pension,which accounting for inflation will not keep them from the breadline in years to come
		
Click to expand...

It is not a misnomer to call them gold plated, because they are based on your salary and index linked, neither of which apply to the vast majority of private sector pensions. They also contain a condition of being able to retire early on the grounds of ill health, shoudl the situation arise, which is not the case for private sector money-purchase pensions.


----------



## YorksG (4 December 2011)

Please be aware that the poster who cannot afford to pay into the NHS pension is already paying tax and national insurance, along with the community nurse who is subsidising the NHS by paying to visit her patients. If, like me, she also has to put in VAT receipts to claim the small amount of milage re0mbursment, she is paying the VAT, which is then claimed back by her employer, thus subsidising the NHS againm never mind the unpaid overtime etc, etc,
The pensions changes are merely another way for this government to tax public sector workers and I hope those who make the comments they do about nurses etc. never need to use the public sector, because before long there will be no front line staff left to do the job.


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2011)

First, I do feel genuinely sorry for people whose pensions are being changed. But it happened to the rest of us, employed and self-employed, years ago and it is not fair for us to continue to pay for your benefits to be so much better than ours.

The trouble with most Public Sector workers, it seems to me, is that you simply don't realise how much it costs to provide your pensions. If the basic benefits that you get were to be bought by someone in a standard money-purchase pension they would need a fund of £100,000 to get every £4000 or so a year pension. So if you are a nurse on £25,000 a year set to retire on a bit under half that, £12,000 you would need a fund of £300,000. Now can you see that your 10 or 11% of your own salary a year goes nowhere near providing the amount of money needed??  You would work for 100 years and still not have nearly enough. And that doesn't include a provision for early retirement on the grounds of ill health, worth another mint.


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			Please be aware that the poster who cannot afford to pay into the NHS pension is already paying tax and national insurance, along with the community nurse who is subsidising the NHS by paying to visit her patients. If, like me, she also has to put in VAT receipts to claim the small amount of milage re0mbursment, she is paying the VAT, which is then claimed back by her employer, thus subsidising the NHS againm never mind the unpaid overtime etc, etc,
The pensions changes are merely another way for this government to tax public sector workers and I hope those who make the comments they do about nurses etc. never need to use the public sector, because before long there will be no front line staff left to do the job.
		
Click to expand...



She has made choices not to pay into it. She could afford it but she is choosing horse ownership (I believe, unless corrected) over her future retirement income. Her choice. Plenty of people are making a different one, private and public sector.

Please remember that NONE of your jobs can exist until private sector people earn money and pay taxes.


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			as a community Nurse,i only receive 11p per mile for work mileage.With the price of fuel,the maths do not add up,and i am paying to deliver a service to my patients..
		
Click to expand...

This is completely outrageous, it does not even cover the cost of fuel. What the hell are your Union doing not getting that sorted?

I do a voluntary Public Sector job and my mileage rate is 35p for a 1600cc vehicle.


----------



## YorksG (4 December 2011)

The local government pension scheme which I pay into is in good health and can indeed continue to fund the pensions it is committed to. There is a difference between public and private sector working (not much difference in the admin staff role and other non public facing jobs admittedly) I know of no private sector job where it is the norm to subsidise your employer through your mileage, or where it is the norm to provide basic equiplent yourself. Those of us who have worked  for many years in the public sector, in front line roles have accepted poor and innadequate working conditions, on the understanding that we would have a decent, appropriate pension at the end of our working lives.
Of course if people wish to return to the days of the work house and the hospital almoner, then feel free to support these changes.


----------



## dieseldog (4 December 2011)

i only receive 11p per mile for work mileage.With the price of fuel,the maths do not add up,and i am paying to deliver a service to my patients.I gather Mp's get 50p per mile!
		
Click to expand...

MPs do not get 50p a mile, the most they can claim, along with everyone else who pays tax is 45p a mile.  Are you aware that you can claim the difference between 11p and 45p a mile back if you do your own tax return?


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			the norm to subsidise your employer through your mileage, or where it is the norm to provide basic equiplent yourself..
		
Click to expand...

Those things are outrageous and I am baffled why your Union is not publicising them and fighting like crazy to get them sorted.

It is just plain wrong. If unions aren't there to correct that sort of thing, what are they for?


----------



## katherine1975 (4 December 2011)

Santapaws - I can still pay for my horse but only because I work full time and have chosen not to have children and have horses instead. It's not our fault we are paying this money into our pensions and the government are spending it instead of investing it to grow.


----------



## ClobellsandBaubles (4 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			First, I do feel genuinely sorry for people whose pensions are being changed. But it happened to the rest of us, employed and self-employed, years ago and it is not fair for us to continue to pay for your benefits to be so much better than ours.
		
Click to expand...

No it isn't fair but I think one of the points that the OP was trying to make it that it isn't fair between public sector workers those who are actually doing the graft caring for patients are not those who get much benefit at all compared to managers and MP's etc. where the vast majority of the money actually goes.

Why can't they taxed equally in order to make the system a little bit fairer to everybody.


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2011)

katherine1975 said:



			Santapaws - I can still pay for my horse but only because I work full time and have chosen not to have children and have horses instead. It's not our fault we are paying this money into our pensions and the government are spending it instead of investing it to grow.
		
Click to expand...

You obviously have no idea what has happened in the last ten years to pension funds "left to grow". If I had not moved my own into a cash fund paying no more interest that you can get in the bank - less than inflation - it would have lost about 40% of its value. It is this kind of risk that the private sector now have to face, and why your own pensions are justifiably described as "gold plated".


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2011)

CloBauble said:



			No it isn't fair but I think one of the points that the OP was trying to make it that it isn't fair between public sector workers those who are actually doing the graft caring for patients are not those who get much benefit at all compared to managers and MP's etc. where the vast majority of the money actually goes.

Why can't they taxed equally in order to make the system a little bit fairer to everybody.
		
Click to expand...


I do agree with you that all public sector workers (except perhaps Police, Army and Fire Service) should have the same pension provisions.

But in terms of the vast majority of the money going in their direction, I think you will find that because of the much greater number of lower level staff than managers, changes to their schemes to bring them down to match yours would not produce the amount of money that you expect.  It should be done though!


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			The local government pension scheme which I pay into is in good health and can indeed continue to fund the pensions it is committed to..
		
Click to expand...

Not according to the Audit Commission. Full report here with all the figures for anyone interested:

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/...onalStudies/100729localgovernmentpensions.pdf


----------



## YorksG (4 December 2011)

Then perhaps the fraud squad would be interested. The last statement from my LG pension fund, less than two months ago, showed it to be in good health and more than able to meet its obligations.
(by the way the link did not work)


----------



## animal (4 December 2011)

ignore this post!


----------



## cptrayes (4 December 2011)

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/nationalstudies/localgov/localgovpensions/Pages/Default.aspx

"The Local Government Pension Scheme is the UK&#8217;s largest public sector pension scheme by membership. In our latest information paper, we examine its long-term affordability, and find that although it is backed by local funds, recently investments have failed to deliver the anticipated returns, and the funds currently cover only about three-quarters of the scheme&#8217;s future liabilities. "


----------



## Wolfie (4 December 2011)

I literally don't think it matters what anyone says, the views are too entrenched. The Private sector very obviously think that the public sector are bumbling, incompetent dolts that are latched onto a lucrative nipple and living a life of luxury with the promise of more reward in retirement. The public sector are exasperated and frustrated because they feel they have been robbed. The two sides will never see eye to eye, unless of course all public sector workers are reduced to minimum wage or something.

From my perspective things appear thus: I am a lecturer in FE. I work pretty hard, pay loads of tax and am expecting to work until I am about 70 before I can afford to retire. However, I am also a temporary member of staff, since cuts have placed an embargo on appointing anymore permanent posts. I do indeed enjoy long holidays, enforced by the fact that the college closes and I am not paid for this time, so struggle along by saving to pay rent etc. I could live better if I didn't have a horse, but on the other side I don't have children so I think they are comparable in cost. I doubt very much I will be taking home a massive pension, and don't think I am living in enviable conditions compared to a private sector worker. I am sure I will be told to suck it up, and I did end up choosing this career so must bear some of the responsibility, but the same can be said for anyone who chose private sector over public - you made a choice, so don't castigate others for the choice they made. The govt promised a certain pension per worker, they can no longer deliver. How or why they can no longer deliver is somewhat irrelevant as they made a deal and now are reneging. The fact they already did something similar to the private sector does not make it right.

I also find it infuriating that C**tron and his colleagues rake in huge salaries, retire on huge pensions and seem to do very little more than make quips at each other across the house of commons. I would feel more vindicated if these swine were forced to endure the same conditions and cuts as their "employees" as it were. 

And Mr Clarkson, a spanner who spends his days having d*ck measuring contests with his friends by driving around in cars, has a brass neck on him for suggesting that he works hard. Faffing around in a car and occasionally ejaculating some diatribe intended to offend and bait those of a sensitive nature does not equate to hard work in my book!!


----------



## perfect11s (4 December 2011)

I blame anyone who voted lib, cons or Liebour!!!!.... you got what you deserved, a load of selfserving  tossers ..... lIebour spent all the money  Bliar gave us an ilegal war/s gordo wrecked the economy, the libs are plastering the country with windmills so no reliable electric just massive bills and genraly interfering  with goverment, cameron lot  are slighty better and a making an atempt to ballance the books  but they  are going to sell us out to the EU  so it looks like  we are doomed..  kids


----------



## luckyoldme (4 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			) I know of no private sector job where it is the norm to subsidise your employer through your mileage, or where it is the norm to provide basic equiplent yourself.
		
Click to expand...

no we all have nine to five monday to friday jobs. We have huge exspense allowances and are generally treat much better than the public sector. Yes everthing is wonderfull here in Narnia.


----------



## criptic (5 December 2011)

great piece! well put too.


----------



## Wundahorse (5 December 2011)

One thing i did not mention is that many staff in the public sector are being regraded,which in reality means they are being forced to drop a pay band and take a big cut in pay,all of which will lead to a reduced pension.I do appreciate things are very tough,and unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future,but please do not use this as an excuse to bash public sector workers.The fault lies with bankers and Government.In addition,a lot of the information in the media,particularly papers such as the Daily Mail,is based on erroneous and deliberately inflammatory nonsense,that is designed to manipulate and divide the nations workforce.Rather being at odds with one another,both private and public sectors need to show a more united front,as we are all affected by these dreadful economic times.


----------



## YorksG (5 December 2011)

luckyoldme said:



			no we all have nine to five monday to friday jobs. We have huge exspense allowances and are generally treat much better than the public sector. Yes everthing is wonderfull here in Narnia.
		
Click to expand...

Well rather than the somewhat childish response, please give examples of where people pay for the privilege of visiting clients/patients etc, other than the 'caring' professions.


----------



## cptrayes (5 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			we are all affected by these dreadful economic times.
		
Click to expand...

We are, but it's only a small part of what is wrong with Public Sector pensions. The problem is that we are living too long. People are now routinely living 25 - 30 years after their retirement date and that is, quite simply, unaffordable unless you save about half what you earn.

It was unsustainable money-wise and grossly unfair morally for the Public Sector to continue to be paid pensions that the Private Sector, who generate the cash for the Public Sector to exist at all, cannot even dream of. 

Like everyone else, though, I do wish we could have the same rules for Directors of companies and Higher level Public Servants.


----------



## Mithras (5 December 2011)

The public sector is so disparite its difficult to make meaningful comments that apply to all.  There seems to be a notion amongst public sector workers that the trade off for a lower salary than in the private sector is a better pension, but I don't think thats borne out in practise.  In reality, many lower-mid level public sector jobs are better paid than private sector jobs would offer people of the same skills/experience.  Certainly in Scotland, where I live, you have electricians, binmen (it is always men), admin staff, maintenance staff on 30-40k a year (inc overtime where they seem to build up a backlog of work to ensure the need to work at double time over Christmas), which is way higher than the private sector would pay for most of these jobs.

Theres also talk of poorer working conditions, but I'm not sure what these are, beyond specific jobs like nursing, which is something IMHO that should be primarily public sector provided.  When I worked in the public sector, I benefitted from flexitime, a low workload, subsidised canteen, long holidays, a lot of admin support and no need to work beyond 9-5 usually.  As well as the pension.  Unfortunately, as a lawyer, I got fed up being paid the same as someone with no degree or not a qualified professional, as did my colleague, who got a 5k pay drop on regrading of his job and left.

Surely everyone knows that a work pension is quite likely not to provide enough for a comfortable retirement, and you should either top it up, or take the risk?  I pretty much knew that on coming out of uni, so I don't see why other people don't, and then claim surprise on finding out.  Pensions are such a risky business anyway, but people in the private sector have to deal with these risks.  The world is changing - new graduates now have student loans and fees to pay off, while some of the people moaning about their pensions now recieved student grants and free uni education, for goodness sake!

IMHO there are too many non-essential public sector jobs anyway, certainly in Scotland, and cutting some of them would probably improve my day to day life (who wants their bins micro-monitored or City of Edinburgh Council's common repairs scheme fraud anyway?)


----------



## cptrayes (5 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			Well rather than the somewhat childish response, please give examples of where people pay for the privilege of visiting clients/patients etc, other than the 'caring' professions.
		
Click to expand...

I am still gobsmacked by your mileage rate. What do your Union say about it? What do your employers say about it? How is it possible to be paid a mileage rate which does not  even cover the petrol costs for any normal small saloon on the road? 

Are you also paid a fixed essential user car allowance?
Are you paid a higher rate for the first x,000 miles?
What job do you actually do? Nurse mileage rates are 2 and 3 times what you get.


What would happen to you if you refused to do the journey unless your full petrol costs were reimbursed - surely they would have trouble winning that one at an employment tribunal? 

If you struck over that I would support you completely.


----------



## suestowford (5 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			It was unsustainable money-wise and grossly unfair morally for the Public Sector to continue to be paid pensions that the Private Sector, who generate the cash for the Public Sector to exist at all, cannot even dream of.
		
Click to expand...

I know I am cheating by copy & pasting but found this on bbc website. It compares the average pension paid in public sector to the average paid to private sector.

Using a mean average, some £7,800 a year is being paid in a public sector pension compared with £7,467 for a private sector salary-linked pension. 


Not that much difference is there?


----------



## Mithras (5 December 2011)

suestowford said:



			I know I am cheating by copy & pasting but found this on bbc website. It compares the average pension paid in public sector to the average paid to private sector.

Using a mean average, some £7,800 a year is being paid in a public sector pension compared with £7,467 for a private sector salary-linked pension. 


Not that much difference is there?
		
Click to expand...

If its a salary linked private sector pension, there isn't going to be much difference, is there?  You would need to compare contributions to get a meaningful comparison, and bear in mind that salary linked private pensions are very rare now.  (I don't know anyone who has one).

The days of people taking early retirement on full pensions IMHO cost us dear!


----------



## Wundahorse (5 December 2011)

I totally agree there are many jobs created in the public sector which have no impact on the delivery of essential services,and these people simply do not understand what front line staff do.If jobs need to be cut because there is no meaningful role for these staff,of which i know of many examples,then so be it.But we do need Doctors,Nurses,allied professionals to assist and treat people,not to mention decent teachers to educate the younger,and maybe not so younger generation.Money for these services needs to be put in the right areas,and not syphoned of to fund unnecessary areas.In my service,all the money we receive to deliver a service has an automatic "cres" saving,which has to go back to fund years of underfunding,otherwise more staff and services will go.The public do not realise that the NHS is being gradually privatised,which means the service will only provide in profitable areas.I am afraid there are many more cuts to come.Perhaps when people really need a service they will think about this,before a time comes when most care is rationed.I fear for my old age as being privy to what is going on,it is very scary.


----------



## cptrayes (5 December 2011)

suestowford said:



			I know I am cheating by copy & pasting but found this on bbc website. It compares the average pension paid in public sector to the average paid to private sector.

Using a mean average, some £7,800 a year is being paid in a public sector pension compared with £7,467 for a private sector salary-linked pension. 


Not that much difference is there?
		
Click to expand...

There are almost no salary linked pension schemes left in the Country. They are nearly all now defined contribution schemes where the policy holder takes all the risk of poor peformance of the fund, does not know how much he will get until 30 days before he retires, and would have to have a fund of over £300,000* to retire at 65 with full RPI index linking on  £7,800 a year with a widows pension. No early retirement for ill health is even possible unless you are dying when you can get an impaired life policy.

THAT'S THE POINT. WHAT YOU HAVE IS NOT AVAILABLE TO PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS YET THEY ARE PAYING FOR YOURS.

Get it now?????


*That's todays figure, by the way. Two years ago annuity rates were at least 10% higher than they are now and they are falling steadily. The more medical advances that we have helping people to live longer, the more money people are going to need in their retirement funds and the more valuable defined benefit schemes like Public Sector pensions become.


----------



## Hippona (5 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			THAT'S THE POINT. WHAT YOU HAVE IS NOT AVAILABLE TO PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS YET THEY ARE PAYING FOR YOURS.

Get it now?????

.
		
Click to expand...

I think private sector workers forget that public sector workers are also 'the taxpayer'....so we fund our gold-plated pension with our own contributions then put our 'taxpayer' cap on and fund it again.

Just to make you bring a little bit of sick up CPT....I'm entitled to retired aged 55 with lump sum and pension. No,thank you.


----------



## Oliver12 (5 December 2011)

My husband took redundancy at 55 after paying into a private pension since aged 15. He suspended his pension until his retirement age and spent the next few years working for himself. He is still working at age 68 as his pension is pathetic.  He worked for a large telecommunications company all his life which was taken over about two years before his redundancy. The pension fund was plundered by the new company and he received only half of what he would have had had he left just a couple of years earlier. He now receives a pension of about £10,000 which is pretty scandalous considering he paid into it for 40 years.

One daughter works for the NHS and the other works for local government. Even they admit the pension system cannot go on the way it is and both refused to strike.


----------



## cptrayes (5 December 2011)

tinselmoo said:



			I think private sector workers forget that public sector workers are also 'the taxpayer'....so we fund our gold-plated pension with our own contributions then put our 'taxpayer' cap on and fund it again.

Just to make you bring a little bit of sick up CPT....I'm entitled to retired aged 55 with lump sum and pension. No,thank you.

Click to expand...



We pay all your tax. What you pay in tax has first of all to be paid in tax by someone who actually produces something that adds a monetary value to the economy. The public sector cannot even  begin to exist until the private sector pay tax. ALL your contributions are paid by the private sector taxpayer, yours and your employer's.

It's the generation below you that you are bringing bile to the throats of by crowing of your good fortune, not me. I am equally as fortunate as you.


----------



## Hippona (5 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			We pay all your tax. .
		
Click to expand...

Most generous...should be verry healthy looking wageslip just in time for Christmas then....without all the usual deductions......


----------



## cptrayes (5 December 2011)

Its just the way modern society works Tinselmoo. The Public Sector can't be paid until Private Sector taxpayers pay tax. You only pay tax on your salary because it is easier to tax all employees the same way and compare salaries the same way. It would be exactly the same economically if the Public Sector paid no income tax and NHI and had a salary reduced by the same amount as they would have paid, and the Private Sector taxpayer then paid exactly the same amount less of tax and NI as was not being paid by the Public Sector.

No generosity present or gratitude required, just a bit of reality would be nice


----------



## cptrayes (5 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Its just the way modern society works Tinselmoo. The Public Sector can't be paid until Private Sector taxpayers pay tax. You only pay tax on your salary because it is easier to tax all employees the same way and compare salaries the same way. It would be exactly the same economically if the Public Sector paid no income tax and NHI and had a salary reduced by the same amount as they would have paid, and the Private Sector taxpayer then paid exactly the same amount less of tax and NI as was not being paid by the Public Sector.

No generosity present or gratitude required, just a bit of reality would be nice 

Click to expand...

Got this wrong of course, there would be no reduction in tax for the Private Sector. The way it would work is this.

Currently PrSE (Private Sector Employee) pays £100 tax to a PuSE-1 (guess  )  and PuSE-1 pays £20 of that to PuSE-2.

If PuSE's paid no tax, then PrSE would pay £80 to PuSE-1 and £20 to PrSE-2. No change to the economy, just to a bit of pen-pushing.

See, Public Sector Employees don't really pay anything towards the maintenance of the Public Sector, it's just a figure on a bit of paper passing from one place to another!


----------



## skint1 (5 December 2011)

For the people who are really bothered about this why not wait for a public sector job to come up and then apply for it? Then you too can have a piece of that good pension pie


----------



## perfect11s (5 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Got this wrong of course, there would be no reduction in tax for the Private Sector. The way it would work is this.

Currently PrSE (Private Sector Employee) pays £100 tax to a PuSE-1 (guess  )  and PuSE-1 pays £20 of that to PuSE-2.

If PuSE's paid no tax, then PrSE would pay £80 to PuSE-1 and £20 to PrSE-2. No change to the economy, just to a bit of pen-pushing.

See, Public Sector Employees don't really pay anything towards the maintenance of the Public Sector, it's just a figure on a bit of paper passing from one place to another!
		
Click to expand...

 Its like banging your head against
 a wall they just dont do reality, economics or know when to shut up when they are doing ok..  All the strikes and the moaning will do is polarise the argument  and worse make people aware just how well off so many are in the public sector  so the symphy there was for them is evaporating,  esp from people with the more mundane jobs like cleaners and office staff , shop workers etc with no pension little job security ... so you lot glass houses and stones !!!!


----------



## Mithras (5 December 2011)

skint1 said:



			For the people who are really bothered about this why not wait for a public sector job to come up and then apply for it? Then you too can have a piece of that good pension pie 

Click to expand...

Tried it - couldn't stand working with so much "dead wood" paid more than people who were actually competent, all the meetings about having meetings, doing the jobs of people who spent nearly 50% of their time off sick and weren't disciplined but instead promoted, and the lack of professional challenge.  In my field also, it can set back your career as employers will think you have bad habits and won't work hard enough.

I actually worked with one person who had retired early on a full pension at around 52, had been re-employed at an extremely high day rate as a consultant, didn't have a professional practising certificate and hence couldn't do part of his job as a result!


----------



## luckyoldme (5 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			Well rather than the somewhat childish response, please give examples of where people pay for the privilege of visiting clients/patients etc, other than the 'caring' professions.
		
Click to expand...

try my partners job. He works 65 hours plus a week and his last employer moved his home base by a two hour drive. This means that on a monday he would have to get up at half past four to travel to work and be there for seven. Then he would be expected to work till ten at night, have nine hours off and start again at seven in the morning. Or my last job where i was forced to park overnight and sleep in laybys... with no toilet facilities. We were both legally pushed to the limit and believe it or not could quite often go two to three days without a shower or hot meal. we have both payed into pensions which are worth nothing. I overheard my boss calling me an f ing slag on the phone because i had worked my legal limit of three 15 hour shifts in a  week and had to stop driving after only a thirteen hour day.i could go on for ever but instead of moaning and twisting we both left our jobs and found better employment. Those in the public sector have the same choice as we did.


----------



## Mithras (5 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			Well rather than the somewhat childish response, please give examples of where people pay for the privilege of visiting clients/patients etc, other than the 'caring' professions.
		
Click to expand...

Slightly different, but to add some perspective.  My husband has a job that initially required him to travel in the UK and abroad occasionally.  Now that sales have increased, this has turned into him having to travel anywhere in the world at around one week's notice, and quite often less, to stay there for an indefinate period (however long it takes to fix the problem).  

Although obviously all of his travel and hotel and meal expenses are paid, this doesn't compensate for all those incidental expenses incurred by being in a foreign country at insufficient notice to pack properly, phone calls home, personal internet usage, lost booking deposits for things you can no longer make, my paying out on the electrician/heating engineer, etc that I have to get instead of husband fixing it, and so on.  I know loads of people in the private sector required to do similar.


----------



## Wundahorse (5 December 2011)

I think people are comparing like for like when there is little comparison in their individual jobs.Professional staff have to train,take regular exams etc over a period of time in order to qualify,and then have to continue with professional development.The debate was not about what people do,but to put things in a perspective which is not demonstrated in the media.So many lies have been perpetuated that judging what some people here say,they actually believe.The media misrepresent and distort the facts just for the sake of headline news.Most of the media also support this Government too,which is again part of the media spin.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (5 December 2011)

skint1 said:



			For the people who are really bothered about this why not wait for a public sector job to come up and then apply for it? Then you too can have a piece of that good pension pie 

Click to expand...

Son is a self employed plasterer. He did some work for the council a couple of years ago and was offered a job with them. He turned it down because he takes a pride in his work and couldn't bear to work in a department where the standard was so shoddy and grafting for a living was unheard of. 
 Even perks like sick pay, holiday pay, pension and a shorter working week couldn't tempt him.


----------



## Echo Bravo (5 December 2011)

Must admit private sector pensions a lot lower than the public sector and their wages lower as well, it will balance out in the end as they lose the goodwill, I'm mean look at what the union bosses are earning and their pensions they won't be losing out. Must admit seeing how many children are still not able to read or write coming through our schools and the worse ever medical care from nurses.


----------



## pipsqueek (5 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			Following from the outrage caused by Jeremy Clarksons unfortunate rant about the strikes, I felt inspired to challenge the misnomer perpetrated by the media about so called,"gold plated pensions".Firstly most front line staff will only receive a modest pension,which accounting for inflation will not keep them from the breadline in years to come.NHS senior managers i.e directors,assistant directors,chief executives,and all of that ilk,will get huge pensions,as they earn vast salaries compared to the front line staff who deliver patient care.Most of these managers are usually incompetent practitioners who then make incompetent decisions in their managerial roles,often making massive cut backs to front line services while ensuring their own jobs are preserved. mp's and Ministers also receive platinum encrusted with diamond pensions,protected from inflation,and not necessarily earned over a career span.For instance,if "call me Dave" loses the next election,he is likely to be booted out with a massive pension,for what,serving only 5 years in office.I wont rant about their expenses either,but have to stress that as a community Nurse,i only receive 11p per mile for work mileage.With the price of fuel,the maths do not add up,and i am paying to deliver a service to my patients.I gather Mp's get 50p per mile!There is so much inequality in this great British system,all of it deriving from the top.
I pay around £400 each month into my public sector pension so after 32 years in practice so far,i think my hard working colleagues and i deserve a reasonable pension.All fans of Jeremy Clarkson also need to appreciate that this "buffoon" receives a big salary from the BBC,which i understand as a corporation,makes it a public service.Such hypocrisy.
I realise there are probably people who think all Nurses neglect their patients on the wards,and in the community,but will point out that the Nurse to patient ratio is so low that inevitably they cannot manage the case loads,or provide the service they want to deliver.This is the product of legislation and sweeping cut backs.Do not believe the myth that front line staff have been protected from the cuts.The reality is they are the first to be made redundant,while managers retain their jobs.
		
Click to expand...

Well said wundahorse!  I am also a community nurse and having seen a recent pension forecast having paid into it for 20yrs it is hardy gold plated'  and at 11 pence per mile our milage pay is a joke!  Nurses at our local community hospital are having to apply for their own jobs, luckily this does not affect me, yet!!  We are increasingly tied down doing paperwork - required by management to justify where, how long, etc each patient requires, it takes longer than looking after patients....which is why we came into nursing in the first place!  Too many managers, seemingly having to justify their jobs by inventing un-necessary paperwork, get rid of half of them - no more inflated salaries, less pensions to pay - result - nurses can go back to looking after patients not paperwork and pensions can be paid to those who work for it!!


----------



## cptrayes (5 December 2011)

Pipsqueak is 11p a mile all you get, or do you also get an Essential Users lump sum car allowance every year? I have looked up Nurses mileage rates online and I can't find 11p per mile anywhere, in fact I can't find a rate lower than more than twice that, but I can find references to minimum Essential User annual allowances of £900.

Gold plated does not refer to the size of your pension. It refers to the fact that it is linked directly to your salary, that you take no risk on investments going up and down,  that you know what it will be long before you retire, that if you become too ill to do your job it will be paid out early,  and that once you have got it, it is index linked. None of these things apply to most Private Sector Pensions, which is why they are not described as gold plated unless they are also defined benefit schemes like yours, and they are very, very scarce these days.

Your life expectancy as an educated, well employed female is more than 15 years after a retirement date of 67, which is why only 20 years of contributions cannot come anywhere near paying you a decent size of pension.


I think most people would back your stand to reduce the management layers in the NHS, which have exploded in number under the Labour Government.


----------



## pipsqueek (5 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Pipsqueak is 11p a mile all you get, or do you also get an Essential Users lump sum car allowance every year? I have looked up Nurses mileage rates online and I can't find 11p per mile anywhere, in fact I can't find a rate lower than more than twice that, but I can find references to minimum Essential User annual allowances of £900.

Gold plated does not refer to the size of your pension. It refers to the fact that it is linked directly to your salary, that you take no risk on investments going up and down,  that you know what it will be long before you retire, that if you become too ill to do your job it will be paid out early,  and that once you have got it, it is index linked. None of these things apply to most Private Sector Pensions, which is why they are not described as gold plated unless they are also defined benefit schemes like yours, and they are very, very scarce these days.

Your life expectancy as a female is around 17 years after a retirement date of 67, which is why only 20 years of contributions cannot come anywhere near paying you a decent size of pension.


I think most people would back your stand to reduce the management layers in the NHS, which have exploded in number under the Labour Government.
		
Click to expand...

wasn't expecting to retire now!! looking at forecast it will be 67  we get a monthly lump sum but that hardly covers wear and tear on my car! not sure which will be worn out first it or me.lol


----------



## Wundahorse (6 December 2011)

The mileage rate is set to decrease for those who run their own cars from 2013,down to 18p a mile after 2500 work miles,no lump sum etc.I pay for a lease car as i have to do a lot of mileage as i cover a whole county in my job,so need a reliable car.This means i get just 11p per mile.Also had a diktat from our chief executive about not using electricity for anything but the most basic things.Don't forget that bad bankers and stockbrokers created the problems in the private sector through bad investments.Also GB,plundered funds too.If i worked in the private sector i would have no issue paying into an investment for my future pension.Some people choose not to invest in such schemes and then have nothing saved for the future.I do pay a lot into my NHS pension each month so feel i am contributing.As for bad nurse's and teachers,the few give a bad name for the may dedicated staff.As i have stressed there have been so many front-line cutbacks which is directly affecting patient care.This derives from Government policy,not individual practitioners.I also pay tax,quite a bit each month,so again i am still contributing to the economy.This is how the economy works,that is if the Government are savvy enough to do their maths.Why on earth do the Govt. give an expanding country like India millions when they can feed their own poor.If anyone saw a recent docu regarding up and coming Nations like China and India,they should question our Govt. commitment to foreign aid,and look closer to home.GB could be at risk of becoming a third world country.Companies in the UK need to manufacture here,which would provide jobs,pay taxes and boost the economy.Companies such as Joules and Hunter have their products made in places like China,the up and coming super power.


----------



## katherine1975 (6 December 2011)

How have the government afforded to fund the Olympic Games?


----------



## Wundahorse (6 December 2011)

Guess they borrowed the money from China.


----------



## Mithras (6 December 2011)

Does anyone wonder how this country used to be able to fund early retirement on final salary pensions, student grants and no student fees, full NHS dental care, and so on, and now cannot?  So who spent all the money?  And its bad enough now, but how are young people going to save for pensions when they are paying off student loans and tuition fees, when they are required to have a university degree for almost any job?

Its not just the public sector thats badly run, the private sector is full of overpaid, under-performing bosses who earn vastly over-inflated salaries for their performance, permitted by their cronies who hope they will be the next up the greasy pole.  The whole country seems to be based too much on people giving other people a leg up and/or a free ride, rather than merit, and everyone wanting a share of the ever decreasing pie, no matter what level of job they do.


----------



## Hippona (6 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			I think most people would back your stand to reduce the management layers in the NHS, which have exploded in number under the Labour Government.
		
Click to expand...

You are not wrong there.....too many layers of management justifying their jobs.....and the actual job losses/freezes seem to affect the people actually doing any work of real value.....

In the NHS for instance...ground floor staff can see the wastage...can see where money could be saved...but the contracts that were awarded to provide certain services are 'locked in' ....sometimes it madness. Look at PFI....our local hospitals pay most of their budget on renting their hospital from BBW...the contracts are crippling and money has to be saved - cutting back on staff is the only option left sometimes. Thats why services suffer and mistakes are made......people are stretched, overworked.....still targets have to be met and all the boxes ticked.....


----------



## perfect11s (6 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Does anyone wonder how this country used to be able to fund early retirement on final salary pensions, student grants and no student fees, full NHS dental care, and so on, and now cannot?  So who spent all the money?  And its bad enough now, but how are young people going to save for pensions when they are paying off student loans and tuition fees, when they are required to have a university degree for almost any job?

Its not just the public sector thats badly run, the private sector is full of overpaid, under-performing bosses who earn vastly over-inflated salaries for their performance, permitted by their cronies who hope they will be the next up the greasy pole.  The whole country seems to be based too much on people giving other people a leg up and/or a free ride, rather than merit, and everyone wanting a share of the ever decreasing pie, no matter what level of job they do.
		
Click to expand...

 Yes I think you are getting to the nub of it  the big PLCs and banks seem to be infested with 3rd rate jumped up acountant CEOs that think they rule the world
and they seem to aided and abetted by their peers.... hopefully  share holders will start to ask more questions sometime soon ... oh and on the public sector the same sort of muppets at the top of councils, and health authoritys  unnacountable and paying themselves more than the pm and semmingly totaly teflon .... hey im sure  we could sort it out


----------



## siennamum (6 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Does anyone wonder how this country used to be able to fund early retirement on final salary pensions, student grants and no student fees, full NHS dental care, and so on, and now cannot?  So who spent all the money?  And its bad enough now, but how are young people going to save for pensions when they are paying off student loans and tuition fees, when they are required to have a university degree for almost any job?

Its not just the public sector thats badly run, the private sector is full of overpaid, under-performing bosses who earn vastly over-inflated salaries for their performance, permitted by their cronies who hope they will be the next up the greasy pole.  The whole country seems to be based too much on people giving other people a leg up and/or a free ride, rather than merit, and everyone wanting a share of the ever decreasing pie, no matter what level of job they do.
		
Click to expand...

I also wonder this. I assume we used to have more people paying tax, because more people were in proper employment - rather than in made up Govt jobs, incapacity benefit etc. We had a manufacturing base, North Sea Oil, and also had things like gold reserves, which Gordon the incompetent flogged losing us approx £7.5bn in the process.


----------



## Mithras (6 December 2011)

siennamum said:



			I also wonder this. I assume we used to have more people paying tax, because more people were in proper employment - rather than in made up Govt jobs, incapacity benefit etc. We had a manufacturing base, North Sea Oil, and also had things like gold reserves, which Gordon the incompetent flogged losing us approx £7.5bn in the process.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is correct.  Labour created more public sector jobs because those people and their dependents tend to vote Labour, along with those in receipt of benefits.  Meanwhile the rest who were motivated by money ran amock in the upper echelons of the private sector while the Government did nothing to control poor performance and massive bonuses (unlike in Germany which is doing rather well in comparison).  

Gordon Brown must surely be the worst pm of modern times.  The man had only one two very short term proper jobs before entering politcs fgs (one was as a part-time lecturer in Social Policy at Paisley College, the other for as a Scottish Televsion political researcher).  He took ten years to complete his PHD in the history of the Labour Party in Scotland at public expense (no student loans or tuition fees for him).  He was the MP for the area close to me where a brand new hospital was closed, on which matter he remained entirely silent, yet dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporters still voted blindly for him.  Unfortunatley in Scotland the only viable alternative is the even more left wing SNP, which also buys votes.

Whats needed is a strong political figure who can unite the country while demonstrating the need to work very hard for a few years and forego the luxuries to get the country back on its feet.  Unfortunately people in this country would rather vote for short term fixes, jobs for the boys and good soundbites.


----------



## siennamum (6 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I think this is correct.  Labour created more public sector jobs because those people and their dependents tend to vote Labour, along with those in receipt of benefits.  Meanwhile the rest who were motivated by money ran amock in the upper echelons of the private sector while the Government did nothing to control poor performance and massive bonuses (unlike in Germany which is doing rather well in comparison).  

Gordon Brown must surely be the worst pm of modern times.  The man had only one two very short term proper jobs before entering politcs fgs (one was as a part-time lecturer in Social Policy at Paisley College, the other for as a Scottish Televsion political researcher).  He took ten years to complete his PHD in the history of the Labour Party in Scotland at public expense (no student loans or tuition fees for him).  He was the MP for the area close to me where a brand new hospital was closed, on which matter he remained entirely silent, yet dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporters still voted blindly for him.  Unfortunatley in Scotland the only viable alternative is the even more left wing SNP, which also buys votes.

Whats needed is a strong political figure who can unite the country while demonstrating the need to work very hard for a few years and forego the luxuries to get the country back on its feet.  Unfortunately people in this country would rather vote for short term fixes, jobs for the boys and good soundbites.
		
Click to expand...

I think we need to invest in Science and Technology. We would stand a real chance of becoming World Class - assuming we encourage the brightest young people to pursue scientific careers and research. OH no forgot, we are discouraging young people from going to University these days. I despair.


----------



## Wundahorse (6 December 2011)

Couldn't agree more with these sentiments.There is huge wastage in the public and private sector,which if better managed would be more beneficial to the nation.The German economic model seems to work exceptionally well,so why don't the politicians get of their British high horses and research whether a similar model could be implemented here.Also the UK is a consumer society rather than a manufacturing Nation,hence this sector needs to be supported by Government to create jobs and inject cash into the economy.The welfare state is huge and quite unmanageable in the benefit department,and this is another area where money could be saved and used more effectively.The benefit culture also emasculates those who do not want to work,as they have no incentive to get out of bed to do a days work.


----------



## Mithras (6 December 2011)

Well all you hear in the media about other countries like Germany is propoganda about the war or how awful they are - I lived in Germany for six months and wish I'd never left, it was fantastic!  

I also question the talent we are producing in this country.  I mark postgraduate papers and too many students do not know how to research using proper sources (not Wikipedia), critically analyse, compare and contrast differing information (they can only describe the point they agree with) and even spell and know where to use capital letters!  My husband often has to recruit engineers and computer scientists and says there is a real problem in finding candidates in these areas to interview, let alone those who can actually do the job.  But then wheres the incentive to study a difficult subject such as engineering when students see overpaid administrators earning 80k a year for not doing very much?


----------



## Wundahorse (6 December 2011)

Germany is a lovely country which seems to uphold good standards in all areas,the place is clean and the people could not be more helpful.GB,in contrast is struggling with it's identity,core values and good citizenship.


----------



## paddy555 (6 December 2011)

tinselmoo said:



			You are not wrong there.....too many layers of management justifying their jobs.....and the actual job losses/freezes seem to affect the people actually doing any work of real value.....

.
		
Click to expand...

don't even get me started. As an ex civil servant (reasonably well paid) I brought in many many times my salary and pension costs for the government. My pension was  contribution free except for W & O.(1.5%)
We downsized due to government policy (thanks Gordon). I had the choice of early retirement (early 50's) or I could have stuck it out for redundancy. I choose early retirement, lump sum and pension paid immediately. Ok reduced a little as I had not achieved the full 40 years but I can live with that 

It is lovely. I spend all my days working my horses and I am grateful for the pension. 
However I was not the only one. Many of us took extremely early retirement on the same basis. My friend had to wait for a couple of months for his 50th birthday before he could do.  We had years and years of experience and were bringing in many times our employment costs. It took a lot of money to train us. I didn't particuarly want to retire. I was happy to go onto my normal retirement age of 60 and then go part time. 

Before the government moan about public sector pensions they should look at the wastage they have created, the extremely poor high level management they are condoning and the vast cost of all this. I don't think public sector pensions are sustainable on the current basis and I would have been happy to contribute to mine. However it would be advantageous to really examine poor performance by govenment and top level management in order that cost and wastage could either be reduced or better performance could be obtained from the public service. 
(not for one minute being rude about public sector workers on here, unless of course they are top managment in which case I am being extremely rude.


----------



## MinnieDuke (6 December 2011)

actually I think what Jeremy said needed saying - I am extremely grateful he said it!  but what has this to do with horses ?  having worked in racing when I left school the working conditions of stable lads and lasses up and down the country is really tough - they will never see the £200K my mates sister is going to get in their pension for being a teacher!  The public sector need to toughen up and take the economic crisis like the rest of us, on the chin - we all have to. I've had to scale my busines down from 13 to 4 people - IF they striked it would have been a case of : there is no money in the pot - so strike all you want - there is at the end of it no jobs!  I havent had a holiday for the last two years, I've been eating soups last few months because they are cheap and filling and money is tight ..... !   I dont have the luxury of having £400 a month to put into a pension .... lucky you... enjoy your penion it comes from my hard work


----------



## Wundahorse (7 December 2011)

In actual fact the NHS pension is funded via NHS staff with some funding from the Government,and this scheme has only done well comparatively because it has been invested well.Private pensions were affected by the market forces due to bad investment companies and bankers.Not one person has rounded on the investment sector,and all those overpaid financial advisor's who squandered peoples money on risky ventures.Also the racing industry is renowned for paying the stable lads and lasses poorly.Racing is not a critical and necessary service aimed at the needs of the nation,it is a luxury for the well off.And look what happens to some of those poor racehorses who don't cut it on the track,discarded in favour of the next model.Sorry no great sympathy for the racing industry,only for the horses.


----------



## perfect11s (7 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			In actual fact the NHS pension is funded via NHS staff with some funding from the Government,and this scheme has only done well comparatively because it has been invested well.Private pensions were affected by the market forces due to bad investment companies and bankers.Not one person has rounded on the investment sector,and all those overpaid financial advisor's who squandered peoples money on risky ventures.Also the racing industry is renowned for paying the stable lads and lasses poorly.Racing is not a critical and necessary service aimed at the needs of the nation,it is a luxury for the well off.And look what happens to some of those poor racehorses who don't cut it on the track,discarded in favour of the next model.Sorry no great sympathy for the racing industry,only for the horses.
		
Click to expand...

 Simple.. Gordons tax grab saw to private pensions...


----------



## BeesKnees (7 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			In actual fact the NHS pension is funded via NHS staff with some funding from the Government.
		
Click to expand...

Wundahorse I'm interested to know where you think the money to pay your salary, and from which your tax and pension contributions are taken, comes from?!

And where you think the money paid by NHS for the employer's pension contribution comes from?!

Yep, tax. Paid for by the private sector taxes. Without private sector tax, there is no money to pay public sector workers. Full stop. So effectively our tax contributes twice to your pension! First in your pay and then in the employers contribution.

I dont know if HHO forum members is a representative sample, but I'm staggered by just how little awareness so many of the public sector workers on here seem to have about how the financing of the public sector works


----------



## perfect11s (7 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			Wundahorse I'm interested to know where you think the money to pay your salary, and from which your tax and pension contributions are taken, comes from?!

And where you think the money paid by NHS for the employer's pension contribution comes from?!

Yep, tax. Paid for by the private sector taxes. Without private sector tax, there is no money to pay public sector workers. Full stop. So effectively our tax contributes twice to your pension! First in your pay and then in the employers contribution.

I dont know if HHO forum members is a representative sample, but I'm staggered by just how little awareness so many of the public sector workers on here seem to have about how the financing of the public sector works 

Click to expand...

  dont be silly they do!!! 
them nasty tories are keeping all the money and being mean and cruel....


----------



## Dirtymare (7 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			Wundahorse I'm interested to know where you think the money to pay your salary, and from which your tax and pension contributions are taken, comes from?!

And where you think the money paid by NHS for the employer's pension contribution comes from?!

Yep, tax. Paid for by the private sector taxes. Without private sector tax, there is no money to pay public sector workers. Full stop. So effectively our tax contributes twice to your pension! First in your pay and then in the employers contribution.

I dont know if HHO forum members is a representative sample, but I'm staggered by just how little awareness so many of the public sector workers on here seem to have about how the financing of the public sector works 

Click to expand...


This is supposed to be a welfare state, but its fast being erroded.
Maybe when there is no more NHS, Social Services and other service *paid* for by the Private Sector - because believe me that will happen and soon -  you will all be up in arms!!


----------



## BeesKnees (7 December 2011)

Dirtymare said:



			This is supposed to be a welfare state, but its fast being erroded.
Maybe when there is no more NHS, Social Services and other service *paid* for by the Private Sector - because believe me that will happen and soon -  you will all be up in arms!!
		
Click to expand...

I would be up in arms before that happened. I believe in a welfare state and in the need for a public sector doing vital work, that is paid appropriately. And I'm happy to pay tax to support it.

What I find tiresome is public sector workers, who appear to be too institutionalised or too insensitive or frankly perhaps just a bit too dim, to know how the public sector is paid for, or to care about how things are for anyone other than themsleves. Or even to understand the very pension system they are striking about


----------



## Wundahorse (7 December 2011)

I am well acquainted with how the NHS and other public sector is funded,and i also pay taxes and NI  which contributes to services.I also know about the national assistance act,etc.What i would like to know is why this Government sold of Northern Rock at a knock-down price,which taxpayers funded to buy when it was on the brink of collapse.Now that is a huge waste of public money and a big gain for Richard Branson,who is wealthy enough already.


----------



## cptrayes (7 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			i also pay taxes and NI  which contributes to services.
		
Click to expand...

Did you see this? you do not pay ONE PENNY of what it costs to run the state. If your salary was paid to you net of tax and NI it would male NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOVER



Santa Paws said:



			Currently PrSE (Private Sector Employee) pays £100 tax to a PuSE-1 (guess  )  and PuSE-1 pays £20 of that to PuSE-2.

If PuSE's paid no tax, then PrSE would pay £80 to PuSE-1 and £20 to PrSE-2. No change to the economy, just to a bit of pen-pushing.

See, Public Sector Employees don't really pay anything towards the maintenance of the Public Sector, it's just a figure on a bit of paper passing from one place to another!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (7 December 2011)

Dirtymare said:



			This is supposed to be a welfare state, but its fast being erroded.
Maybe when there is no more NHS, Social Services and other service *paid* for by the Private Sector - because believe me that will happen and soon -  you will all be up in arms!!
		
Click to expand...

The NHS is long overdue a drastic overhaul there is no way it can continue providing free at the point of demand services the way they are now. The NHS should be free at the point of demand for acute services only - that is casualty etc any long term chronic care should be paid for - even in  part by patients. Every prescription and procedure should come with a price tag which is given to the patient - it should then be compared to their tax code/contributions they have made and deducted accordingly. The cost of prescriptions should be raised to £10 - when collecting your drugs any that cost less - of which there are plenty you should be charged the cost of the drug plus a dispensing fee, any that cost more should be charged at £10 BUT the patient should be told how much the drugs cost - maybe then they would take them instead of wasting them 

As with everything is life if no value is placed upon the item then no value is attached to it by the recipient and they don't care about it

Will any government ever have the balls to reform the NHS properly? no of course not as everyone is 'entitled'


----------



## Toffee44 (7 December 2011)

I am thinking of opting out of my pension with the NHS and going private on the matter, at least then the money is my own.


----------



## Wundahorse (7 December 2011)

Tinsel unicorn i do hope you never require expensive treatment on the NHS.If you do,then you may well appreciate what the NHS provides.Either that or head to the USA where you will get nothing unless you have the funds to pay for treatment.I agree reform needs to be made as the NHS is top heavy with bureaucrats who are clueless and end up spending precious money on pointless schemes and reforms,as instructed by Government who also have no concept of what can be achieved to save costs.Sadly Government always seeks advice from so called consultants who have no idea what goes on in front line care.They never ask Doctors and Nurses what they think may improve services,as after all,we are the people providing care and treatment.It was the Governments idea to spend billions on a database that had already failed in new Zealand,who then had an inspiration to sell this beleaguered product to good old Blighty.


----------



## BeesKnees (7 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Did you see this? you do not pay ONE PENNY of what it costs to run the state. If your salary was paid to you net of tax and NI it would male NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOVER
		
Click to expand...

Wundahorse - The tax you pay has already been paid to the state through our taxes. And then given to you in salary. You are just paying it back. The state is no richer from that transaction!!

Santa Paws - Blimmin hell. It's like banging your head against a brick wall


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (7 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			Tinsel unicorn i do hope you never require expensive treatment on the NHS.If you do,then you may well appreciate what the NHS provides.Either that or head to the USA where you will get nothing unless you have the funds to pay for treatment.I agree reform needs to be made as the NHS is top heavy with bureaucrats who are clueless and end up spending precious money on pointless schemes and reforms,as instructed by Government who also have no concept of what can be achieved to save costs.Sadly Government always seeks advice from so called consultants who have no idea what goes on in front line care.They never ask Doctors and Nurses what they think may improve services,as after all,we are the people providing care and treatment.It was the Governments idea to spend billions on a database that had already failed in new Zealand,who then had an inspiration to sell this beleaguered product to good old Blighty.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks but I have spent the last 20 years working in the NHS so am well aware of what it provides and what its shortcomings are - its also why I have private medical insurance - which I also pay tax on


----------



## Wundahorse (7 December 2011)

All of the money we earn ends up elsewhere to pay different people who in turn pay others.That's just how the economy works.No different if you are public or private sector.My tax pays for your care and treatment Beesknees,though doubt you have considered that.I also pay towards your state pension,that is if you live long enough to receive it.


----------



## BeesKnees (7 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			Tinsel unicorn i do hope you never require expensive treatment on the NHS.
		
Click to expand...

Her post suggests it should be valued more and wasted less! 

Your arguments seem to consist of irrational rants about how it's everybody else's fault.

The reality is we all enjoyed the good times and turned a blind eye to whatever practices were producing the wealth.

Now we all have to suck up the results


----------



## Wundahorse (7 December 2011)

Simply making a point same as you,and find your awareness of the public sector somewhat irrational and media informed.


----------



## BeesKnees (7 December 2011)

Nope I spent 4 years in the public sector on double what I earn now. My husband is public sector as is my sister.

I have clearly stated my support for the public sector. My posts are not irrational. I just don't think you've really read or understood them


----------



## tinuviel (7 December 2011)

I think some of you need to re-read Santa Paws posts and digest the information provided as it is spot on.   It appears only people who understand how pensions work are able to grasp the issues with the public sector pension provision. Not many companies have even retained a final salary scheme nowadays, they have moved them all in to money purchase schemes.  The public sector, like the private sector has done, needs to move over to money purchase schemes.  No private company could afford the current public pension provision so how on earth would anyone expect the public sector to afford it.  Am afraid on this particular issue (actual salaries, expenses, etc are a different issue and as Santa Paws has said, what are the unions doing about this?) the public sector have to accept change of some degree.

Also, despite public sector workers paying tax, it is true the money initially comes from the private sector.  The tax needs to be deducted first from the private sector before the public sector workers can get paid...what is so difficult to understand about that concept.


----------



## cptrayes (7 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			All of the money we earn ends up elsewhere to pay different people who in turn pay others.That's just how the economy works.No different if you are public or private sector.My tax pays for your care and treatment Beesknees,though doubt you have considered that.I also pay towards your state pension,that is if you live long enough to receive it.
		
Click to expand...

Wundahorse not ONE PENNY of what any Publicly Funded employee pays in tax adds to the amount which is available to finance the Public Sector.

What do you not understand about this, let us help you? The money you pay personally in tax and NI is simply to allow "the system" to treat your salary adminstratively the same as private sector workers. 

Figures rounded for simplicity:

I pay £200 tax on £1000 of my salary.

It pays £200 say, for ease of argument lets say that's your total salary for the week.

You pay £40 of that £200 of salary to the salary of the Nurse who lives next door.


Lets now take away tax from your salary.

I pay £200 tax on my salary.

It pays £160 ,your total salary  with no tax for you to pay

And I also then pay £40 of the salary of the Nurse who lives next door.

See? You could pay NO TAX AT ALL and there would be NO DIFFERENCE to the economy.


----------



## Mrs B (7 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			Simply making a point same as you,and find your awareness of the public sector somewhat irrational and media informed.
		
Click to expand...

Oh Good Lord! Will you lay off the 'irrational and media informed' drivel?

If you could manage for once to take the enormous chip you seem to have grown OFF your shoulder, you might be able to see that all sorts of people from many backgrounds have thought this through for themselves and come out with the same answer, although it may not be to your liking.

To imply that they are ALL being mislead by the media and are too stupid to think for themselves is, frankly, insulting.


----------



## perfect11s (7 December 2011)

Mrs B said:



			Oh Good Lord! Will you lay off the 'irrational and media informed' drivel?

If you could manage for once to take the enormous chip you seem to have grown OFF your shoulder, you might be able to see that all sorts of people from many backgrounds have thought this through for themselves and come out with the same answer, although it may not be to your liking.

To imply that they are ALL being mislead by the media and are too stupid to think for themselves is, frankly, insulting.
		
Click to expand...

 What amazes me about these threads is how the public sector people keep digging!!! if I was one the sooner these posts died down and were  forgotten  the better THEY have done nothing but harm the cause and make more people aware of the generous PS pensions and pay  , and harden attitudes against the bloated wineing public sector....


----------



## Wundahorse (8 December 2011)

The initial point was that not all public sector staff will get big pensions because a lot receive the minimum wage.Also the pension scheme changed around 1997 to an average salary scheme.In addition the private sector was robust for a long time until the credit crunch,and their pensions were invested differently.


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (8 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			In addition the private sector was robust for a long time until the credit crunch,and their pensions were invested differently.
		
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the credit crunch BUT it does have to do with Gordon Brown launch massive tax raids on the pension funds to fund New Labours ridiculous incosted spending plans - which included the unprecedented expansion of the public sector.


----------



## Dirtymare (8 December 2011)

tinselunicorn said:



			The NHS is long overdue a drastic overhaul there is no way it can continue providing free at the point of demand services the way they are now. The NHS should be free at the point of demand for acute services only - that is casualty etc any long term chronic care should be paid for - even in  part by patients. Every prescription and procedure should come with a price tag which is given to the patient - it should then be compared to their tax code/contributions they have made and deducted accordingly. The cost of prescriptions should be raised to £10 - when collecting your drugs any that cost less - of which there are plenty you should be charged the cost of the drug plus a dispensing fee, any that cost more should be charged at £10 BUT the patient should be told how much the drugs cost - maybe then they would take them instead of wasting them 

As with everything is life if no value is placed upon the item then no value is attached to it by the recipient and they don't care about it

Will any government ever have the balls to reform the NHS properly? no of course not as everyone is 'entitled' 

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this doesnt constitute a Welfare State.
*Everybody* who works pays taxes - no matter where the money comes from - we all pay.
I do hope that you or your family do not need  care from Social Services or from the NHS for 2 reasons - the first being that I do not wish ill health onto anyone.
But, also that in the near future, people will have to pay extra for their treatment and long term care. I say Extra, as you already pay in your taxes, and this will have nothing to do with pensions . 
Not everyone wastes their medication. And not everyone is a benifit scrounger.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2011)

Dirtymare said:



			*Everybody* who works pays taxes - no matter where the money comes from - we all pay.
		
Click to expand...

I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it until you believe me 

NO PUBLIC SECTOR WORKER CONTRIBUTES ONE PENNY FROM HIS PUBLIC SECTOR PAY TO FINANCE THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

ALL the money to finance the public sector comes from the private sector.The payment of tax and NI by public sector workers is purely an administrative convenience, it does not contribute a penny to the running of the state, in fact it COSTS money to collect it! Arguably, there would be more money available for the public sector finances if you were all paid a salary which didn't include tax and NI in the first place.


----------



## Kittykins (8 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			I do appreciate things are very tough,and unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future,but please do not use this as an excuse to bash public sector workers.The fault lies with bankers and Government.
		
Click to expand...

I don't understand this argument. My hairdresser didn't cause the financial crisis either but she's not going to get her pension contributions paid by the government. 

The reality of the situation is that successive governments have spent far more than they've gathered in tax receipts, and they've been doing it for a very long time. We're still doing it now - although the government is theoretically working to reduce the _deficit_, national _debt_ and year on year spending continue to rise. No-one, not even a government, can spend more than they earn year on year and not get into trouble eventually.

Unfortunately when governments get into trouble the entire country suffers. Those in the private sector because they have to pay more tax for fewer services as more of their money goes to paying off the debt; those in the public sector because the tax intake is going on paying off the debts, leaving less for their salaries. Why is this such a difficult concept?


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (8 December 2011)

tinselunicorn said:



			Thanks but I have spent the last 20 years working in the NHS so am well aware of what it provides and what its shortcomings are - its also why I have private medical insurance - which I also pay tax on

Click to expand...




Dirtymare said:



			Sorry, but this doesnt constitute a Welfare State.
*Everybody* who works pays taxes - no matter where the money comes from - we all pay.
I do hope that you or your family do not need  care from Social Services or from the NHS for 2 reasons - the first being that I do not wish ill health onto anyone.
But, also that in the near future, people will have to pay extra for their treatment and long term care. I say Extra, as you already pay in your taxes, and this will have nothing to do with pensions . 
Not everyone wastes their medication. And not everyone is a benifit scrounger.
		
Click to expand...

When are you all going to realise that there isn't the money to prop up the 'Welfare State' anymore

I never said everyone is a benefit scrounger and no not everyone wastes their medication but a LOT of people do - how many people on here haven't finished their antibiotics? how many have got a new painkiller etc and haven't finished their old ones and have them sitting in a cupboard somewhere? how many pairs of old crutches etc are there around in peoples houses? it all costs ALL of us - its called waste

I already pay extra for my healthcare - I have private cover - which I also pay tax on - as I am aware of the limitations of the NHS. Its time everyones expectations were more realistic and realised just how much all the care and healthcare they expect on demand costs - not matter how much anyone has paid it it just doesn't cover the costs anymore.


----------



## Kittykins (8 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it until you believe me 

NO PUBLIC SECTOR WORKER CONTRIBUTES ONE PENNY FROM HIS PUBLIC SECTOR PAY TO FINANCE THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

ALL the money to finance the public sector comes from the private sector.The payment of tax and NI by public setor workers is purely an administrative convenience, it does not contribute a penny to the running of the state, in fact it COSTS money to collect it! Arguably, there would be more money available for the public sector finances if you were all paid a salary which didn't include tax and NI in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

Santa Paws is bang on, by the way. 

Public sector taxes are paid out of salaries that have been paid for from the taxes of private sector employees. So all you're doing by paying tax is recycling the money through the system. Think about it: who pays your pay-cheque? The treasury (ultimately). Where does your tax money go? The treasury. So you're just handing back money, not contributing extra funds. 

A documentary called "Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story" explains this quite well. I'd recommend watching the whole thing when you have time, but at about 25mins in there is a short sketch which explains why public sector spending does not stimulate the economy. It's not _quite_ the same issue as the question of public sector employees paying tax, but it's serves as a decent enough proxy. The program also talks about wealth creators v's weath consumers at about 20mins. 
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/4od


----------



## Dirtymare (8 December 2011)

tinselunicorn said:



			When are you all going to realise that there isn't the money to prop up the 'Welfare State' anymore

I never said everyone is a benefit scrounger and no not everyone wastes their medication but a LOT of people do - how many people on here haven't finished their antibiotics? how many have got a new painkiller etc and haven't finished their old ones and have them sitting in a cupboard somewhere? how many pairs of old crutches etc are there around in peoples houses? it all costs ALL of us - its called waste

I already pay extra for my healthcare - I have private cover - which I also pay tax on - as I am aware of the limitations of the NHS. Its time everyones expectations were more realistic and realised just how much all the care and healthcare they expect on demand costs - not matter how much anyone has paid it it just doesn't cover the costs anymore.

Click to expand...

You are very lucky to be able to afford to pay for a private health insurance. Just wanted you to be aware that there are alot of people in this country who cannot afford that luxuary.

Just as an aside - the older generation of this country were promised  *free*  care from "cradle to grave". This is not happening despite them paying taxes all their lives.

I say again, I hope none of you need services provided by the Public Sector, as they wont be there. This, in my humble opinion, has little to do with public sector pensions, but a slow erosion of the welfare state that this country was once so proud of .


----------



## Kittykins (8 December 2011)

Dirtymare said:



			I say again, I hope none of you need services provided by the Public Sector, as they wont be there. This, in my humble opinion, has little to do with public sector pensions, but a slow erosion of the welfare state that this country was once so proud of .
		
Click to expand...

It's not the erosion of the welfare state that's caused the problem, it's the huge expansion that's the trouble. When we're taxed so much that even higher income workers rely on their tax credits to pay the bills, something has gone very wrong. Welfare was originally envisaged as a safety net to help out those in geniune need. Instead we've got an entitlement culture in which everyone protests that they pay their taxes, so they should get some sort of freebie back. That was never going to be sustainable!


----------



## Dirtymare (8 December 2011)

Kittykins said:



			It's not the erosion of the welfare state that's caused the problem, it's the huge expansion that's the trouble. When we're taxed so much that even higher income workers rely on their tax credits to pay the bills, something has gone very wrong. Welfare was originally envisaged as a safety net to help out those in geniune need. Instead we've got an entitlement culture in which everyone protests that they pay their taxes, so they should get some sort of freebie back. That was never going to be sustainable!
		
Click to expand...

Please dont get me started on the huge expansion of our country debate.....but yes, to a certain extent, I think you are right. 
Not sure about the entitlement culture though - but totally get where you are coming from.
However, I do feel its not a freebie if you have paid for it through taxes.
There has been a slow dismantling of the welfare state as a lot of services were privatised........in the vain hope it would stimulate trade and the economy. Sterling values, but in reality we have over priced services which in reality give p*** poor service.


----------



## Sarah1 (8 December 2011)

FWIW Santa Paws, I completely understand where you're coming from & you're spot on!


----------



## perfect11s (8 December 2011)

Sarah1 said:



			FWIW Santa Paws, I completely understand where you're coming from & you're spot on! 

Click to expand...

 Yes ditto !!! and others  makeing some very valid points against the greedy and unreasonable  voices in the public sector... I see the gubbermint has caved in on nurses pension contributions for I think those on -£27k  and instead of the unions saying good thank you oh no they saying the gov  are being dissicive and its unfair  the unions are spoiling for a fight Hopefully it will be met with a tough responce, and not yet more apeasement of the bastards ......


----------



## dieseldog (8 December 2011)

So when the Public Sector is outsourced and the 710,000 Public Sector jobs are turned into Private Sector jobs will that make everything OK as the Private Sector will then be paying Private Sector wages rather than Public Sector Wages plus of course the Private Sectors profit margins.

This debate is pretty pointless as the Public Sector is going once they have been TUPE'd across the pensions will all disappear when the TUPE terms run out.


----------



## cptrayes (8 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			I do appreciate things are very tough,and unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future,but please do not use this as an excuse to bash public sector workers.The fault lies with bankers and Government.
		
Click to expand...

The major problem with pensions is that we all live too long.

In what way is that the fault of the bankers (much as I hate Investement Bankers) or the Government?


Can Public Sector employees PLEASE stop assuming that because we don't think you can continue to have your wonderful pensions at our expense that we want the entire NHS and welfare state discontinued?

What a RIDICULOUS argument.

I have also got to the bottom of the 11p a mile rate for Community Nurses. First, they are entitled to claim tax on the difference between 11p and 45p a mile, which makes the true rate 17.8p a mile. If they run a car that won't do 33 miles to the gallon in this day and age, tough.

Second, they also get an essential user car allowance which none of them have currently disclosed. This is intended to pay for insurance, tax, depreciation due to additional work miles etc.


----------



## Mithras (8 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			So when the Public Sector is outsourced and the 710,000 Public Sector jobs are turned into Private Sector jobs will that make everything OK as the Private Sector will then be paying Private Sector wages rather than Public Sector Wages plus of course the Private Sectors profit margins.
		
Click to expand...

This is another increasingly strange feature of the UK.  Some obervers term it the "pseudo public sector".  Its neither public nor private sector, but appears to be the latter, while relying for its work on the former.  For instance:

- if you pay your planning permission submission fee to your local authority, you will also most likely be required to get a bat survey, a badger survey and an environmental impact survey, at a cost of up to £2000 from ostensibly private contractors from an approved list of whom the council will accept.

- if I rent out my property in Scotland, I pay my landlord registration fee to the local authority, but must get a gas safety certificate, electrical safety certificate, from approved contractors.  I must put my tenants' deposits into a scheme run by a private company which has won the contract from the State.  If a statutory repairs notice is placed on the roof of my property in Edinburgh, the work will be shared out amongst a few ostensibly private contractors who get 99% of their work from the Council in this way.

I have no choice but to pay for the "pseudo public sector", because I cannot progress without doing so.  But this work would not exist but for the public sector.

Mind you, I wish they'd privatise refuse collections, I'm sick of tidying up after the binmen have been, on their increasingly occasional visits to my property!

Many other examples.


----------



## perfect11s (8 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			So when the Public Sector is outsourced and the 710,000 Public Sector jobs are turned into Private Sector jobs will that make everything OK as the Private Sector will then be paying Private Sector wages rather than Public Sector Wages plus of course the Private Sectors profit margins.

This debate is pretty pointless as the Public Sector is going once they have been TUPE'd across the pensions will all disappear when the TUPE terms run out.
		
Click to expand...

Um I think few people want to see more PS privatised  but just run better and not like a fiefdom  for union barrons and jumped up acountants and these dicks with some  potty management qualfication who woudent last the day in the private sector , Mind if you take privatised heath care as an example if you have health insurance and a reasnable income you would get far better care in the USA and be treated
as what you are ie a customer, unlike here where things vary greatly  and you can be made to feel like a nusance that's getting in the way of more important things !!!


----------



## perfect11s (8 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			How do you think they are going to have 710,000 less people in the Public Sector by 2017 if they aren't outsourcing.  You are looking at 4 years consultation and 2 years implementation - then lots less Public Servants.
		
Click to expand...

 lets hope the jobs that  go are all the useless managers and penpushers but   sadlyI think it will be the usefull frontline service providers, street cleaners , care workers, etc however we canot go on as we are jobs will have to go to pay for the important stuff like  EU bailout , foreign aid 
and subsidys for people like Cameron's FiLs wind farm  aparently about £1000 per day  .....


----------



## SpottedCat (8 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			- if you pay your planning permission submission fee to your local authority, you will also most likely be required to get a bat survey, a badger survey and an environmental impact survey, at a cost of up to £2000 from ostensibly private contractors from an approved list of whom the council will accept.
		
Click to expand...

This isn't accurate. I don't know of any councils that keep a list of approved contractors for this sector, and I've worked in it for 10 years. If you need an EIA, it will cost you a damn sight more than 2K, but there are very prescribed situations in which one is needed. If people start doing full EIAs for 2K, I'm changing professions, I couldn't even write the ecology chapter of one for that, and I have a fraction of the overheads of a large multi disciplinary consultancy. You only need protected species surveys in certain circumstances, not for all planning applications. And the industry certainly isn't 'pseudo-public-sector' in any way - in fact all the councils I deal with specifically say they do *not* endorse or approve any particular contractors.


----------



## siennamum (9 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Um I think few people want to see more PS privatised  but just run better and not like a fiefdom  for union barrons and jumped up acountants and these dicks with some  potty management qualfication who woudent last the day in the private sector , Mind if you take privatised heath care as an example if you have health insurance and a reasnable income you would get far better care in the USA and be treated
as what you are ie a customer, unlike here where things vary greatly  and you can be made to feel like a nusance that's getting in the way of more important things !!!
		
Click to expand...

It's bizarre that you think private companies are such a great idea delivering front line services. I'm sure there are some success stories, but instead of bloated PS organisations, we now just have bloated private co's doing the same, Capita, Serco & if you really want a laugh a4e. It's a mystery to all how some of these organisations continually manage to accumulate more work to do badly.


----------



## perfect11s (9 December 2011)

siennamum said:



			It's bizarre that you think private companies are such a great idea delivering front line services. I'm sure there are some success stories, but instead of bloated PS organisations, we now just have bloated private co's doing the same, Capita, Serco & if you really want a laugh a4e. It's a mystery to all how some of these organisations continually manage to accumulate more work to do badly.
		
Click to expand...

 No that was'nt my point  yes I would agree these quasi public sector co's   seem to have the worst of all worlds, crappy PS mentality maybe because they recruit from them!!!!, with short term gain for shareholders ...


----------



## Dirtymare (9 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			So when the Public Sector is outsourced and the 710,000 Public Sector jobs are turned into Private Sector jobs will that make everything OK as the Private Sector will then be paying Private Sector wages rather than Public Sector Wages plus of course the Private Sectors profit margins.

This debate is pretty pointless as the Public Sector is going once they have been TUPE'd across the pensions will all disappear when the TUPE terms run out.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Your local council is gradually divesting all services. In fact Selby council only have 14 employees. All services have been put to private companies. The health service will not be far behind.


----------



## Anglebracket (9 December 2011)

Kittykins said:



			Santa Paws is bang on, by the way. 

Public sector taxes are paid out of salaries that have been paid for from the taxes of private sector employees. So all you're doing by paying tax is recycling the money through the system. Think about it: who pays your pay-cheque? The treasury (ultimately). Where does your tax money go? The treasury. So you're just handing back money, not contributing extra funds. 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/4od

Click to expand...

Say someone works for Tesco and buys their groceries there too. Would you say that they are just handing back money, not contributing towards Tesco profits? 

Public sector workers receive a wage for the work they do. This money now no longer belongs to the tax payer or the treasury but to them. Public sector workers then pay a proportion of their salary as taxes. In exchange for that they get NHS care, education for their children etc.


----------



## Wundahorse (9 December 2011)

What usually happens is that certain services go out to tender,and private and public sectors can bid for that service.Increasingly private sector companies win the tender,but then struggle to communicate effectively with other agencies who have an interest in that,or allied services.They cannot always be relied on to provide decent services,and i have witnessed this in some private hospitals.Poorly performing staff have also been attracted to work in the private sector,of which i am aware of certain practitioners who were sacked from the NHS,finding work in private hospitals.It is not an ideal world, unfortunately,and public  services are so big and unwieldy that there are no easy solutions.Society is also changing how services can be delivered which puts a lot of financial pressure on to provide for all.If only we could have a clean slate and start again,learning from the mistakes of the past.Medical progress and advancements in treatment,diagnostics etc has added to the overburdening of health and social services too.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			Public sector workers receive a wage for the work they do. This money now no longer belongs to the tax payer or the treasury but to them. Public sector workers then pay a proportion of their salary as taxes. In exchange for that they get NHS care, education for their children etc.
		
Click to expand...

No, they would still get the care whether they were paid net of tax and NI and paid no tax or NI or not. Because the money  is ALREADY in the system. You are getting confused between being paid your current salary without paying tax, which would clearly be an atrocious overpayment, and being paid net of tax, leaving you with exactly the same take home pay as you have now.

If you are paid from the public purse you do not contribute ONE PENNY of tax or NI to fund your own healthcare, welfare benefits or pension.  ALL your own public services are paid for by the tax take from the private sector.

Think about it Wundahorse. If there were no private sector employees at all, where would your salary come from, for you to pay your taxes to fund your own healthcare?


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			Say someone works for Tesco and buys their groceries there too. Would you say that they are just handing back money, not contributing towards Tesco profits?
		
Click to expand...



OK, that's a good question. Here is the answer.

Agnes works for Tescos on the till and is paid around £200 a week.
She buys her groceries at Tesco with a 10% staff discount, paying £90 for what would cost anyone else £100.
Tesco bought in the goods which Agnes has just bought for £33 and it cost them another £33 to put them on the shelf and sell them, including Agnes's wages. 
They have made a profit from Agnes's purchases of £24.

Jim is a banker who earns £1000 a week and pays £200 in tax.
Agnes's husband Fred is a Hospital Porter and is paid around £200 a week, which he got from Jim, via the Treasury, and on which he pays £40 tax.
Fred  has a toenail operation on the NHS which cost £40.
Fred's £40 tax paid for his toenail operation. But he was given that £40 by Jim, so Jim actually paid for Fred's toenail operation.


I'm sorry you don't like the idea of it, but you do not actually pay one penny towards your own health care, pensions or welfare benefits if you are employed solely in the public sector.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

I should have said Anglebracket earlier, not Wundahorse, sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Wundahorse (9 December 2011)

Sorry but public sector staff still have to live,pay the rent/mortgage,do the shopping,buy shoes and clothes etc etc,all of which go straight to the private sector to keep people in business and work.For all i know Santapaws i am probably contributing to your salary,whatever it is that you do.Money just moves around the economy like that.I also trained as a Nurse because that is what i wanted to do,and i gave no thought then to pensions.I am sure the same applies to other public sector staff.If more public sector lose their jobs,which is on the agenda,then this will have an effect on local economies,as there will be much reduced spending power.Public and private sectors have some reliance on each other,thus a total disparate divide as evidenced from some folks here will never resolve the issues without a bit more understanding and awareness.This and the previous Government have created the current situation,along with bankers and investors,the latter of who, by my reckoning were in the private sector before some messed up and were bailed out by the state.


----------



## Horlicks (9 December 2011)

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is begining to sound like a  "I hate public sector workers" and "lets blame them for everything" thread.  

I'm proud to be a hard working NHS midwife, married to an equally hard working policeman who both pay TAX and NI and will both eventually get a pension but if we didn't do these jobs who would?

I'm not for one minute saying that the pensions shouldnt be amended/brought into line but we are all going to have to make sacrifices to get this country back on its feet - public sector and private sector.

So lets quit the arguing about who pays for who and work together to improve the situation for everyone.

I await the customary rant back in response......


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			Sorry but public sector staff still have to live,pay the rent/mortgage,do the shopping,buy shoes and clothes etc etc,all of which go straight to the private sector to keep people in business and work.For all i know Santapaws i am probably contributing to your salary,whatever it is that you do.Money just moves around the economy like that..
		
Click to expand...

If the calculations that I have given above have not shown you that this is not correct, then I am at a complete loss as to how to explain any more. Let me think ....


OK, let's say I work in Tesco and I earn £200 a week and pay £40 of that in tax which goes back into your salary as a nurse, say.

You come into Tesco and you spend that £40 on your groceries for the week. 

Fine, you have contributed to my wages.

But if I did not pay tax and NI in the first place, I would still have that £40 and I would spend it for myself, thankyou very much 

There may be a question of what an awful society it would be to have no public sector, but this is not it. Neither is it Public Sector bashing.

The fact remains, that ALL the money generated in the economy is generated by the private sector. The public sector cannot exist before the private sector generates taxes.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Horlicks said:



			I'm proud to be a hard working NHS midwife, married to an equally hard working policeman who both pay TAX and NI and will both eventually get a pension but if we didn't do these jobs who would?
		
Click to expand...

Oh PUHLEEZE!

Do you REALLY think no-one would do your jobs if you didn't?   I don't hear of any difficulties recruiting trainee policemen, nurses, firemen, CPS lawyers, or indeed ANY public sector workers except perhaps science teachers who can earn so much more out in Industry.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			This and the previous Government have created the current situation,along with bankers and investors,the latter of who, by my reckoning were in the private sector before some messed up and were bailed out by the state.
		
Click to expand...

The pension issue has been caused primarily by longer life expectancy. It was known about more than ten years ago, when the private sector started closing final salary schemes,  but Labour didn't want to cause any upset with the Unions and Labour voters by addressing it. 

The current economic situation has simply made it impossible to ignore any longer. It is not the primary reason for the adjustments having to be made.


----------



## Dirtymare (9 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			If the calculations that I have given above have not shown you that this is not correct, then I am at a complete loss as to how to explain any more. Let me think ....


OK, let's say I work in Tesco and I earn £200 a week and pay £40 of that in tax which goes back into your salary as a nurse, say.

You come into Tesco and you spend that £40 on your groceries for the week. 

Fine, you have contributed to my wages.

But if I did not pay tax and NI in the first place, I would still have that £40 and I would spend it for myself, thankyou very much 

There may be a question of what an awful society it would be to have no public sector, but this is not it. Neither is it Public Sector bashing.

The fact remains, that ALL the money generated in the economy is generated by the private sector. The public sector cannot exist before the private sector generates taxes.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, we get what you are saying Santa Paws.
But you are chosing to ignore the fact that services are being divested to the PRIVATE sector.
As I have stated, Selby Council actuallty only employ 14 workers. This is the future and reality. And is going to happen to the NHS.
You may scoff at those in the NHS and other services, and tell us there would be plenty to take their places. 
However, there wont be any jobs left in the Public Sector soon for others to take.


----------



## siennamum (9 December 2011)

So if you work for a private sector company who work for government are you earning money from the Govt.  or the company? Is it real money or are you in fact a public sector worker in disguise........ I'm really confused (in case you hadn't realised)


----------



## Magicmillbrook (9 December 2011)

I dont think there is a single public sector worker who doesnt agree that something has to give with their pension schemes.  My pension scheme was revamped 3 years ago (or possibly longer) to make it more sustainable and I understand that further cuts are needed, either that or the government is going to have to hire hit men to bump some of us off at the age of 70.

What I and many others disagree to is the extent of the changes, the lack of consultation and the disparity in what is happening to us when other public sector workers are not being included in these pension changes - for example MP's.  If you add this to the job losses, pay freezes, regrading (wager cuts) and massive cuts and in many cases loss of the services that we provide with love and pride and you end up with a lot of very angry people.  I feel the public sector worker has now taken over the mantle of 'whipping boy' from the bankers.

Regarding the circular questions about tax - of course everyone understands that money comes from  production.  What p****s the public sector worker off is when people carp on that they pay your wages - we all pay tax, yes its true that tax from the public sector doesnt increase the tax pot, but the feeling of seeing how much your actual wage is against your gross pay every month is painful for a public and private sector alike.  Is a public sector worker supposed to say 'yes I pay a lot of tax, but thats ok, it doesnt count because it wasnt my money in the first place'.  Then we hear  that unemployment benfits are increasing in line with inflation, whereas our wage, that has been cut, or at the very least  frozen for three years may or may not rise by 1% in two years time - it blinkin well rankles.

My job isnt just a 'job', its a vocation.  I my field I could earn more in the private sector, in fact only a few weeks ago I was offered a consultancy posts in the private sector for a bigger salary, company car and private health care, gym membership and all my training and proff fees paid.  I chose not to take it because I prefer to work for the little person and I love the challenges that it brings.  I dont like the long unsociable hours, unpaid overtime or the beurocracy - but hey, on the whole I am lucky.  My department being given the master plan for its restructure on Monday -15% loss in workforce without the loss of any front line services (yeah - right), perhaps I was a little hasty.

Once the government has raped and pludered this resource - what is left....


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Dirtymare said:



			Yes, we get what you are saying Santa Paws.
But you are chosing to ignore the fact that services are being divested to the PRIVATE sector.
As I have stated, Selby Council actuallty only employ 14 workers. This is the future and reality. And is going to happen to the NHS.
You may scoff at those in the NHS and other services, and tell us there would be plenty to take their places. 
However, there wont be any jobs left in the Public Sector soon for others to take.
		
Click to expand...



None of that is the point that I was making. Posters on this thread persisted in saying again and again

"I pay taxes that contribute to the payment of my pension"

and 

"I pay pension contributions from my salary".

We, me and several others, were trying to make it clear that you do not pay one penny of real money towards your pensions and THAT is why it is grotesquely unfair for you to continue to have such wonderful pension terms when the people who are paying for them for you have no hope of getting anything like it themselves.

The discussion of privatising the Public Sector is another one altogether. The strike was about pensions and pensions alone. And it was unjustified.


----------



## dieseldog (9 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Think about it Wundahorse. If there were no private sector employees at all, where would your salary come from, for you to pay your taxes to fund your own healthcare?
		
Click to expand...

If there were no Private Sector Employees at all there would be no need whatsoever for a Public Sector - who would their customers be?  Conversely there are areas of the UK that rely on the Public Sector wages for the Private Sector to survive.  They both need each other, but once everything is privatised  the Private sector will just be shuffling money amongst itself, which from HHO seems to be the preferred option.  

Privatisation doesn't mean private healthcare that you just pay to use, it means that it is private companies running the NHS rather than the Public Sector.  You are also going to have Private Companies running the Ministry of Defence.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

siennamum said:



			So if you work for a private sector company who work for government are you earning money from the Govt.  or the company? Is it real money or are you in fact a public sector worker in disguise........ I'm really confused (in case you hadn't realised)
		
Click to expand...

If you work in any job doing a public service which is funded by income tax, corporate tax or local rates then you are part of the public sector whether your employer is making a profit or not. 

So, if you are employed by Bam Nuttal digging a hole in the road in Cheshire, and Bam Nuttal are invoicing Cheshire East Council for your work, you are a public sector employee in the real sense of the term. The difference is that Bam Nuttal are a private company and need to  make a profit and they simply cannot afford to pay you pension of the same level as you would get if you were direct workforce, employed by the Council. They'd go out of business if they had to find that kind of money.

To the person who keeps telling me Selby employ only 14 direct staff:

Do the ratepayers of Selby pay higher rates or lower rates than they would be doing if the services were provided directly by Council employed staff?


----------



## Magicmillbrook (9 December 2011)

[You may scoff at those in the NHS and other services, and tell us there would be plenty to take their places. 
However, there wont be any jobs left in the Public Sector soon for others to take.[/QUOTE]

My profession is dwindling beacuse there are so few universities offering courses for the professional qualification, and now with the cost of going to university  - perhaps I will keep my job by default!


----------



## Horlicks (9 December 2011)

OH PUHLEAZE BACK AT YOU !

OK I give you that there is no shortage of people signed up as police officers etc BUT there is a national well publicised shortage of midwives.

Personally I find your constant explanations of how tax works extremely patronising - working for the public sector does not equal being thick.

I don't wish to be rude but come and spend a day doing my job and then see if you moan about how good public sector workers have it.




			The fact remains, that ALL the money generated in the economy is generated by the private sector. The public sector cannot exist before the private sector generates taxes.
		
Click to expand...

Chicken and egg springs to mind here - if the governnment didn't purchase supplies and services from the private sector - less income would be generated, more people would be unemployed/companies failing.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			If there were no Private Sector Employees at all there would be no need whatsoever for a Public Sector - who would their customers be?
		
Click to expand...


The unemployed, those on maternity leave, the retired, those who work for no pay, students, children.





dieseldog said:



			Conversely there are areas of the UK that rely on the Public Sector wages for the Private Sector to survive.
		
Click to expand...

It is a spurious argument to split the country by regions. We are taxed as one country.




dieseldog said:



			Privatisation doesn't mean private healthcare that you just pay to use, it means that it is private companies running the NHS rather than the Public Sector.  You are also going to have Private Companies running the Ministry of Defence.
		
Click to expand...


This forum was not discussing privatisation when it was started. I have NEVER discussed privatisation as part of what I am trying to say. The discussion was about the Public Sector strike over PENSIONS.


----------



## Dirtymare (9 December 2011)

Magicmillbrook said:



			I dont think there is a single public sector worker who doesnt agree that something has to give with their pension schemes.  My pension scheme was revamped 3 years ago (or possibly longer) to make it more sustainable and I understand that further cuts are needed, either that or the government is going to have to hire hit men to bump some of us off at the age of 70.

What I and many others disagree to is the extent of the changes, the lack of consultation and the disparity in what is happening to us when other public sector workers are not being included in these pension changes - for example MP's.  If you add this to the job losses, pay freezes, regrading (wager cuts) and massive cuts and in many cases loss of the services that we provide with love and pride and you end up with a lot of very angry people.  I feel the public sector worker has now taken over the mantle of 'whipping boy' from the bankers.

Regarding the circular questions about tax - of course everyone understands that money comes from  production.  What p****s the public sector worker off is when people carp on that they pay your wages - we all pay tax, yes its true that tax from the public sector doesnt increase the tax pot, but the feeling of seeing how much your actual wage is against your gross pay every month is painful for a public and private sector alike.  Is a public sector worker supposed to say 'yes I pay a lot of tax, but thats ok, it doesnt count because it wasnt my money in the first place'.  Then we hear  that unemployment benfits are increasing in line with inflation, whereas our wage, that has been cut, or at the very least  frozen for three years may or may not rise by 1% in two years time - it blinkin well rankles.

My job isnt just a 'job', its a vocation.  I my field I could earn more in the private sector, in fact only a few weeks ago I was offered a consultancy posts in the private sector for a bigger salary, company car and private health care, gym membership and all my training and proff fees paid.  I chose not to take it because I prefer to work for the little person and I love the challenges that it brings.  I dont like the long unsociable hours, unpaid overtime or the beurocracy - but hey, on the whole I am lucky.  My department being given the master plan for its restructure on Monday -15% loss in workforce without the loss of any front line services (yeah - right), perhaps I was a little hasty.

Once the government has raped and pludered this resource - what is left....
		
Click to expand...

 I love you Magicmillbrook..............What I was trying to say, only more eloquenlty.


----------



## dieseldog (9 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			If the calculations that I have given above have not shown you that this is not correct, then I am at a complete loss as to how to explain any more. Let me think ....


OK, let's say I work in Tesco and I earn £200 a week and pay £40 of that in tax which goes back into your salary as a nurse, say.

You come into Tesco and you spend that £40 on your groceries for the week. 

Fine, you have contributed to my wages.

But if I did not pay tax and NI in the first place, I would still have that £40 and I would spend it for myself, thankyou very much 

Click to expand...

But you wouldn't have a health service, street lighting, education, defence, bins collected etc - you would be £40 better off though!


----------



## dieseldog (9 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Oh PUHLEEZE!

Do you REALLY think no-one would do your jobs if you didn't?   I don't hear of any difficulties recruiting trainee policemen, nurses, firemen, CPS lawyers, or indeed ANY public sector workers except perhaps science teachers who can earn so much more out in Industry.
		
Click to expand...

They would still be Public Servants!  You either pay the wages of Public Servants or your contribute to Private Sector profits - I would say choose - but you have no choice - its all going private


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Horlicks said:



			Chicken and egg springs to mind here - if the governnment didn't purchase supplies and services from the private sector - less income would be generated, more people would be unemployed/companies failing.
		
Click to expand...

If the public sector did not buy supplies there would be no requirement for the company to pay Corporation Tax or Commercial Rates and their prices would be correspondingly lower and more customers would buy from them.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			But you wouldn't have a health service, street lighting, education, defence, bins collected etc - you would be £40 better off though!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, dieseldog, why did you cut the post of mine that you quoted before this line, which came next:





			There may be a question of what an awful society it would be to have no public sector, but this is not it. Neither is it Public Sector bashing.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## dieseldog (9 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Yes, dieseldog, why did you cut the post of mine that you quoted before this line, which came next:
		
Click to expand...

Because that line was totally irrelevant, what is the point in making people read your public Sector bashing over and over and over again.

You are never going to change your mind - thats fine - as long as you are still working you are still paying taxes and paying the Public Sector Pensions


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Horlicks said:



			OH PUHLEAZE BACK AT YOU !

OK I give you that there is no shortage of people signed up as police officers etc BUT there is a national well publicised shortage of midwives.
		
Click to expand...

I have researched the national shortage of midwives and all the analyses that I can find state that the shortage has been caused by a massive increase in births, substantially due to Labour's immigration policies, and  a failure to train enough Midwives to do the job.

There is, as far as I can find, no shortage of people prepared to train as midwives if they could and therefore my scepticism of your comment "who would do this job if I didn't" remains.



Horlicks said:



			Personally I find your constant explanations of how tax works extremely patronising - working for the public sector does not equal being thick.
		
Click to expand...

Horlicks you are not the only one posting on this thread and it was clear that other people had not understood so I continued to try to explain. If I am annoying you there is an "ignore" button which will prevent you from ever having to read anything I write. Please feel free to use it.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			Because that line was totally irrelevant, what is the point in making people read your public Sector bashing over and over and over again.

You are never going to change your mind - thats fine - as long as you are still working you are still paying taxes and paying the Public Sector Pensions 

Click to expand...


I don't make anyone read anything dieseldog. If you don't like what I write please feel free to put me on ignore.


----------



## dieseldog (9 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			I don't make anyone read anything dieseldog. If you don't like what I write please feel free to put me on ignore.
		
Click to expand...

You amuse me, its fine.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			You amuse me, its fine.
		
Click to expand...

Feeling's mutual


----------



## Magicmillbrook (9 December 2011)

Here is one for you Santa Paws  the LA I work for is an entrepreneurial council.  We have significant financial reserves from selling off our housing stock.  We have a portfolio of business properties and companies, we have separate trading companies under our umbrella selling services to other councils and sell out expertise and training to public and private sector businesses  We also have the lowest council tax in the country - so when I get tax taken from my wages, paid to me by this Council  am I contributing toward my pension or am I still robbing Shelia from Tescos to pay for my Werthers originals and support stockings?


----------



## siennamum (9 December 2011)

I am MOVING TO NORFOLK....

Well maybe not (bit too close to the North Sea)


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Magicmillbrook said:



			Here is one for you Santa Paws  the LA I work for is an entrepreneurial council.  We have significant financial reserves from selling off our housing stock.  We have a portfolio of business properties and companies, we have separate trading companies under our umbrella selling services to other councils and sell out expertise and training to public and private sector businesses  We also have the lowest council tax in the country - so when I get tax taken from my wages, paid to me by this Council  am I contributing toward my pension or am I still robbing Shelia from Tescos to pay for my Werthers originals and support stockings?
		
Click to expand...



First, no-one is robbing anyone.

Second, your question cannot be answered without saying what your job is. If your job consists of selling something to which you have added value (ie it cost your organisation less to obtain it than the price for which it is being sold) and if that "something" is now being sold to the private sector for them to use entirely within the private sector, then the tax you are paying for the part of your job which is now in the private sector dealing commercially with outside organistations is "real" tax. Complex, innit?

Your local authority sounds very good! A great mix of private and public, don't you think?


----------



## Magicmillbrook (9 December 2011)

First, no-one is robbing anyone

The way folks some are going on you would think we are!

Complex, innit?

Absolutely - glad my area of expertise is not tax and I dont pretend to understand it - as far as roles goes, we all work as a team at my LA


Your local authority sounds very good! A great mix of private and public, don't you think?

In some ways its great, but in others I think the Councillors get carried away with 'running a business' and forget about the very real statutory functions we have to perform.


----------



## Anglebracket (9 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			The fact remains, that ALL the money generated in the economy is generated by the private sector. The public sector cannot exist before the private sector generates taxes.
		
Click to expand...

This 'fact' is actually not uncontroversial. It does depend on your preferred model of macroeconomics. Proponents of chartalism / modern monetary theory, for example, would argue the opposite. 

Either way, the private sector does not create money it only redistributes existing money. The supply of money in the economy is controlled by the central bank. It normally does so by buying and selling government bonds. In exceptional circumstances it creates money through quantitative easing.


----------



## Anglebracket (9 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			If you are paid from the public purse you do not contribute ONE PENNY of tax or NI to fund your own healthcare, welfare benefits or pension.  ALL your own public services are paid for by the tax take from the private sector.
		
Click to expand...

If the tax contributions of public sector workers don't count towards healthcare, welfare, benefits or pension, does this mean that public sector workers should be exempt from paying VAT, council tax, fuel duty and road tax?


----------



## perfect11s (9 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			This 'fact' is actually not uncontroversial. It does depend on your preferred model of macroeconomics. Proponents of chartalism / modern monetary theory, for example, would argue the opposite. 

Either way, the private sector does not create money it only redistributes existing money. The supply of money in the economy is controlled by the central bank. It normally does so by buying and selling government bonds. In exceptional circumstances it creates money through quantitative easing.
		
Click to expand...

Huuuuh !!!!!!  I guess you must be a lefty !!! The private sector creates wealth, maybe by digging coal or stone out of the ground and selling it taking a raw material like iron ore and making steel which in turn someone makes a car, truck, washing machine , screws etc which we export or sell to each other 
the private sector adds value to goods and services earns foriegn currency , your idea of how economics work is the bulshit that has got us in the mess we are in! money gambling, and goverments fidleing figures, crap and a fail !!!


----------



## perfect11s (9 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			If the tax contributions of public sector workers don't count towards healthcare, welfare, benefits or pension, does this mean that public sector workers should be exempt from paying VAT, council tax, fuel duty and road tax?
		
Click to expand...

Are you hard of thinking ????


----------



## Anglebracket (9 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Are you hard of thinking ????
		
Click to expand...

I responded to the notion (raised by Santapaws) that the national insurance contributions and income tax paid by public sector workers does not contribute towards health care etc. If this was true what would be the point in public sector workers paying either direct (e.g. income tax) or indirect taxes (e.g. VAT) on their wages? I hope this clarifies things.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			I responded to the notion (raised by Santapaws) that the national insurance contributions and income tax paid by public sector workers does not contribute towards health care etc. If this was true what would be the point in public sector workers paying either direct (e.g. income tax) or indirect taxes (e.g. VAT) on their wages? I hope this clarifies things.
		
Click to expand...

There is no point in NI and tax being paid by you. It is an administrative nicety to treat all salaries the same. It makes it easier to advertise your jobs as people can compare with other salaries, and that's about the only benefit. It COSTS the country money to do it, in fact.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			If the tax contributions of public sector workers don't count towards healthcare, welfare, benefits or pension, does this mean that public sector workers should be exempt from paying VAT, council tax, fuel duty and road tax?
		
Click to expand...


No, you are paid the amount of money in your salaries, from other people's tax,  to enable you to pay them.


----------



## Anglebracket (9 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			your idea of how economics work is the bulshit that has got us in the mess we are in! money gambling, and goverments fidleing figures, crap and a fail !!!
		
Click to expand...

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) was not my idea. It is a theory developed by economists. I can't take credit for it. 

I agree that money gambling (assuming you refer to the buying and selling of bad debt) triggered the financial crisis. This has nothing to do with MMT though. It is therefore not clear to me how MMT got us into this mess.


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			This 'fact' is actually not uncontroversial. It does depend on your preferred model of macroeconomics. Proponents of chartalism / modern monetary theory, for example, would argue the opposite. 

Either way, the private sector does not create money it only redistributes existing money. The supply of money in the economy is controlled by the central bank. It normally does so by buying and selling government bonds. In exceptional circumstances it creates money through quantitative easing.
		
Click to expand...

We need to define "money" if you are going to talk on this level.

The privatre sector creates "value". Banks print "money". The two are very different things and far too complex, I think, for this discussion where most people understand what we mean by "money" in relation to paying taxes.


----------



## Anglebracket (9 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			There is no point in NI and tax being paid by you. It is an administrative nicety to treat all salaries the same. It makes it easier to advertise your jobs as people can compare with other salaries, and that's about the only benefit. It COSTS the country money to do it, in fact.
		
Click to expand...




Santa Paws said:



			No, you are paid the amount of money in your salaries, from other people's tax,  to enable you to pay them.
		
Click to expand...

So do public sector workers make a contribution towards health care, education etc by paying VAT or don't they?

If yes, why does the same not apply to the income tax that public sector workers pay? Why does the point at which the tax is paid decide whether the contribution is relevant or not?

If the VAT paid by public sector workers does not contribute towards health care etc, why should they pay it?


----------



## TheoryX1 (9 December 2011)

I havent read all of this thread, but have read enough of it to want to comment.  I dont work in the public sector, I am a company director of a medium sized company.  I pay a reasonable amount of corporation tax, plus personal tax.  I have personal guarantees against mine and my business partner's personal assets as required by our bankers, we employ a lot of people, we have to generate a lot of cash every month just to break even, we work hard and want to keep our employees in jobs.  Sorry to say this, but I do NOT agree with this strike.  Do you not know how many people out there are unemployed, without even the chance to earn enough cash to pay into a pension?  

My father is a retired police officer, and I am aware of how much he paid into his pension - a lot, but he gets a good pension, which is deserved.  As a huge supporter of free enterprise, you will only get out, what you put in, which is what happened with my dad.  I really dont have the answers, to this, but I do wish people would stop whinging about what they havent got, and be grateful for what they have got - A JOB.


----------



## Mithras (9 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			So do public sector workers make a contribution towards health care, education etc by paying VAT or don't they?

If yes, why does the same not apply to the income tax that public sector workers pay? Why does the point at which the tax is paid decide whether the contribution is relevant or not?

If the VAT paid by public sector workers does not contribute towards health care etc, why should they pay it?
		
Click to expand...

Surely the pertinent question is whether they make a net profit or not?  i.e. do they put more into the economy than they take out?  

Presumably the majority of public sector workers do not, therefore common sense would be to keep them to the minimum necessary to ensure a healthy economy (e.g. front line health care staff, essential administrators, essential public transport staff, essential education staff, etc).  However Governments need to manipulate unemployment figures, and control people...


----------



## cptrayes (9 December 2011)

Horlicks said:



			So do public sector workers make a contribution towards health care, education etc by paying VAT or don't they?
		
Click to expand...

No they don't. Because again they are paying the tax from money which was already given to them by a taxpayer. It is the same money, you can't count it twice.



Horlicks said:



			If yes, why does the same not apply to the income tax that public sector workers pay? Why does the point at which the tax is paid decide whether the contribution is relevant or not?
		
Click to expand...

The answer is NO. It does not make any difference where the tax is paid, it makes no contribution to running the public sector.



Horlicks said:



			If the VAT paid by public sector workers does not contribute towards health care etc, why should they pay it?
		
Click to expand...

Because they have been given money in their salaries to enable them to pay it. It would be far too complex to work out what individual was going to buy what and pay what VAT on the purchases to enable that amount of money to be taken out of their salary before it was paid.  So instead, a public sector employee has in their salary an "average" amount of money which is paid so that they can pay Vat and other discretionary taxes.  This only works if you consider "the public sector" as a whole and not as individual salaries. 

The tax and NI argument is much easier. It's perfectly possible to pay you a salary which does not require you to pay tax and NI, "the system" just chooses not to work that way. The Vat argument is much more difficult to understand but it is still the same. No tax that you pay anywhere contributes to the running of the public sector. All you are doing is "passing through" money that someone else from the private sector has already paid in taxes.

It's fairly easy to see that this is the truth. Imagine that all private sector companies close tomorrow and all private sector employees are made redundant. All public sector workers are still employed. Who is going to pay your salary next month?


This is just a fact. It is not "getting at" the Public Sector. It has nothing to do with how the Public Sector is run or whether it should be privatised or whether people in it contribute to society, or work  hard or anything else. But it does mean that the argument "I'm a taxpayer so I contribute to these pensions too" is simply not correct, sorry.  And it's why I personally believe that for a teacher on £25k a year to strike to try to make a shop assistant on £11k a year continue to pay tax to contribute to that teacher's salary linked pension, the like of which the shop worker cannot ever have, is wrong.


----------



## BeesKnees (9 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			This is just a fact. It is not "getting at" the Public Sector. It has nothing to do with how the Public Sector is run or whether it should be privatised or whether people in it contribute to society, or work  hard or anything else. But it does mean that the argument "I'm a taxpayer so I contribute to these pensions too" is simply not correct, sorry.  And it's why I personally believe that for a teacher on £25k a year to strike to try to make a shop assistant on £11k a year continue to pay tax to contribute to that teacher's salary linked pension, the like of which the shop worker cannot ever have, is wrong.
		
Click to expand...

THIS ^^

I find it bizarre the way that even rational discussion of the financing of the public sector results in accusations of 'public sector bashing' and the 'hope you don't ever need any care' and ' I work really hard' lines of argument. As if people in the private sector don't work long hours in demanding jobs, with annoying bosses and crappy bureaucracy and shortage of necessary equipment etc etc. 

And as for Santa Paws being 'patronising', all she has done is tried to patiently and courteously explain to a number of people who clearly don't understand how their salaries and pensions are paid for.


----------



## nursecroft (12 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			THIS ^^

I find it bizarre the way that even rational discussion of the financing of the public sector results in accusations of 'public sector bashing' and the 'hope you don't ever need any care' and ' I work really hard' lines of argument. As if people in the private sector don't work long hours in demanding jobs, with annoying bosses and crappy bureaucracy and shortage of necessary equipment etc etc. 

And as for Santa Paws being 'patronising', all she has done is tried to patiently and courteously explain to a number of people who clearly don't understand how their salaries and pensions are paid for.
		
Click to expand...

sorry I missed the part in the thread where it was said that public workers work harder than private care workers, please do quote it for me.

You know I do wonder why i bothered to go to uni and getting an education if its apparantly worth nothing. I'm sure all our MPs are certainly not feeling the 'pinch' what about the bankers that cause all this in the first place, surely our anger would be best placed at them rather than at eachother!!! We are all well aware how our pensions and salaries are paid for, we are *all* taxpayers. Many posts on this forum are blantant public sector bashing, crikey according to one member on this forum we're all 'muppets'. I have worked in both private and public sectors as a nurse and I'm planning to go back private, working conditions are better, pays better and you are appreciated private workers should be appreciated too!!). I certainly can't afford my own horse, i get asked to ride other peoples and ride Winston regulary for a lady, I'm very lucky.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			I have worked in both private and public sectors as a nurse and I'm planning to go back private, working conditions are better, pays better and you are appreciated private workers should be appreciated too!!).
		
Click to expand...

Having worked for many years as a qualified nurse in the NHS, BUPA and the Nuffield and as an agency nurse, I found the conditions and perks were definitely better in the NHS.


----------



## perfect11s (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			sorry I missed the part in the thread where it was said that public workers work harder than private care workers, please do quote it for me.

You know I do wonder why i bothered to go to uni and getting an education if its apparantly worth nothing. I'm sure all our MPs are certainly not feeling the 'pinch' what about the bankers that cause all this in the first place, surely our anger would be best placed at them rather than at eachother!!! We are all well aware how our pensions and salaries are paid for, we are *all* taxpayers. Many posts on this forum are blantant public sector bashing, crikey according to one member on this forum we're all 'muppets'. I have worked in both private and public sectors as a nurse and I'm planning to go back private, working conditions are better, pays better and you are appreciated private workers should be appreciated too!!). I certainly can't afford my own horse, i get asked to ride other peoples and ride Winston regulary for a lady, I'm very lucky.
		
Click to expand...

 Heck what a fantastic job the unions have done of brain washing these people into believing that they are hard done too and  its the bankers fault!!!  we are in a mess ... two points  one  you have well paid and fairly secure jobs with very reasonable pension provision.... still!!   and two its that Gordon brown and labour screwed the economy ..failed to regulate the banks , spent MORE money than was coming in, and then as it's becoming aparrent wasted bilions of pounds bailing out  scottish banks without any safeguards as to how they will behave in the future ....  ITS THE LAST GOVERMENT'S FAULT  and the mongs that voted them in ...


----------



## nursecroft (13 December 2011)

horserider said:



			Having worked for many years as a qualified nurse in the NHS, BUPA and the Nuffield and as an agency nurse, I found the conditions and perks were definitely better in the NHS.
		
Click to expand...

Having also worked for many years as a nurse for charity run hospice, Bupa, NHS and an agency nurse too, I'd rather have better working conditions and get rid of all this stress. Because you get no thanks for burning yourself out. I worked on a surgical thoracic ward, we had a permenantly open medical outlyer bay, I collapsed 3 years ago on the ward, got taken to A&E and told it was dyhydration and exhaustion.... I left after that. Its the patients that ultimately suffer, I hate not having the time to provide a high standard of care. At least at the hospice its well staffed, I have time to sit and talk to the families and patients because that is just as important as meeting their physical needs.


----------



## nursecroft (13 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Heck what a fantastic job the unions have done of brain washing these people into believing that they are hard done too and  its the bankers fault!!!  we are in a mess ... two points  one  you have well paid and fairly secure jobs with very reasonable pension provision.... still!!   and two its that Gordon brown and labour screwed the economy ..failed to regulate the banks , spent MORE money than was coming in, and then as it's becoming aparrent wasted bilions of pounds bailing out  scottish banks without any safeguards as to how they will behave in the future ....  ITS THE LAST GOVERMENT'S FAULT  and the mongs that voted them in ...
		
Click to expand...

Yeh ok, we're going in circles, if nursing is soooo brilliant why don't you train? One thing I do agree with is the goverment has screwed up the economy and is ultimately responsible. Who would you vote in? I think they are all as bad as eachother.


----------



## Oliver12 (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			Yeh ok, we're going in circles, if nursing is soooo brilliant why don't you train? One thing I do agree with is the goverment has screwed up the economy and is ultimately responsible. Who would you vote in? I think they are all as bad as eachother.
		
Click to expand...

Hey, nursing isn't so bad you know. My two sisters are NHS nurses and behind closed doors they admit they have quite a cushy number. Okay, they don't like the night shifts but they do admit they aren't running around like blue ar*ed flies like care workers, etc and the reason they know this is one decided to work privately in a care home for a while but admitted conditions were much better in the NHS. They earn very good money, have very good pensions lined up and both of them take several holidays abroad each year unlike me who unfortunately because I faint at the sight of (human) blood decided it wasn't the profession for me.


----------



## Mithras (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			You know I do wonder why i bothered to go to uni and getting an education if its apparantly worth nothing. I'm sure all our MPs are certainly not feeling the 'pinch' what about the bankers that cause all this in the first place, surely our anger would be best placed at them rather than at eachother!!! We are all well aware how our pensions and salaries are paid for, we are *all* taxpayers. Many posts on this forum are blantant public sector bashing, crikey according to one member on this forum we're all 'muppets'.
		
Click to expand...

One of the reasons you go to university is to learn to critically evaluate differing sources of information and come to reasoned conclusions.  Not necessarily to take the most simplistic or self interest point of view.  

I have no problem with nurses - I do have a problem with a bloated, inefficient public sector, unecessary layers of underperforming middle management and lazy working practices.  I've been a solicitor in both public and private practise - in the latter, the stress is unbelievable, as not only do you have to commonly work 6 days a week for no overtime and 12 hour days, you are also expected to bring in new business!  (and no benefits and pensions).  In the public sector, my workload was so tiny as to barely occupy a 1/4 of my day, and the pension provision incredibly generous compared to the private sector - when I left after just over a year, I got a few thousand back after surrendering my pension!


----------



## siennamum (13 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Heck what a fantastic job the unions have done of brain washing these people into believing that they are hard done too and  its the bankers fault!!!  we are in a mess ... two points  one  you have well paid and fairly secure jobs with very reasonable pension provision.... still!!   and two its that Gordon brown and labour screwed the economy ..failed to regulate the banks , spent MORE money than was coming in, and then as it's becoming aparrent wasted bilions of pounds bailing out  scottish banks without any safeguards as to how they will behave in the future ....  ITS THE LAST GOVERMENT'S FAULT  and the mongs that voted them in ...
		
Click to expand...

I agree that there are big issues with bankers. I disagree that the coalition will act any differently to Labour, and can't see that the unions are in any way to blame for the crisis:

A couple of eye watering figures (& my opinion on where we should be directing our national anger)
"According to the IMF, British taxpayers have shelled out £289bn in "direct upfront financing" to prop up the banks since 2008. Add in the various government loans and underwriting, and taxpayers are on the hook for £1.19tn"


----------



## BeesKnees (13 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			One of the reasons you go to university is to learn to critically evaluate differing sources of information and come to reasoned conclusions.  Not necessarily to take the most simplistic or self interest point of view.
		
Click to expand...

Well said Mithras, although in reality obviously the skills of critical thinking are not being well learnt, judging by some people's inability to take part in rational discussion without taking it all very personally and claiming that all those who disagree and question are 'bashing' the public sector!

It's just the same old stuff trotted out.


----------



## cptrayes (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			You know I do wonder why i bothered to go to uni and getting an education if its apparantly worth nothing..
		
Click to expand...

Nursecroft from your posts on this thread and the Clarkson one it is clear that you have the most ALMIGHTY chip on your shoulder about being graduate educated.

Are you aware of how many people sitting on tills in shops and serving fries in Macdonalds have degrees? 

To be honest, I am beginning to wonder if your real problem is that you have realised that you have joined a profession which has been artificially inflated to require a degree to enter it. Perhaps you have  begun to understand that 5 O-levels and vocational training, which was previously the entry point, was quite qualified enough to do a non-specialist SRN job well?

If not, then what on earth IS your problem that you keep on and on and on banging on about the fact that you have a degree? SO WHAT? It means NOTHING. There are hundreds of thousands of people as well gualified as you doing much worse jobs. There are hundreds of thousands of people much less qualified than you earning much more than you ever will. 

I feel very sorry for your generation that you have been hoodwinked into thinking that getting a degree guaranteed you a lot of money and a great job. I see my friends kids running up massive debts to end up with a BA in business admin doing the same clerical job that they could have started at 18.  It is the biggest deceit that has ever been perpetrated on young people in the name of education.

Get used to it!


----------



## nursecroft (13 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			One of the reasons you go to university is to learn to critically evaluate differing sources of information and come to reasoned conclusions.  Not necessarily to take the most simplistic or self interest point of view.  

I have no problem with nurses - I do have a problem with a bloated, inefficient public sector, unecessary layers of underperforming middle management and lazy working practices.  I've been a solicitor in both public and private practise - in the latter, the stress is unbelievable, as not only do you have to commonly work 6 days a week for no overtime and 12 hour days, you are also expected to bring in new business!  (and no benefits and pensions).  In the public sector, my workload was so tiny as to barely occupy a 1/4 of my day, and the pension provision incredibly generous compared to the private sector - when I left after just over a year, I got a few thousand back after surrendering my pension!
		
Click to expand...

You know what I'm leaving this subject before i say something i shouldn't, you are incrediably rude and have just insulted every nurse that works their backsides of for other people, the amount of overtime i do unpaid is enormace, you don't know me, you don't know what is is like to work as a nurse and you get paid far more than i do. I never said private sector workers don't work hard and i never insulted any private sector workers calling them inefficent and lazy!! Your attitude is absolutely disgusting. How dare you tell me I don't do my job properly, we are very understaffed and every nurse in my team works their backsides off you horrible woman.


----------



## nursecroft (13 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Nursecroft from your posts on this thread and the Clarkson one it is clear that you have the most ALMIGHTY chip on your shoulder about being graduate educated.

Are you aware of how many people sitting on tills in shops and serving fries in Macdonalds have degrees? 

To be honest, I am beginning to wonder if your real problem is that you have realised that you have joined a profession which has been artificially inflated to require a degree to enter it. Perhaps you have  begun to understand that 5 O-levels and vocational training, which was previously the entry point, was quite qualified enough to do a non-specialist SRN job well?

If not, then what on earth IS your problem that you keep on and on and on banging on about the fact that you have a degree? SO WHAT? It means NOTHING. There are hundreds of thousands of people as well gualified as you doing much worse jobs. There are hundreds of thousands of people much less qualified than you earning much more than you ever will. 

I feel very sorry for your generation that you have been hoodwinked into thinking that getting a degree guaranteed you a lot of money and a great job. I see my friends kids running up massive debts to end up with a BA in business admin doing the same clerical job that they could have started at 18.  It is the biggest deceit that has ever been perpetrated on young people in the name of education.

Get used to it!
		
Click to expand...

To be honest I really could not care less what you think of me as I don't particulary think you are a very nice person. I do not have a chip on my shoulder at all, i do believe that people who work hard to get an education should be paid more than someone that doesn't bother and works behind a counter in a shop, that is my opinion, its up to them if they want to go that route, i've nothing against it. You seem to be the one with the chip on their shoulder, writing in capitals and insulting public workers. 

You seem to think nurses have no value at all from your post and that our job has been inflated to have a degree that we don't really need, well thank you very much. 

I will not be coming back hear to read your reply for fear of telling you exactly what i think of you. Thank god not everyone is like you.

I'll leave you bitchy girls to it


----------



## fburton (13 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			The privatre sector creates "value". Banks print "money". The two are very different things and far too complex, I think, for this discussion where most people understand what we mean by "money" in relation to paying taxes.
		
Click to expand...

This is all very interesting, but I have a few questions... Does everyone in the private sector create value? Clearly people who make things do, but what about the people who manage them? Or people who teach or train them how to make things? Or transport them to and from their place of work? Or who look after them when they get sick (assuming private sector healthcare)? Or who simply retail the things made by others? Or who look after and/or invest the money earned by those who make things? Or who profit from legal disputes between people who make things? Do all these private sector workers create value? And if they do, how does this "value" differ from exactly the same services offered by public sector equivalents?


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (13 December 2011)

I can answer the private sector being sick - the reason a lot of companies provide private healthcare - which is a taxable benefit and compulsory for some roles - is because in the event of illness their employees can be seen and treated and quickly as possible so their sick leave is kept to an absolute minimum instead of months of waiting to be seen on the NHS with the inevitable waiting around in  clinics to see various doctors and then to be referred for x-rays etc. In the private hospitals you make an appointment get seen at the alloted time as well as being able to make appointments which suit your work hours. No waiting around so you are back at work asap that is what the private sector wants - employees at work being productive

Of course by using the private medical facilities they are also relieving some of the pressure in the NHS and making space for another person who needs to use the NHS


----------



## cptrayes (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			I do not have a chip on my shoulder at all, i do believe that people who work hard to get an education should be paid more than someone that doesn't bother and works behind a counter in a shop, that is my opinion, its up to them if they want to go that route, i've nothing against it.
		
Click to expand...

You think the CHOOSE to be serving fries with a Degree level education?

Jesus you really aren't living in the real world, are you sweetheart?


----------



## cptrayes (13 December 2011)

fburton said:



			This is all very interesting, but I have a few questions... Does everyone in the private sector create value?
		
Click to expand...

If we mean "are they paying to run the public sector" then unless they work exclusively on Public Sector work or their company is illegally trading insolvent,

yes.




fburton said:



			Clearly people who make things do, but what about the people who manage them? Or people who teach or train them how to make things? Or transport them to and from their place of work? Or who look after them when they get sick (assuming private sector healthcare)? Or who simply retail the things made by others? Or who look after and/or invest the money earned by those who make things? Or who profit from legal disputes between people who make things? Do all these private sector workers create value? And if they do, how does this "value" differ from exactly the same services offered by public sector equivalents?
		
Click to expand...

All the people you mention contribute to a process where something is taken which costs amount "x" and sold it to someone else for amount "x=y" and the difference between x and y is either taked itself at a corporate level or paid to employees/shareholders and taxed as income.

A nurse's time is taken and charged to the taxpayer at cost through tax.
Capital equipment and us of buildings are is charged at cost through tax.
Health care is free at point of use, except prescriptions which are loss making overall and the balance is charged at cost through tax.

The easiest way to see the contribution of public and private and compare is to look at a private hospital and a public one.

Heart bypass operations are free on the NHS. In a private hospital, if you are not insured, you will pay around £20,000 from start to finish. This figure is arrived at by the hospital adding up what it cost them to provide the operation and adding their profit to the top of that sum. 


In the context of your use "value" has NO indication of social worth. 

Ill repeat that, because some people aren't hearing it.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS POST "VALUE" HAS NO NO NO NO INDICATION OF SOCIAL WORTH.

Clearly in the example above, both the public and the private sector nurses have done the same job and are equally to be admired. However, the work of one contributes to the funding of the public sector by the payment of tax on the profit and the other does not, it is wholly a cost to the taxpayer.


----------



## BeesKnees (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			i do believe that people who work hard to get an education should be paid more than someone that doesn't bother and works behind a counter in a shop, that is my opinion, its up to them if they want to go that route
		
Click to expand...

Seriously, can you hear yourself?!  and you wonder why people are criticising you? 

Yes some people opt not to go into higher education, many more are born into family situations that do not assist them to make the best of the opportunities available to them. 

For those of us lucky to be encouraged to do a degree, many end up working behind that shop counter. I did. I graduated in 1992 into the last recession with a very high 2.1 ( I narrowly missed a first). I assumed I'd get a good job, but instead I worked as a cleaner and a shop assistant in order to earn money.

SantaPaws is right. The reason your journey has been smoother is not that you have a Degree. It is because you did a vocational subject for a job that you could arguably have done just as well ( some would argue better) without the 
degree. 

Your dismissive attitude to other people does you a disservice.


----------



## paddy555 (13 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I have no problem with nurses - I do have a problem with a bloated, inefficient public sector, unecessary layers of underperforming middle management and lazy working practices.  I've been a solicitor in both public and private practise - in the latter, the stress is unbelievable, as not only do you have to commonly work 6 days a week for no overtime and 12 hour days, you are also expected to bring in new business!  (and no benefits and pensions).  In the public sector, my workload was so tiny as to barely occupy a 1/4 of my day, and the pension provision incredibly generous compared to the private sector - when I left after just over a year, I got a few thousand back after surrendering my pension!
		
Click to expand...


as an ex civil servant of many years I have to agree with this. (this is the civil service, I am not in a position to comment about the NHS). 
It is bloated and inefficient but it is also understaffed. The staff are not doing jobs that the public actually want ie. dealing with their queries. The staff that do deal with the queries are often not well enough trained. The obvious area that comes to mind is HMRC helplines. Many backroom HMRC staff are very well trained however the ones deployed on helplines simply haven't had the necessary comprehensive training to be effective. I know this as a result of spending rather a lot of time dealing with them, complaining about them and being made a small compensation payment recently in view of their poor service. 

Suprisingly there is a lot of stress in the civil service workforce. It is caused not by overwork but by totally inefficient senior, and to some extent, middle management. Staff are not allowed to take responsibility and initiative for their work and ideas. It is not the same stress as found in some areas of the private sector but it is problematical. 

Stress such as having to bring in new fee paying client's and having to allocate  time spent on cases does not of course exist. However there is considerable stress in the call centres due to the working practices employed. 

If senior management would only get their act together then the bloated and underperforming services could be made into efficient public services with a far more contented workforce. It would still be costly but at least it would be a lot more efficient and provide value for money. Customers would be happier with a prompt and efficient service, improved collection of outstanding revenues would help the treasury as would enhanced action on non compliance and fraud by the public. 

The problem is that  few civil service managers are actually born "managers and leaders of staff". The other problem is that many, especially senior management, have little idea of the work their staff do nor even of the work required to be done. 

As for the pensions then the gravy train has run it's course. It was nice while it lasted but the real world beckons. It wasn't always like that and I remember quite a few years ago that the pensions did not seem particuarly exceptional when compared to the private sector. In my father's generation his private sector pension made my civil service one pale into insignificance. Now though things have changed and I think it will be a long time before the "good times" return. 
It may have been better if action had been taken 10 years ago when it became obvious that the situation was not sustainable.


----------



## perfect11s (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			You know what I'm leaving this subject before i say something i shouldn't, you are incrediably rude and have just insulted every nurse that works their backsides of for other people, the amount of overtime i do unpaid is enormace, you don't know me, you don't know what is is like to work as a nurse and you get paid far more than i do. I never said private sector workers don't work hard and i never insulted any private sector workers calling them inefficent and lazy!! Your attitude is absolutely disgusting. How dare you tell me I don't do my job properly, we are very understaffed and every nurse in my team works their backsides off you horrible woman.
		
Click to expand...

 What a petulant outburst!! if this is how you respond to a well reasoned and fair post then the fact you say you are caring for the sick worries me ...


----------



## BeesKnees (13 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			Suprisingly there is a lot of stress in the civil service workforce. It is caused not by overwork but by totally inefficient senior, and to some extent, middle management. Staff are not allowed to take responsibility and initiative for their work and ideas. It is not the same stress as found in some areas of the private sector but it is problematical. .
		
Click to expand...

It's interesting you say this. I spent 4 years in adult education and found them so stressful it made me leave. It wasn't the work, the pay, the pension, which were all very good, but the public sector bureaucracy and crappy management, as well as government dictats that we had no control over.

I wonder if the focus on pay and pensions amongst public sector workers is actually a distraction from the real causes of their stress. They feel they don't have any control over much of their work, but they can take action over perceived unfairness in pay and pensions.


----------



## Queenbee87 (13 December 2011)

Mithras said:



*I have no problem with nurses - I do have a problem with a bloated, inefficient public sector, unecessary layers of underperforming middle management and lazy working practices.*  I've been a solicitor in both public and private practise - in the latter, the stress is unbelievable, as not only do you have to commonly work 6 days a week for no overtime and 12 hour days, you are also expected to bring in new business!  (and no benefits and pensions).  In the public sector, my workload was so tiny as to barely occupy a 1/4 of my day, and the pension provision incredibly generous compared to the private sector - when I left after just over a year, I got a few thousand back after surrendering my pension!
		
Click to expand...

Nursecroft- I think you may have misread/misunderstood Mithras' post. I think she meant that there are many positions in the public sector in general that aren't strictly necessary, such as some middle management jobs. I don't think she has disputed that nurses work hard at all, just that there are quite a few inefficiencies within the public sector. I think most people recognise that these problems are not the fault of the "front line" staff....

From my studies (very basic economic bits), public sectors can be inefficient and not as cost effective as they could be due to lack of competition. 

This is not a criticism of nurses.

Mithras was talking about her experience of working in the public sector which, as a solicitor is obviously going to have been different to yours as a nurse.



nursecroft said:



			You know what I'm leaving this subject before i say something i shouldn't, you are incrediably rude and have just insulted every nurse that works their backsides of for other people, the amount of overtime i do unpaid is enormace, you don't know me, you don't know what is is like to work as a nurse and you get paid far more than i do. I never said private sector workers don't work hard and i never insulted any private sector workers calling them inefficent and lazy!! Your attitude is absolutely disgusting. How dare you tell me I don't do my job properly, we are very understaffed and every nurse in my team works their backsides off you horrible woman.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Mithras (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			You know what I'm leaving this subject before i say something i shouldn't, you are incrediably rude and have just insulted every nurse that works their backsides of for other people, the amount of overtime i do unpaid is enormace, you don't know me, you don't know what is is like to work as a nurse and you get paid far more than i do. I never said private sector workers don't work hard and i never insulted any private sector workers calling them inefficent and lazy!! Your attitude is absolutely disgusting. How dare you tell me I don't do my job properly, we are very understaffed and every nurse in my team works their backsides off you horrible woman.
		
Click to expand...

I would agree with you had I said what you claim I had - unfortunately you have misread my post.  I did absolutely the opposite of what you have just accused me of.

And sorry to nit pick, but "enormace" - really?  Surely some degree of accuracy is a pre-requisite.

I agree with the poster who commented on unnecessary degrees, btw.


----------



## perfect11s (13 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I agree with the poster who commented on unnecessary degrees, btw.
		
Click to expand...

  Yes!!!  I am of an age  that if you got a degree it realy ment something and you were clever, not like now where every ****** local pollytecnic is now called a university  and gives degrees out it seems to anyone who can get there knuckes of the ground and pick up a pen..


----------



## nursecroft (13 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I would agree with you had I said what you claim I had - unfortunately you have misread my post.  I did absolutely the opposite of what you have just accused me of.

And sorry to nit pick, but "enormace" - really?  Surely some degree of accuracy is a pre-requisite.

I agree with the poster who commented on unnecessary degrees, btw.
		
Click to expand...

I had a pm from a nice a member and I'm sorry I did misread your post, its just incrediably frustrating and upsetting when you've worked hard at uni and in your career to be told basically you are worthless. I worked very hard for my degree.

Like i said I apologise for mis-reading your post but I don't take anything else back, I am a very good nurse, I'm proud of what I do and if some people here don't like what i have to say thats their problem. 

I know I do a good job and I love looking after my patients. For the odd few nasty people i have to deal with there are many many more wonderfully brave, amazing patients I have the privilidge of knowing and looking after at work. 

I only came back to apologise, won't be back again as can't stand being run down on here anymore by such bitter nasty women. I wouldn't waste your time replyig either as you are now on my ignore list.


----------



## Mrs B (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			I had a pm from a nice a member and I'm sorry I did misread your post, its just incrediably frustrating and upsetting when you've worked hard at uni and in your career to be told basically you are worthless. 

Like i said I apologise for mis-reading your post but I don't take anything else back, I am a very good nurse, I'm proud of what I do and if some people here don't like what i have to say thats their problem. 

I know I do a good job and I love looking after my patients. For the odd few nasty people i have to deal with there are many many more wonderfully brave, amazing patients I have the privilidge of knowing and looking after at work.

I only came back to apologise, won't be back again as can't stand being run down on here anymore by such bitter nasty women.
		
Click to expand...

So actually, you came back to 'apologise' for mis-reading the post of a 'bitter, nasty woman', then having issued that apology, you still throw your teddies out of your pram and flounce off? 

Having read back over your posts and the replies, I'd say that 1) if you do have a degree, then written English wasn't part of it, 2) you have totally misunderstood the entire thread to this point and 3) the chip on your shoulder is alive, well and in need of tomato ketchup.

(ETA the fact that each time after you've said you are leaving it's obvious you are still 'on-line', rather takes the wind out of your 'flounce'!)


----------



## nursecroft (13 December 2011)

Mrs B said:



			So actually, you came back to 'apologise' for mis-reading the post of a 'bitter, nasty woman', then having issued that apology, you still throw your teddies out of your pram and flounce off? 

Having read back over your posts and the replies, I'd say that 1) if you do have a degree, then written English wasn't part of it, 2) you have totally misunderstood the entire thread to this point and 3) the chip on your shoulder is alive, well and in need of tomato ketchup.

(ETA the fact that each time after you've said you are leaving it's obvious you are still 'on-line', rather takes the wind out of your 'flounce'!)
		
Click to expand...

Why do you have to be so bitchy and nasty? I apologised for mis-reading that members post. I am writing quickly on a forum not writing an english essay there is no need to be so rude.  I don't really appreciate being told my degree is un-neccessary, i hardly see how I have missed the point of the thead. I simply stated my opinion and got a lot of nasty replys from a few that think public workers are all muppets. I am online looking at other threads and trust me this is my last reply, i'm not flouncing i am human and all these insults actually do hurt and I'm really quite sick of being attacked. My ignore list is growing!! 

Me and my chip are off to nicer pastures!!!! ....Sorry 'my chip and I:' rolleyes:


----------



## Mrs B (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			Why do you have to be so bitchy and nasty? I am writing quickly on a forum not writing an english essay there is no need to be so rude.  I don't really appreciate being told my degree is un-neccessary, i hardly see how I have missed the point of the thead. I simply stated my opinion and got a lot of nasty replys from a few that think public workers are all muppets. I am online looking at other threads and trust me this is my last reply, i'm not flouncing i am human and all these insults actually do hurt and I'm really quite sick of being attacked. My ignore list is growing!! 

Me and my chip are off to nicer pastures!!!! 

Click to expand...

QED.


----------



## cptrayes (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			trust me this is my last reply,
		
Click to expand...




nursecroft said:



			I only came back to apologise, won't be back again
		
Click to expand...




nursecroft said:



			I will not be coming back hear to read your reply
		
Click to expand...



I'm on the ignore list too because I dared on another thread to ask nursecroft to substantiate her claim that she had seen several horses "ruined" by barefoot trimmers.

Don't whatever you do quote this, anyone, or she'll see it in your guote


----------



## Mithras (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			I had a pm from a nice a member and I'm sorry I did misread your post, 

Like i said I apologise for mis-reading your post. 

I only came back to apologise, won't be back again as can't stand being run down on here anymore by such bitter nasty women. I wouldn't waste your time replyig either as you are now on my ignore list.
		
Click to expand...

*Scratches head*.

Anyway, I have been finding this an enjoyable and informative discussion (especially the comments on economics), with remarkably few fallings out, considering the subject matter.


----------



## martlin (13 December 2011)

I was enjoying reading the debate here... and then nursecroft appeared 
Nursecroft, the only person rude, condescending and throwing personal insults on this thread is YOU.
I also have worked hard on my 2 degrees, but I don't feel entitled to anything on that basis.


----------



## nursecroft (13 December 2011)

deleted as can't stand anymore abuse.

I've can't seem delete my posts, i should have not voiced my opinion here. i'd just like to be left alone please.


----------



## nursecroft (13 December 2011)

posted by mistake


----------



## Oberon (13 December 2011)

I'm a nurse 
	
	
		
		
	


	





I haven't got a degree (couldn't afford the degree at the time). I worked my way through Uni by doing extra nights as a health care assistant. But we all knew we WOULD get a job as soon as we qualified. We were the last batch to walk into jobs easily.

Nursing is hard. You watch people die. You watch a teenage boy lying across the body of his mother, howling like a wounded animal. You watch the mangers treat patient's like numbers rather than humans. 

It leaves scars.

But I'll never whine about it. That's the job. And I'm honoured to do it.

Regarding pensions - I just don't know what the answer is. It all makes my head hurt. 

I'll stick to what I know - nursing and barefoot


----------



## paddy555 (13 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			It's interesting you say this. I spent 4 years in adult education and found them so stressful it made me leave. It wasn't the work, the pay, the pension, which were all very good, but the public sector bureaucracy and crappy management, as well as government dictats that we had no control over.

I wonder if the focus on pay and pensions amongst public sector workers is actually a distraction from the real causes of their stress. They feel they don't have any control over much of their work, but they can take action over perceived unfairness in pay and pensions.
		
Click to expand...


if someone comes along and says they are going to reduce your pay (to pay pension contributions) increase your retirement age or reduce your anticipated pension then it is human nature to object. Along with that you have a workforce who are extremely demoralised. I knew many staff who you would have regarded as excellent. They had the old "work ethic", cared about what they did and the service they provided. Now they want out. They simply cannot cope with the deterioration in the departments. If you take all responsibility away from people, continually and unecessarily check and double check their work, give them little stake in what they are doing then you curb all enthusiasm. 
I remember when the management techniques used in call centres started to filter through to staff. We laughed when we heard they were told what they could have on their desks almost to the point as to where they could position their cups. It quickly became obvious it was far from a joke. Is that any way to empower staff and increase productivity? 

Against that you have a backdrop of office closures. There are ways to manage difficult situations well but you always knew if there was a good way to do something and a bad way then a civil service department would manage to make the bad way ten times worse. They could be relied on to make a hash of most things. 
Against that you have the unions. As staff morale has justifiably reached rock bottom due to the crappy management and government dictats the unions, who had predicted this, have become more popular. Even more moderate staff have started to see that a lot of the union comments on working practices are justified. 
Along with that of course you have the situation that some people feel that they had little choice but to strike if they were union members. (vote, peer pressure etc)


----------



## Stacey6897 (13 December 2011)

suestowford said:



			I know I am cheating by copy & pasting but found this on bbc website. It compares the average pension paid in public sector to the average paid to private sector.

Using a mean average, some £7,800 a year is being paid in a public sector pension compared with £7,467 for a private sector salary-linked pension. 


Not that much difference is there?
		
Click to expand...

The difference is that typically a private sector worker will not be able to join a final salary pension, because they are too expensive.  Something like 1 in 10 private sector employees will have the option.  

A typical private sector pension would be around 1100pa, a typical public sector pension would be around 5400pa.


We've had a perfect storm of people living longer, which makes annuities more expensive, also the record unpredicted and unprecedented low interest rates which no actuaries predicted, meaning that not enough has been invested in the pots which will be needed to pay the more expensive annuities.  

The private sector has dealt with this by closing final salary schemes, the public sector is increasing contributions and putting up retirement ages.  Private sector workers don't often get consulted before the benefits they were promised when they joined the company are removed.


----------



## Mrs B (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			deleted as can't stand anymore abuse.

I've can't seem delete my posts, i should have not voiced my opinion here. i'd just like to be left alone please.
		
Click to expand...

I'm probably on your 'user ignore' list by now, but if I'm not, how about not running away; stand your ground and learn to debate, not scarper when someone disagrees with you? 

We object to being called 'bitchy and nasty' just because we disagree with you and put across another point of view just as you disagree with what we say: that's debate and that's life.

If you can learn to debate, listen, give and take within the safe confines of an internet forum, trust me; it will help you stand your ground outside to much greater effect.


----------



## paddy555 (13 December 2011)

I'll stick to what I know - nursing and barefoot

 is nowhere safe from barefoot!


----------



## dieseldog (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			Why do you have to be so bitchy and nasty? I apologised for mis-reading that members post. I am writing quickly on a forum not writing an english essay there is no need to be so rude.  I don't really appreciate being told my degree is un-neccessary, i hardly see how I have missed the point of the thead. I simply stated my opinion and got a lot of nasty replys from a few that think public workers are all muppets. I am online looking at other threads and trust me this is my last reply, i'm not flouncing i am human and all these insults actually do hurt and I'm really quite sick of being attacked. My ignore list is growing!! 

Me and my chip are off to nicer pastures!!!! ....Sorry 'my chip and I:' rolleyes:
		
Click to expand...

Nursecroft - when these guys upset you just remember that there are paying your wages and your 'gold plated' pension and they hate it - you really do have the last laugh in all of this


----------



## Stacey6897 (13 December 2011)

Dear me, seems I missed the point entirely!  I start rambling on about pensions and guff on a thread that's something about flouncing, barefoot nurses?  Can anyone enlighten me


----------



## BeesKnees (13 December 2011)

nursecroft said:



			I don't really appreciate being told my degree is un-neccessary, i hardly see how I have missed the point of the thead. I simply stated my opinion and got a lot of nasty replys from a few that think public workers are all muppets.
		
Click to expand...

1. Most degrees are fairly useless let's face it. Not sure mine ever made much contribution to my career. Honestly, do you think you learnt anything really useful on your degree that nurses in years before didn't learn?

2. You missed the point of the thread becaude funnily enough it wasn't about you! It was about the general issues surrounding the financing and affordability of public sector pensions and the contrast with private sector pay and pensions.

3. You came on, gave your opinion and then had a strop because people 
disagreed with you. I believe only one person used the term muppets, but you insisted on taking it all very personally, making crass remarks about people without degrees who who god forbid, work on a cash desk, and accusing us of being 'rude, bitchy and horrible women'.

Frankly you have behaved like a spoilt child, and have given a very bad impression of public sector workers. Luckily I know a lot of public sector workers who aren't like that.

I suggest you add me to your ignore list, go away and grow up.


----------



## Mrs B (13 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			Nursecroft - when these guys upset you just remember that there are paying your wages and your 'gold plated' pension and they hate it - you really do have the last laugh in all of this 

Click to expand...

And that's something she should be proud of?


----------



## MerrySherryRider (13 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			Nursecroft - when these guys upset you just remember that there are paying your wages and your 'gold plated' pension and they hate it - you really do have the last laugh in all of this 

Click to expand...

How very perverse.


----------



## BeesKnees (13 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			Nursecroft - when these guys upset you just remember that there are paying your wages and your 'gold plated' pension and they hate it - you really do have the last laugh in all of this 

Click to expand...

Nice. 

Is it just me or do many of the pro public sector posts consist of idiotic remarks which just make the posters look selfish. Or a bit thick


----------



## Oberon (13 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			I'll stick to what I know - nursing and barefoot

 is nowhere safe from barefoot! 

Click to expand...

Never safe. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





See how I can introduce barefoot into a thread on pensions. Marvel at me.


----------



## TheBlackMoth (13 December 2011)

Dirtymare said:



			Exactly.
Your local council is gradually divesting all services. In fact Selby council only have 14 employees. All services have been put to private companies. The health service will not be far behind.
		
Click to expand...

Actually - this is not quite the truth.  Council staff have been moved into an Arms Length Management Company - which is still effectively being employed by the council.  Now they are looking to outsource some services - but they don't really only have 14 staff.


----------



## cptrayes (13 December 2011)

Oberon said:



			Never safe. 
	
	
		
		
	


	





See how I can introduce barefoot into a thread on pensions. Marvel at me. 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Click to expand...

Ah, but Oberon, are your patients barefoot or shoeless  ?


----------



## Oberon (13 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Ah, but Oberon, are your patients barefoot or shoeless  ?
		
Click to expand...

My current patients (at the custody suite) are all shoeless so they can't hurt you when they kick you....or hurt themselves with their laces..

So I'm not sure


----------



## cptrayes (13 December 2011)

Oberon said:



			My current patients (at the custody suite) are all shoeless so they can't hurt you when they kick you....or hurt themselves with their laces..

So I'm not sure 
	
	
		
		
	


	




Click to expand...

I think they are probably shoeless, in that they want shoes but temporarily they aren't wearing any. Can you send them out to run over a gravel driveway to see if they've transitioned yet?


ps I have enormous respect for mental health nurses, that's a job and a half!


----------



## Oberon (14 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			I think they are probably shoeless, in that they want shoes but temporarily they aren't wearing any. Can you send them out to run over a gravel driveway to see if they've transitioned yet?


ps I have enormous respect for mental health nurses, that's a job and a half!
		
Click to expand...

Nah - not mental health - just a bog standard nurse/drone. 

And I'm paid well. I feel respected. And I don't believe I have it harder than everyone else


----------



## cptrayes (14 December 2011)

Oberon said:



			Nah - not mental health - just a bog standard nurse/drone. 

And I'm paid well. I feel respected. And I don't believe I have it harder than everyone else

Click to expand...

We should probably stop diverting this thread but why have you got people in custody???? A personal fetish, or are you working in a Police Station??? A perk of the job that no-one told us about? Come on, fess up!


----------



## Oberon (14 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			We should probably stop diverting this thread but why have you got people in custody???? A personal fetish, or are you working in a Police Station??? A perk of the job that no-one told us about? Come on, fess up!
		
Click to expand...

My title is Custody and Forensics Nurse - so in the Police Stations across the county, I (try to) ensure the medical well being and safety of the detained persons, assess and treat the staff when injured and collect forensic samples when required.

The only perks are that I can read books on hooves when it's quiet

I went to university for three years, worked my arse off for the last 8 years to learn everything I could and be the best I could be......and the custody staff sent me to the shop to get them biscuits at 2.30am the other night


----------



## rucky (14 December 2011)

Yeah right Wundahorse! Pension would somehow be the 'fruit' of your hard work!


----------



## fburton (14 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS POST "VALUE" HAS NO NO NO NO INDICATION OF SOCIAL WORTH.
		
Click to expand...

So in the context of this discussion "value" shouldn't be given a value judgement (so to speak) - there isn't anything inherently right or wrong about it, it's just an indication of monetary value, i.e. what people are prepared to pay for some good or service, right? Does that mean those who create it are not to be considered superior to those who don't, and therefore it would be unfair to scold or criticize those who don't create it? If not, the implication would seem to be that the private sector - and the people who work in it - are superior in terms of social worth to those in the public sector - and I think you are clearly saying this isn't the case!

Another thought/question... A lot of our current economic problems seem to stem from debt - particularly that which can't be serviced and hence is at high risk of being defaulted upon. (I hope I've got the terminology right!) What I am wondering is: why don't governments get together and decide to completely write off all unserviceable national debts amongst themselves (a la Solon the Athenian(!) lawmaker)? Well, clearly there must be some drawback to this cunning plan, otherwise they would have done it already! But there hasn't even been any talk of anything like that. So which countries or groups of people would be so severely disadvantaged by a wholesale debt write-off to make it an unthinkable act? Does it mean that debt is, after all, _necessary_ - even _desirable_?? And if that's the case, perhaps we should all stop grumbling about it!

ETA: Related to the last point, this might give you a chuckle... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5QwKEwo4Bc


----------



## cptrayes (14 December 2011)

fburton said:



			So in the context of this discussion "value" shouldn't be given a value judgement (so to speak) - there isn't anything inherently right or wrong about it, it's just an indication of monetary value, i.e. what people are prepared to pay for some good or service, right? Does that mean those who create it are not to be considered superior to those who don't, and therefore it would be unfair to scold or criticize those who don't create it?
		
Click to expand...

Quite. Totally unfair to scold them on the basis of being non profit making. Absolutely ridiculous, in fact. But to scold them for wanting other people to pay for them to have something of immense value when the payer cannot have that themselves and may in fact earn much, much less in salary too - that's perfectly fair.



fburton said:



			If not, the implication would seem to be that the private sector - and the people who work in it - are superior in terms of social worth to those in the public sector - and I think you are clearly saying this isn't the case!
		
Click to expand...

Clearly not the case. 





fburton said:



			Another thought/question... A lot of our current economic problems seem to stem from debt - particularly that which can't be serviced and hence is at high risk of being defaulted upon. (I hope I've got the terminology right!) What I am wondering is: why don't governments get together and decide to completely write off all unserviceable national debts amongst themselves (a la Solon the Athenian(!) lawmaker)?
		
Click to expand...

You're a bright cookie! This is just the question that my husband and I have been asking. I think it will happen, we can see no other way out of the current mess. If Greece owes Italy a million, Italy owes Spain a million and Spain owes Greece a million, and that's not far from the truth of it, then all three need to agree that no-one owes anyone anything. Of course it's not that easy  Italy lent the money to Greece for two years at 5%, borrowed money off Spain for one year at 4% and Spain borrowed from Greece for three years at 2% and that all has to be unravelled.




fburton said:



			Well, clearly there must be some drawback to this cunning plan, otherwise they would have done it already! But there hasn't even been any talk of anything like that. So which countries or groups of people would be so severely disadvantaged by a wholesale debt write-off to make it an unthinkable act? Does it mean that debt is, after all, _necessary_ - even _desirable_?? And if that's the case, perhaps we should all stop grumbling about it!

ETA: Related to the last point, this might give you a chuckle... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5QwKEwo4Bc

Click to expand...



Debt is not sustainable when everyone has overborrowed, as we are seeing now! It depends on SOMEONE having enough money to bail everyone out. And since a GERMAN bank has only just in the last day or two had to be bailed out, I think your solution is coming quicker than you realised !!



ps those clips are BRILLIANT because they are TRUE !!


----------



## Mithras (14 December 2011)

fburton said:



			So in the context of this discussion "value" shouldn't be given a value judgement (so to speak) - there isn't anything inherently right or wrong about it, it's just an indication of monetary value, i.e. what people are prepared to pay for some good or service, right? Does that mean those who create it are not to be considered superior to those who don't, and therefore it would be unfair to scold or criticize those who don't create it? If not, the implication would seem to be that the private sector - and the people who work in it - are superior in terms of social worth to those in the public sector - and I think you are clearly saying this isn't the case!
		
Click to expand...

I think the more common arguement is actually the opposite!  That public sector workers are somehow more morally worthy than private sector workers, and their worth should not be evaulated in monetary terms, hence if they do not get as high employment benefits as they and their unions believe they deserve, they have the right (morally) to strike and inconvenience millions.  Particularly if someone says they are a nurse (bad example perhaps and I'm not trying to pick on anyone), simply because they do a caring job, they are supposed somehow to be beyond questions.  But lots of other people do caring jobs too, and people who don't do that line of work aren't somehow less worthy either...

Is not a huge part of the problem that the public sector has snowballed in recent years and now employs a large trench of unncessary workers.  ie unneccessary for the provision of good, basic, essential services which should be its job, not interfering in the private lives of its citizens.  It might not be so bad in England and Wales as in Scotland, but in the latter a third of all employees work in the public sector, which is ridiculously high.

And of course to change it, means losing votes, and losing the votes of the relatives dependent on these salaries.


----------



## at work (14 December 2011)

..., but it's only a small part of what is wrong with Public Sector pensions. The problem is that we are living too long. People are now routinely living 25 - 30 years after their retirement date and that is, quite simply, unaffordable unless you save about half what you earn.

True we are all living longer/. Trouble is that the public sector - who DO pay for their pensions, it doesn't all come from your purse - are not only being asked to work more years, pay more into the pension pot they are then being told they must then accept smaller pensions in return. Fair? 

Ther other thing the Government never mention is that the longer we work the shorter our lives are likely to become. Statistically those forced to work extra years die sooner than those who retire early. So many of us (Private and Public) who end up working until we are 70 probably will die in harness and never see a penny of their pension.

That is what the savings never look at - estimates are based on people living longer but we might not. 

Also, anyone in the Private sector who has ever been given an end of year salary bonus or benefits from having a company car can stop complaining about pubic sector workers - those are luxuries that don't exist. It is all swings and roundabouts, what you gain in one area you lose in another.


----------



## Mithras (14 December 2011)

at work said:



			..., but it's only a small part of what is wrong with Public Sector pensions. The problem is that we are living too long. 

That is what the savings never look at - estimates are based on people living longer but we might not.
		
Click to expand...

Also I guess we have more people of working age on benefits now, not only not contributing but taking away from the pot.  

Remember too that in the past, plenty of people too early retirement from public sector posts.  I worked alongside someone who had retired at 52 on full pension, only to be taken on immediately as a self employed consultant at a higher rate.  This is not uncommon.  People used to retire in their early fifties or even earlier on full or pretty near full pensions!



at work said:



			Also, anyone in the Private sector who has ever been given an end of year salary bonus or benefits from having a company car can stop complaining about pubic sector workers - those are luxuries that don't exist. It is all swings and roundabouts, what you gain in one area you lose in another.
		
Click to expand...

It used to be the case.  You now pay swingeing tax on company cars.  Likewise now statistics actually show that public sector workers are paid more in many fields than private sector workers in the same line of work - the arguement for higher pensions based on lower pay simply doesn't wash any longer.


----------



## BeesKnees (14 December 2011)

at work said:



			Trouble is that the public sector - who DO pay for their pensions, it doesn't all come from your purse - are not only being asked to work more years, pay more into the pension pot they are then being told they must then accept smaller pensions in return. Fair?
		
Click to expand...

Please read the posts from SantaPaws to see how you actually DON'T pay anything toward your pensions.

But even if you did - even if you paid for all of it yourselves, if the maths doesn't add up, then yes it is fair to have to pay more, work longer and take less. Just as if a private sector workers does not have a big enough pension pot, they too have to work longer, and/or pay higher contributions, and/or accept a lower amount. 

No one is stealing your pension money. There simply is not enough in the pot to pay what as originally estimated. Why is that so hard to understand? And why is it that you feel that the general taxpayer should make up the deficit?


----------



## BeesKnees (14 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I think the more common arguement is actually the opposite!  That public sector workers are somehow more morally worthy than private sector workers........Particularly if someone says they are a nurse (bad example perhaps and I'm not trying to pick on anyone), simply because they do a caring job, they are supposed somehow to be beyond questions.  But lots of other people do caring jobs too, and people who don't do that line of work aren't somehow less worthy either....
		
Click to expand...

I think this is at the heart of the issue. There is an entrenched belief amongst people in 'caring' public sector jobs that they are doing a more important job than anyone else and therefore deserve better pay and conditions. They might not say it out loud, but attempts to justify striking with arguments about how hard they work in a caring job and dismissive talk of  private sector 'pen pushing in an office' would appear back this up.

I think most frontline public sector workers do indeed work very hard in vital jobs, and should be paid a decent amount, but if pensions are no longer affordable, what can we as a society do? Perhaps secretly they think all private sector workers should just pay more tax?


----------



## Wundahorse (14 December 2011)

The reality is that most front line staff do indeed work very hard,often for a basic salary without all the add ons,such as overtime,as previous generations enjoyed.The pension for these staff is not always great.However,there are many managerial people in positions most front line staff feel is unjustified and over paid,and who make life very difficult for those actually trying to deliver a service.A great deal of money could be saved if these positions were jettisoned.They have no concept about what front line staff are struggling with among all the sweeping cut backs in services,and most simply do not care,as long as their position is safe.I know of one high ranking Director of Social care who is on a big salary(nearly £200,0000),who is so inept that she is being asked to leave,but because she has a contract,she is being paid of somewhere in the region of one million pounds.Now that is total bad management,and a huge waste of public funds.If only i had the NHS budget,i could save billions,and spend wisely on essential staff only.


----------



## cptrayes (14 December 2011)

at work said:



			it doesn't all come from your purse
		
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Please read the thread




at work said:



			So many of us (Private and Public) who end up working until we are 70 probably will die in harness and never see a penny of their pension.
		
Click to expand...

When pensions were introduced men retired at 65 and were dead before they were 70. Currently a man retires at 65 is likely to live until he is about 80. That isn't going to change because even if retiring later was to bring it back a year or two, advances in medical science are going to push it out even further.



at work said:



			Also, anyone in the Private sector who has ever been given an end of year salary bonus or benefits from having a company car can stop complaining about pubic sector workers - those are luxuries that don't exist. It is all swings and roundabouts, what you gain in one area you lose in another.
		
Click to expand...

The value of a company car bears no relationship to the cost of provision of a pension like the public sector pensions and is in any case taxed as salary.  Many public sector workers receive essential user car allowances which pay for them to run a car, leaving them to pay only for the fuel of their private mileage, almost as valuable as a company car. 

A bonus is just salary, taxed as salary.  

The fact is that most public sector salaries are, after several years of the private sector tightening its belts, higher than the salary for an equivalent job in the private sector before one even starts to count the pension. At the moment, the swings are still swinging but the roundabouts went into reverse some time ago.


----------



## paddy555 (14 December 2011)

at work said:



			..., 

True we are all living longer/. Trouble is that the public sector - who DO pay for their pensions, it doesn't all come from your purse - are not only being asked to work more years, pay more into the pension pot they are then being told they must then accept smaller pensions in return. Fair? 

Ther other thing the Government never mention is that the longer we work the shorter our lives are likely to become. Statistically those forced to work extra years die sooner than those who retire early. So many of us (Private and Public) who end up working until we are 70 probably will die in harness and never see a penny of their pension.

That is what the savings never look at - estimates are based on people living longer but we might not. 

Also, anyone in the Private sector who has ever been given an end of year salary bonus or benefits from having a company car can stop complaining about pubic sector workers - those are luxuries that don't exist. It is all swings and roundabouts, what you gain in one area you lose in another.
		
Click to expand...

no it is not fair but it IS what is rapidly becoming reality. If the system was to remain on the same level as at present where would the money come from? From the taxpayer obviously but there just isn't enough. 
You are correct that if the pension age increases then some people will die before they get their pension be it due to overwork or simply illness. Those in government pension schemes however do have widows pensions and other benefits. I do agree though that is not much consolation to the deceased. 


I believe that in addition to expecting a pension people are also going to have to take more responsibility to save to fund their retirement be it through property, ISAs or other investments. Part of the problem seems to be that people are unwilling to do this prefering to spend rather than save. I appreciate that savings rates are poor and provide little incentive but people are going to have to take more responsibility to fund their old age. 
There has been far too buying things on credit and living beyond our means over the last few years. I can see that with easy credit that was tempting. 

As for your comment on salary bonuses then you cannot make blanket statements. Bonuses are suject to tax and NI anyway but many workers salary package is based on a lower salary and performance bonus. As for company cars then again employees provided with a company car available for private use (which I presume you are talking about) are taxed on this car benefit and on car fuel benefit.


----------



## Wundahorse (14 December 2011)

Some people will never contribute in any way to the economy,pensions etc as they are the long term unemployed,and this pattern is familial.The economy subsidises these folk,and then pays even more when they need care;i.e.care homes,while those who save have to sell their homes and raid savings to fund care needs.I have sympathy for those who have severe and enduring illness and disability which may prevent them from working and contributing,but i resent funding other peoples drug,alcohol and unhealthy lifestyles.The Govt. could act here to make such people do voluntary work,at least, as a means of contributing.I speak through experience as i deal with these people every day in  my professional capacity,and feel quite exasperated by their lack of motivation,and expectation that the country owe's them something.I can predict my pension pot will be eroded if i need care,regardless of the fact that i save for the future,and have my pension,while some people will get everything funded by the state.


----------



## Horsey_dreams (14 December 2011)

Public sector workers are unhappy because what they signed up for has changed- regardless of if they paid into it or not, their pension is being attacked, for many of them it is too late to start paying into a private pension. How is that fair? What will they take away next? When money needs to be saved it is always the poorest who are attacked, the top heavy management will be fine. We can afford to send aid overseas, and to fund the 2012 Olympics, yet we will take away the pensions of our front line public sector workers. And you can bet one of the 'big 6' energy providers (my employer) has piggy-backed onto this, despite huge profits last year we received a 2% pay increase, (strangely top management got a much higher % increase) we are told to feel lucky we even have a job as public sector workers got no rise. Well guess what, we are not public sector, we make a profit and we want a pay rise that reflects this, same as we are not public sector, so i will not be rubbing my hands with glee because they are loosing their so called 'gold plated pension'.. now my employer has announced they are looking at our pensions too..


----------



## cptrayes (14 December 2011)

Horsey_dreams said:



			Public sector workers are unhappy because what they signed up for has changed- regardless of if they paid into it or not, their pension is being attacked, for many of them it is too late to start paying into a private pension. How is that fair?
		
Click to expand...

It isn't fair. It's what happened to private sector and personal pensions when Gordon Brown took £5 billion a year out of them several years ago. I personally lost an awful lot of money that I was too old to recover.



Horsey_dreams said:



			strangely top management got a much higher % increase.
		
Click to expand...

This is completely wrong but a different issue. It needs sorting.


Tell me, do you think it is right that someone who works on a till in a Supermarket paid £11,000 a year should pay tax to enable a public sector worker to retire earlier than they can on a pension that they can't dream of?

Your own pension is a hangover from when Electricity was a nationalised industry. I'm sorry, but you had better plan that you are going to lose it like the rest of the private sector.


----------



## Mithras (14 December 2011)

Horsey_dreams said:



			Public sector workers are unhappy because what they signed up for has changed- regardless of if they paid into it or not, their pension is being attacked, for many of them it is too late to start paying into a private pension. How is that fair? What will they take away next?
		
Click to expand...

I think this post illustrates how sheltered some of the public sector (or quasi public sector, dependent on public sector contracts) have been from the recession and economic reality so far.  What do you think happens in the private sector?  You can pay into a private pension diligently for years, and because the stock market underperforms just as you are about to retire, end up with less than you paid in!  

(and does anyone really sign up for a "job for life" any more?).



Horsey_dreams said:



			despite huge profits last year we received a 2% pay increase, (strangely top management got a much higher % increase) we are told to feel lucky we even have a job as public sector workers got no rise.
		
Click to expand...

My husband hasn't had a pay rise for 3 years!  Along with everyone in his company.  But at least they haven't been made redundant.


----------



## fburton (15 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			It isn't fair. It's what happened to private sector and personal pensions when Gordon Brown took £5 billion a year out of them several years ago. I personally lost an awful lot of money that I was too old to recover.
		
Click to expand...

The money our govt spend on chasing non-existent WMD and regime-meddling in Iraq would have come in handy, not to mention the cost in lives. "As of June 2010 UK costs exceeded *£20bn* for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined." I have a little more sympathy for Al Qaeda chasing but there is no denying the Afghanistan adventure is a hugely expensive. But that is a different issue...


----------



## Maggie2009 (15 December 2011)

I know full well that the nhs pension changed in 1997 to an average salay scheme so the fact is the pensions have altered despite public perception.As to comapring a supermarket worker,with for example,a Doctor or a Nurse,there are huge differences i training,responsibilities and roles,and these jobs recieve a salary to reflect this.Supermarket staff are not responsible or accountable for peoples lives.When all you critical and negative people who need the Nhs,i bet none of you think about public service pensions at that point,as you will be considering your own health needs first.All nhs staff have had a pay freeze for the last three years with more to come,and staff are being downgraded to save the nhs money.So please private sector people,stop all the whinging.


----------



## Oliver12 (15 December 2011)

Maggie2009 said:



			As to comapring a supermarket worker,with for example,a Doctor or a Nurse,there are huge differences i training,responsibilities and roles,and these jobs recieve a salary to reflect this.Supermarket staff are not responsible or accountable for peoples lives.When all you critical and negative people who need the Nhs,i bet none of you think about public service pensions at that point,as you will be considering your own health needs first.All nhs staff have had a pay freeze for the last three years with more to come,and staff are being downgraded to save the nhs money.So please private sector people,stop all the whinging.
		
Click to expand...

We're not just talking about doctors and nurses though are we? It is all public sector workers. My daughter works in local government and she's astonished by the amount of 'dead wood' drifting around. Her office manager has literally nothing to do (and she knows it) and spends all her time trying to look busy. I bet she's terrified that eventually they'll cotton on. I wouldn't like to think how much she earns and as she's due to retire in a couple of years after a very cosy career no doubt she's got a very good pension.


----------



## Mithras (15 December 2011)

Oliver12 said:



			We're not just talking about doctors and nurses though are we? It is all public sector workers. My daughter works in local government and she's astonished by the amount of 'dead wood' drifting around. Her office manager has literally nothing to do (and she knows it) and spends all her time trying to look busy. I bet she's terrified that eventually they'll cotton on. I wouldn't like to think how much she earns and as she's due to retire in a couple of years after a very cosy career no doubt she's got a very good pension.
		
Click to expand...

Thats actually why I left my job for a local authority.  It was a very easy job but actually rather badly paid for what I did.  The reason it was badly paid is that the department was staffed by dead wood, everyone else was in their mid fifties or older except the re-employed pensioner-consultant (who didn't even have a practising certificate and therefore couldn't do half the job).  Their skills were quite out of date, their working practises poor, I was not learning anything but bad habits and it was so boring, it was soul destroying.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (15 December 2011)

Maggie2009 said:



			When all you critical and negative people who need the Nhs,i bet none of you think about public service pensions at that point,as you will be considering your own health needs first.All nhs staff have had a pay freeze for the last three years with more to come,and staff are being downgraded to save the nhs money.So please private sector people,stop all the whinging.
		
Click to expand...

Lets not cannonize all NHS staff just yet.
 I was a qualified nurse in the NHS and some nurses I wouldn't leave in charge of a sick dog, like the nurse who  ignored my mothers requests for the toilet, left her to soil herself, develop pressure sores and thought that 50mls (yes, 50 mls) of fluid intake was sufficient over a 24 hr period.
 He wasn't worth his pension.


----------



## Maggie2009 (15 December 2011)

I do appreciate there are poorly performing staff around,and some who should never have trained as Doctors or Nurses.I also know there are lots of staff in public sector jobs(not specifically professional ones) who are in pointless positions,doing very little to support the services they work in.I agree such people need to be weeded out.However,at the front line it can be hard,and ofted staff are subjected to violence,hostility and aggresion.I know of one Social Worker who was recently stabbed in the chest,narrowly missing his heart.This is one example of many,not to mention dealing with the drunks and drug addicts who present themselves at A&E.Adding to the woes are  layer upon layer of bullying managers who make staff work in difficult situations,often understaffed and under resourced,while they have the luxury of going home and swithing off for the day.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

Maggie2009 said:



			I know full well that the nhs pension changed in 1997 to an average salay scheme so the fact is the pensions have altered despite public perception.As to comapring a supermarket worker,with for example,a Doctor or a Nurse,there are huge differences i training,responsibilities and roles,and these jobs recieve a salary to reflect this.Supermarket staff are not responsible or accountable for peoples lives.When all you critical and negative people who need the Nhs,i bet none of you think about public service pensions at that point,as you will be considering your own health needs first.All nhs staff have had a pay freeze for the last three years with more to come,and staff are being downgraded to save the nhs money.So please private sector people,stop all the whinging.
		
Click to expand...

Some public sector pensions changed to average salary from final salary. We know that. Hardly any people in the private sector have a pension linked to their salary at all. I do not think that you understand how valuable a defined benefit scheme is. 

Do you realise that a private sector worker in a money purchase scheme does not know until 30 days before he takes his first pension payment how much it is going to be? 

And that if the stock market collapses 31 days before he is due to take his pension he will be a lot worse off than somenone who retired a day earlier than he did? 

And that if he gets too sick to work before his retirement date, he can't have his pension at all, or if he can the rate is slashed? 

And that he would need a fund of £100,000 for every £4,000  of your pension to get the same benefit, not including widow's pension or retirement on ill health?

I think it is perfectly valid to compare a supermarket worker with a nurse. As you so rightly point out, the difference in the level of responsibility is reflected in the SALARY. Roughly £11,000 a year for a till jockey and £30,000 for a nursing sister.

I do not think it is ethical for a supermarket worker on £11,000 a year to have to pay tax to  contribute to a public sector worker's pension on top, when defined benefit pensions have pretty much disappeared from the private sector.

We are not whinging, we are trying to explain why we think it was completely immoral for public sector workers to strike to try to retain pensions which the country can no longer afford to pay because we are all living too long. 

Yet again we have a response here as if we are attacking nurses. We aren't. Most of them do a wonderful job. That does not mean that it was right for a nurse to strike last week.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

Maggie2009 said:



			However,at the front line it can be hard,and ofted staff are subjected to violence,hostility and aggresion.This is one example of many,not to mention dealing with the drunks and drug addicts who present themselves at A&E.Adding to the woes are  layer upon layer of bullying managers who make staff work in difficult situations,often understaffed and under resourced,while they have the luxury of going home and swithing off for the day.
		
Click to expand...


Do you think experiences like this are the sole preserve of the Public Sector?

Bailiffs face death threats. Security staff in shopping centres are regularly assaulted. Shop workers face daily abuse from customers. Even MacDonalds run so tight on the staffing those guys in the kitchens run their socks off. Call centres have rightly been described as the "dark satanic mills" of the 21st century. Most people have had a bully as a boss at one time or another. At one time my manager bawled at me "don't bullshit me!" in front of customers. I wasn't, I had just told him a truth he did not want to hear.

You are no different from the rest of us. You should not have pensions that the rest of us cannot hope for, especially when you expect us to pay for them. 

(They should not be removed overnight, that would be very unfair, but they must be faded out over time or that would also be very unfair).


----------



## BeesKnees (15 December 2011)

Maggie2009 said:



			I do appreciate there are poorly performing staff around,and some who should never have trained as Doctors or Nurses.I also know there are lots of staff in public sector jobs(not specifically professional ones) who are in pointless positions,doing very little to support the services they work in.I agree such people need to be weeded out.However,at the front line it can be hard,and ofted staff are subjected to violence,hostility and aggresion.I know of one Social Worker who was recently stabbed in the chest,narrowly missing his heart.This is one example of many,not to mention dealing with the drunks and drug addicts who present themselves at A&E.Adding to the woes are  layer upon layer of bullying managers who make staff work in difficult situations,often understaffed and under resourced,while they have the luxury of going home and swithing off for the day.
		
Click to expand...

There are undoubtedly many issues with the public sector, but they bear no relation to the issue we are discussing, which is the unaffordability of public sector pensions.

We keep hearing how the 'attack' on pensions is 'not fair'. What is actually not fair, is that public sector workers get a defined payout worth up to 20 times their salary over the course of their retirement. That is you get a guaranteed amount, and the only way that can be guaranteed is by it being funded through other people's taxes. You carry no investment risk. 

To quote a good example, a state worker can contribute a total of £46,000 over their career and get a pension of £26,000 per year. For a private sector worker to get the same pension of £26,000 per year, they would need a pot of £900,000. Even if they got a 5% return on their investment they'd still need to contribute at least £300,000 over the course of their career!!

Now tell me what's 'not fair'


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			Even if they got a 5% return on their investment
		
Click to expand...


And that 5% has to be ON TOP of inflation, and that kind of growth has not been achievable with a private pension for over ten years. Many pension pots are now smaller than they were ten years ago.


----------



## BeesKnees (15 December 2011)

Just in case that wasn't clear enough Maggie2009, what that meant was that for a public sector worker and I to get the same pension, I would have to contribute at least 6 times more than them, and take a risk on the stock market performing well with no guarantees.


----------



## BeesKnees (15 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			And that 5% has to be ON TOP of inflation, and that kind of growth has not been achievable with a private pension for over ten years. Many pension pots are now smaller than they were ten years ago.
		
Click to expand...

Yep. My pension pot (actually its so pathetic its more of a thimble ) is worth less this year than it was worth last year. 

It's so frustrating that public sec workers do not seem to have a clue just how lucky they are


----------



## perfect11s (15 December 2011)

Maggie2009 said:



			I know full well that the nhs pension changed in 1997 to an average salay scheme so the fact is the pensions have altered despite public perception.As to comapring a supermarket worker,with for example,a Doctor or a Nurse,there are huge differences i training,responsibilities and roles,and these jobs recieve a salary to reflect this.Supermarket staff are not responsible or accountable for peoples lives.When all you critical and negative people who need the Nhs,i bet none of you think about public service pensions at that point,as you will be considering your own health needs first.All nhs staff have had a pay freeze for the last three years with more to come,and staff are being downgraded to save the nhs money.So please private sector people,stop all the whinging.
		
Click to expand...

CH rist!!!!!??? you are digging a bigger hole!!!! We dont believe you are badly paid or have a poor pension and we are sick of the unions picking fights just because their puppet labour goverment isnt in power anymore!!! yawn so they throw all the toys out of the pram .sorry public sector have you heard the expresion lions lead by donkeys..???? dont let these marxist cretins sorry I mean champagne socilists  union barrons screw you .........


----------



## BeesKnees (15 December 2011)

Hey here's some more boring stats from the Treasury

Expenditure on pensions was £32 billion in 2008/09, an increase of a third over the last decade. This is about two-thirds of the cost of the entire Basic State Pension.
Costs have risen very significantly in recent decades &#8211; currently close to 2% of GDP &#8211; in 1980 it was below 1.2% and in 1970 it was around 0.9%.
The Whole of Government accounts show public service pensions liabilities are over £1.1 trillion.* Effectively, the entire education budget for more than twenty years.
In the 1970s a 60 year old could expect to live for a further 18 years, today the equivalent figure is 28 years.
When it started, members of the Teachers&#8217; Pension Scheme put in the same as the taxpayer &#8211; 5% each. Today, current members pay 6.4%, with employers contributing more than double - 14.1%.
NHS employee contributions vary from 5.5 to 8.5%, whereas the employer contributes 14%.
Civil Service employees contribute between 1.5 and 3.5%, whereas the employer contributes 19%.
85% of public sector employees have employer sponsored pension provision, compared to just 35% in the private sector.

And of course when it talks about the employer, it does of course mean the tax payer....


----------



## at work (15 December 2011)

Of course you are right - the tax payer is the employer. Public sector means thousands of people from bin men to top paid civil servants. 

The "gold plated pension" is related to what they earn - and how long they have been in their job. Gold plated perhaps for the minority of top civil servants who went straight to civil service after uni. and stayed there. For the majority who scraped a few years service in a poorly paid job it isn't exicitng money. 

After working 15 years in 'public sector' (and in my case quite a well paid job, relatively speaking) I'll get about 9k per year in my inflated pension pot - is that really so exciting?

And edited again to add that it will cost me about 1.5k in personal contributions this year and public servants do pay tax too.


----------



## BeesKnees (15 December 2011)

at work said:



			Of course you are right - the tax payer is the employer. Public sector means thousands of people from bin men to top paid civil servants. 

The "gold plated pension" is related to what they earn - and how long they have been in their job. Gold plated perhaps for the minority of top civil servants who went straight to civil service after uni. and stayed there. For the majority who scraped a few years service in a poorly paid job it isn't exicitng money. 

After working 15 years in 'public sector' (and in my case quite a well paid job, relatively speaking) I'll get about 9k per year in my inflated pension pot - is that really so exciting?

And edited again to add that it will cost me about 1.5k in personal 
contributions this year.
		
Click to expand...

 The term 'gold plated' does nit refer to the amount of pension. It relates to the fact that your pension payout is linked to your salary, is guaranteed and is heavily subsidised. You do not get less if the stock market performance is poor. NONE of this applies to private non occupational pensions which is the type most of us have. 

In other words my employer does not have a pension scheme that I can pay 
into, and which he also contributes to.

To get your guaranteed £9,000 per year pension I would have to pay 6 times 
as much as you do.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

at work said:



			I'll get about 9k per year in my inflated pension pot - is that really so exciting? And edited again to add that it will cost me about 1.5k in personal contributions this year
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it's very exciting to a private sector worker.

To get your pension cost me £200,000 (all my own money, no employer contributions. I saved an average of 33% of my earnings for 30 years). AND mine is not index linked. If I'd had it index linked it would have cost twice as much.




at work said:



			and public servants do pay tax too.
		
Click to expand...

Public servants do not contribute one penny towards the cost of the public sector, including their own pension. It is ALL financed by the private sector. If you doubt me please read all my other postings on this thread and you will see why.  Health warning:  This is NOT a judgement on the social value of the public sector, it's just a fact of how it is financed.


----------



## Anglebracket (15 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Public servants do not contribute one penny towards the cost of the public sector, including their own pension. It is ALL financed by the private sector. If you doubt me please read all my other postings on this thread and you will see why.  Health warning:  This is NOT a judgement on the social value of the public sector, it's just a fact of how it is financed.
		
Click to expand...

According to a report by The Institute For Fiscal Studies public sector workers do pay taxes. The following quote is taken from their annual green budget 2010:

_But note that so far we have been careful to describe a reduction in earnings rather than a saving to government. The government would not benefit from the full reduction in public sector remuneration because public sector workers pay taxes on earnings received and may also receive benefits or tax credits. Work at IFS using our tax and benefit model, TAXBEN, has estimated that for every £1 cut in public sector earnings, public spending is reduced by £1.19 but the government would save only 73 pence once loss of taxes and increased spending on benefits and tax credits are taken into account. So real savings from a 5% public sector pay cut are closer to £5.5 billion per year. (See Box 9.3 for details.)
_
Green Budget 2010, chapter 9, p. 227

The document can be accessed at http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets

And to pre-empt any accusations of pro-public sector bias in this document, the IFS proposed the changes to public sector pensions that are currently being negotiated.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

I haven't read the report but the loss of taxes is possibly Vat on purchases that they would not be able to make if they were on benefits, not income tax.  The major effect may not be in the taxes lost but in the additional payment of benefits and tax credits.  I'll try and read it, thanks for the reference.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			According to a report by The Institute For Fiscal Studies public sector workers do pay taxes. The following quote is taken from their annual green budget 2010:

_But note that so far we have been careful to describe a &#8216;reduction in earnings&#8217; rather than a &#8216;saving to government&#8217;. The government would not benefit from the full reduction in public sector remuneration because public sector workers pay taxes on earnings received and may also receive benefits or tax credits. Work at IFS using our tax and benefit model, TAXBEN, has estimated that for every £1 cut in public sector earnings, public spending is reduced by £1.19 but the government would save only 73 pence once loss of taxes and increased spending on benefits and tax credits are taken into account. So real savings from a 5% public sector pay cut are closer to £5.5 billion per year. (See Box 9.3 for details.)
_
Green Budget 2010, chapter 9, p. 227


The document can be accessed at http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets

And to pre-empt any accusations of pro-public sector bias in this document, the IFS proposed the changes to public sector pensions that are currently being negotiated.
		
Click to expand...


OK

Take a deep breath and read carefully, this is really complicated  No wonder economists earn a lot.

This quote is referring to the amount the Government would save if it axed Public Sector spending.

If it cut £1 off a nurse's salarly it will only save 80p

This is because for every £1 a nurse is paid, s/he returns 20p in tax immediately to the Treasury.

So, in terms of savings, the Government will save less than £1 for every £1 in wage it cuts, it will save only the amount less tax.

When the government pays the nurse the £1, it costs them only 80p because the nurse gives 20p straight back.

They may as well just pay the nurse 80p anyway, but for the sake of treating everyone the same, they pay them gross and deduct tax and NI.

The 20p is  not contributing to the Public sector, because it is paid out in one hand and taken back with the other in the blink of an eye in a BACS transaction by the SAME ORGANISTION - the Public Sector. The Public Sector is no better off after the nurse has paid tax than it was before, because they gave him/her the money to give back to them.

Gone to sleep yet   ??


----------



## Oliver12 (15 December 2011)

at work said:



			After working 15 years in 'public sector' (and in my case quite a well paid job, relatively speaking) I'll get about 9k per year in my inflated pension pot - is that really so exciting?
		
Click to expand...

It's a bit more exciting than my husband's pension pot which was halved due to a takeover of his company which plundered the pension fund and the stock market crash many years ago. He worked and paid into a pension scheme for over 40 years as an electronics/design engineer for a major telecomms company (and yes he ALSO studied for many years gaining an engineering degree in 1970 (when degrees meant something!) and his pension is around about £10,000.


----------



## Wundahorse (15 December 2011)

Society needs a certain amount of public sector services to ensure the smooth running of the country and to provide essential provision in health,education,police etc,without which chaos would ensue,as we see in countries without such a decent and civil order.Now before you all bash me,i know things are not perfect and could be improved on,but in order to provide these services,they need to be funded.If people were asked to contribute what they could afford,as long as they got out a proportionate service,there would be a huge disparity in what they would be entitled to,with the poorest getting the least out.The system tries to be fair to all,but it is complicated by various factors,not least a current recession.Although my salary comes from the Government,i pay taxes,Ni and superannuation,quite a bit in fact.NHS pensions are essentially funded through the members,in an investment which has been wisely nurtured for many years,with some contribution from the Government.Reckless financiers and stockbrokers have had no part in these funds,unlike in the private sector,so i am very sorry that such a well invested pension should upset so many in the private sector.Any money i spend to live goes back into the private sector,and the public purse,so myself and other public sector staff are contributing greatly to the economy,and maybe some of your business's.I do understand all that stuff about where the money for the public sector derives,so please do not patronise me with another blast.I also studied Politics and have a good awareness about Government,including all the historical stuff.Yes it is tough for everyone right now,but targeting public sector staff is really unhelpful,and just shows most the average person in the private sector has no concept about public services.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			so i am very sorry that such a well invested pension should upset so many in the private sector.
		
Click to expand...

many public sector pensions are unfunded. Those that are funded are not sufficient to pay out their future liabilities due to the increase in life expectancy. There is no upset about your well invested pension funds covering all future liabilities,  because they  no more exist than those in the private sector.



Wundahorse said:



			NHS pensions are essentially funded through the members,
		
Click to expand...

No they are not. They are 100% financed by the taxpayer. Even on a superficial level your employer pays a LOT more in than you do. But at the end of the day it ALL comes from the private sector taxpayer.  Much as you say you understand Public Sector financing, you clearly do not understand the financing of your own pension.




Wundahorse said:



			Any money i spend to live goes back into the private sector,and the public purse,so myself and other public sector staff are contributing greatly to the economy
		
Click to expand...

You are not. You are giving us back the money that we gave you. If you did not spend it we would happily spend it for ourselves. 




Wundahorse said:



			Yes it is tough for everyone right now,but targeting public sector staff is really unhelpful,and just shows most the average person in the private sector has no concept about public services.
		
Click to expand...


We are not "targetting the public sector",  we are simply explaining the reality of your unsustainable pensions and the unreasonableness of striking to protect them.

None of this is about the social value of the public sector, which we all understand perfectly, thankyou. Society cannot operate without a public sector. That does not mean that it cannot operate without a public sector paid fixed benefit pensions that an  increasingly tiny proportion of the private sector has access to.


----------



## Wundahorse (15 December 2011)

That is exactly the reaction which this Government wants to evoke to create a divide between public and private sector,so that they believe they can justify their own actions.Really we should all be working together to get through this mess,which seems interminable at the moment.This dichotomy of opinion can only create more ill feeling,and is frankly quite pointless as you will always believe you are paying my wages,and i will point out that i also contribute to the bigger picture,in my very minuscule way.I am also well informed by the pension people that the NHS pension is doing well on it's own accord,because of the way these funds have been invested.Please don't forget that the scheme changed in 1997 to an average salary pension,and further reforms for new staff have been implemented.


----------



## martlin (15 December 2011)

I'm not sure how we can work together, and I just don't see a reason why we should, so I can pay for a pension for you of the kind I will not be able to afford for myself...


----------



## Mrs B (15 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			That is exactly the reaction which this Government wants to evoke to create a divide between public and private sector,so that they believe they can justify their own actions.Really we should all be working together to get through this mess,which seems interminable at the moment.This dichotomy of opinion can only create more ill feeling,and is frankly quite pointless as you will always believe you are paying my wages,and i will point out that i also contribute to the bigger picture,in my very minuscule way.I am also well informed by the pension people that the NHS pension is doing well on it's own accord,because of the way these funds have been invested.Please don't forget that the scheme changed in 1997 to an average salary pension,and further reforms for new staff have been implemented.
		
Click to expand...

Ah! So it's all a plot by this government.  I see! Nothing to do with the fact that every time it's pointed out to you that we DO pay your wages, you try to blame something or someone else....

Personally, I feel that this government hasn't got a lot of choice, given the state the last one left us in - as in that note, remember?  

_"Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards - and good luck! Liam"_


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			That is exactly the reaction which this Government wants to evoke to create a divide between public and private sector,so that they believe they can justify their own actions.Really we should all be working together to get through this mess,which seems interminable at the moment.This dichotomy of opinion can only create more ill feeling,and is frankly quite pointless as you will always believe you are paying my wages,and i will point out that i also contribute to the bigger picture,in my very minuscule way.I am also well informed by the pension people that the NHS pension is doing well on it's own accord,because of the way these funds have been invested.Please don't forget that the scheme changed in 1997 to an average salary pension,and further reforms for new staff have been implemented.
		
Click to expand...

Oh for gawds sake you just don't want to see how completely unjust it is for the people who pay for your pension to be unable to get anything half as good themselves, do you?

This is nothing to do with creating a divide. There IS a divide. You are unfairly well remunerated, and unless it stops you will become ever more and more unfairly remunerated as your pension fund deficit becomes more apparent,  and it has to change.

We don't BELIEVE we are paying your wages. We ARE paying your wages.

I'm off to find you the NHS pension figures but your union leaders are feeding you the line they want you to believe.


I LOVE your offer to "all work together" - what exactly are you proposing to offer to do yourself in order to rebalance the unfairness between public and private sector pensions? Funnily enough, the government is trying to do just that and last week your union called a strike to stop them.


Here you go Wundahorse, that wasn't difficult to find, just google "NHS pension deficit" and you'll find pages of stuff telling you about it. Your scheme is as bankrupt as any other unless people start dying earlier from tomorrow.

http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/finance/n...-predicted-within-three-years/5038842.article


----------



## YorksG (15 December 2011)

If people really believe that public sector workers contributions to their pensions are not from their money, because actually public sector workers don't get money, it is all donated by tax payers from the private sector perhaps you can envisage a world where there are no public sector workers. You may think oh goodie I will not have to pay any tax, good luck to you. No free education, no bin emptying, no road mending, no road gritting, no NHS, children abused without anyone intervening, criminals doing as they please, no prisons, etc etc.


----------



## martlin (15 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			If people really believe that public sector workers contributions to their pensions are not from their money, because actually public sector workers don't get money, it is all donated by tax payers from the private sector perhaps you can envisage a world where there are no public sector workers. You may think oh goodie I will not have to pay any tax, good luck to you. No free education, no bin emptying, no road mending, no road gritting, no NHS, children abused without anyone intervening, criminals doing as they please, no prisons, etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, you see, but I don't object to paying for Public Sector salaries with my taxes, what I am objecting to is funding the sort of pensions I cannot afford for myself.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			Please don't forget that the scheme changed in 1997 to an average salary pension,and further reforms for new staff have been implemented.
		
Click to expand...

Please don't forget that a salary linked, inflation proofed pension is not available AT ALL to the vast majority of private sector workers.


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			If people really believe that public sector workers contributions to their pensions are not from their money, because actually public sector workers don't get money, it is all donated by tax payers from the private sector perhaps you can envisage a world where there are no public sector workers. You may think oh goodie I will not have to pay any tax, good luck to you. No free education, no bin emptying, no road mending, no road gritting, no NHS, children abused without anyone intervening, criminals doing as they please, no prisons, etc etc.
		
Click to expand...



The discussion is NOT ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SERVICES YOU PROVIDE which are OF COURSE essential to the continuation of a modern society.

If is about how much your pensions cost us and whether they can continue to be justified, which they can't.

NO-ONE is suggesting that we can do without the public sector completely. No-one wants that to happen. You devalue your own case by writing such rubbish, you really do.

What is it with you people that you cannot accept that what you do is wholly financed by the private sector? It's not a crime! It's just a fact of life.


----------



## Mithras (15 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			I do understand all that stuff about where the money for the public sector derives,so please do not patronise me with another blast.I also studied Politics and have a good awareness about Government,including all the historical stuff.Yes it is tough for everyone right now,but targeting public sector staff is really unhelpful,and just shows most the average person in the private sector has no concept about public services.
		
Click to expand...

It is most certainly helpful - in life, thing are always modernised, change hopefully goes hand in hand with progress.  There is no ideological necessity as to why the public sector should be exempt from this, and indeed the current pension provision is unsustainable within it, as within the private sector in many cases.

Your latter statement is condescending and wrong.  I think the average person in the private sector (who may well have worked in the public sector at one time) is extremely well informed about the public sector.


----------



## YorksG (15 December 2011)

You constantly devalue the public sector, Santa Paws, your dismissal of essential services, along with those who claim that they worked in the public sector and consider us to be idle and overpaid. As I have pointed out previously the statement from my LA pension fund states that they are in funds and do not foresee a short fall.
Taken to its extreem, the only people who have the right to consider themselves productive are those who manufacture goods (not services) which are all sold for export. Anyone else is not paying 'real' tax, merely recycling the currency.
I would happily take home my current net salary and not, by your standards, pretend to pay tax and national insurance


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			You constantly devalue the public sector, Santa Paws, your dismissal of essential services,
		
Click to expand...

I do no such thing. AT NO TIME have I devalued the public sector or dismissed ANY public service. I have simply pointed out how it is financed. This is NOT RELATED to any social worth, it is just a fact.




YuletideG said:



			As I have pointed out previously the statement from my LA pension fund states that they are in funds and do not foresee a short fall.
		
Click to expand...

And I have pointed you to the evidence that there is a massive and growing shortfall in LA pension funds taken as a whole.  Name your particular fund and I will research for you what the situation is with it.



YuletideG said:



			Taken to its extreem, the only people who have the right to consider themselves productive are those who manufacture goods (not services) which are all sold for export.
		
Click to expand...

Not correct. Anyone producing goods and services which sell for more than they cost to obtain is "productive" in an economic sense. Again, this is NOT A VALUE judgement on public services, it is simply an economic fact.



YuletideG said:



			Anyone else is not paying 'real' tax, merely recycling the currency.
		
Click to expand...

That is largely correct. It's a fact. Why do you hate it so much!!!!!!!???????



YuletideG said:



			I would happily take home my current net salary and not, by your standards, pretend to pay tax and national insurance
		
Click to expand...

There would be no difference if you did. It is for administrative ease, treating all workers the same with regard to tax and NI, that you do not. Again, why does this upset you so much that you take a simple description of an accounting twiddle as a personal affront to your own value to society? The two are NOT connected.


----------



## Mithras (15 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			You constantly devalue the public sector, Santa Paws, your dismissal of essential services, along with those who claim that they worked in the public sector and consider us to be idle and overpaid. As I have pointed out previously the statement from my LA pension fund states that they are in funds and do not foresee a short fall.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know why some public sector workers have this tendency to take things so personally.  Reform of the public sector is of interest to every member of society, and every member of society has a right to be involved in it.  

The current pension system is unsustainable - that is why the retirement age has been raised and annuities cut.  Public sector pensions are also unsustainable.  I find the attitude of some who simply want their pension because they think they are somehow more entitled than private sector workers (who have been subject to the full, unsheltered effects of the recession) really very selfish.  Surely if you are working for the public sector, you should have some notion of working for the greater good?

If public sector pension provision continued the way it is, it would bankrupt the taxpayer, or at least leave no-one else with the ability to save for their retirement while they funded it.  Yes, the banking system and shareholder veto on ridiculously high salaries for underperming executives needs to be reformed too, but that is a seperate issue.  It does not at all remove the issue of unsustainable and over-generous (when compared to the private sector) public sector pensions.


----------



## perfect11s (15 December 2011)

Ive  had some concerns for a number of years about our public sector  like is it good value , provides good service etc I was willing to give most of it the benifit of the doubt , not now the posts on here make me think its staffed mostly by selfcenterd greedy and 
arogant people with a lack of judgement and its high time its   overhauled, More cuts please, preferably those on salarys of £30k or more and anyone with a clipboard and or not in a uniform   .....


----------



## cptrayes (15 December 2011)

YuletideG said:



			As I have pointed out previously the statement from my LA pension fund states that they are in funds and do not foresee a short fall.
		
Click to expand...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...overnment-pension-gap-balloons-to-71.5bn.html

There are two possibilities here. 
EITHER
The statement that you have been given indicates that they do not see any shortfall in the pension payments which will be made to you personally 
OR 
You are in one particular tiny fund for your bit of your Local Authority which really does have enough money in it to pay all its commitments for the foreseeable future, including poor future growth and increasing lifespans.

Whichever, it's irrelevant. You are either:

Expecting the tax payer to fund the entire deficit so that the workers in Birmingham and other deficit schemes (most of them) can continue to have the same pension as your fund can afford you to have (and which the taxpayer cannot hope to get the likes of).
OR 
You are prepared to keep your pension and see a person in Birmingham doing exactly the same job as you with the same terms, conditions and employer (the Government) get a much worse pension than you.

Either way, that would seem pretty selfish to me.


----------



## YorksG (15 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I don't know why some public sector workers have this tendency to take things so personally.  Reform of the public sector is of interest to every member of society, and every member of society has a right to be involved in it.  

In your case Mithras perhaps it is because you have consistantly claimed that you have knowlege of LA working and the lazy ways exhibited there, based on your experience of what appears to be one legal department and I think that may say more about members of your profession than it does about most public sector workers.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## dieseldog (15 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			We don't BELIEVE we are paying your wages. We ARE paying your wages.

[/url]
		
Click to expand...

Of course you are paying the Public Sector wages .....  Because.... you are using the Public Sector - or do you believe you should just get it for free? That no one in the Public Sector should get paid a wage, maybe community service is the way forward?

Maybe only companies that won't charge should be allowed to take over the Public Service when it is outsourced.


----------



## fburton (16 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Take a deep breath and read carefully, this is really complicated  No wonder economists earn a lot.

...

Gone to sleep yet   ??
		
Click to expand...

So... to whom is the debt that's causing all the current misery owed? I don't think we actually got to the bottom of that one.


----------



## fburton (16 December 2011)

Parity between public and private sector jobs in terms of pay, conditions, perks _and_ pensions is something I would support. It seems only fair. Could it be made to work? Or would the public sector workers go in a big huff?

(Speaking as a public sector worker myself, who didn't support the strike.)


----------



## at work (16 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			What is it with you people that you cannot accept that what you do is wholly financed by the private sector? It's not a crime! It's just a fact of life.
		
Click to expand...

Actually - I agree with you. But what finaces us all is industry. I heard an old industrialist speak a few years back and what he basically said is that all the service industries (i.e. shops, banks, beauty parlours, hotel chains) are just pushing around the money made from things Other People produce. Service industries - including those wonderful collapsing finance houses known as banks, produce nothing. 

So - unless you are producing something useful as in mining something, making something, growing food etc - you too are being financed.


----------



## BeesKnees (16 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			Of course you are paying the Public Sector wages .....  Because.... you are using the Public Sector - or do you believe you should just get it for free? That no one in the Public Sector should get paid a wage, maybe community service is the way forward?

Maybe only companies that won't charge should be allowed to take over the Public Service when it is outsourced.
		
Click to expand...

Please stop the hysterical nonsense! Most people on here, including SantaPaws and Mithras, have NOT made any value judgement on the public sector services, other than to quote their own experience or to confirm that we *do need the PS*, we just need to *re-think how it is financed*.

Really, anyone with a modicum of education ought to be able to understand the arguments made without resorting to melodramatic irrationality. Argue your case if you have one, with reason and facts.

Answer me this - do you think it's fair for people who earn less than you and who do not have a pension of their own to pay for your pension?

And if you do, why do you think it is reasonable?


----------



## dieseldog (16 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			Please stop the hysterical nonsense! Most people on here, including SantaPaws and Mithras, have NOT made any value judgement on the public sector services, other than to quote their own experience or to confirm that we *do need the PS*, we just need to *re-think how it is financed*.

Really, anyone with a modicum of education ought to be able to understand the arguments made without resorting to melodramatic irrationality. Argue your case if you have one, with reason and facts.

Answer me this - do you think it's fair for people who earn less than you and who do not have a pension of their own to pay for your pension?

And if you do, why do you think it is reasonable?
		
Click to expand...

Why was that hysterical?  Santa Paws was the one using CAPS.  Far more hysterical than myself.  He was stating that he paid Public Sector wages - I agreed with him.  So is it Santa or myself who is now lacking education.  Do you think you could possibly have a discussion without insulting people?

And yes I do think it is fair that people who earn less than a public sector employee should pay taxes.  With your argument everyone should be on an equal wage, should someone who is a cashier in Tescos be paid the same amount as a director of HBOS? Should they get the same wage as yourself?  I would be for a system where we all earned the same wage, we all contributed the same amount and we all got the same benefits - but thats not reality because it would never work.  I don't have children, yet I've paid for your kids education, and child allowance - I don't agree with that at all, I've never been unemployed, had any form of tax credit but I'm not sat ranting on a forum (IN CAPS) about how unfair that is - I just pay it.


----------



## fburton (16 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			I would be for a system where we all earned the same wage, we all contributed the same amount and we all got the same benefits - but thats not reality because it would never work.
		
Click to expand...

Don't you think people should be rewarded for working hard, doing particularly unpleasant or dangerous jobs, having to bear responsibility, etc.? I do - although I also think some of the pay differentials are obscene.




			I don't have children, yet I've paid for your kids education, and child allowance - I don't agree with that at all, I've never been unemployed, had any form of tax credit but I'm not sat ranting on a forum (IN CAPS) about how unfair that is - I just pay it.
		
Click to expand...

I believe we _all_ benefit, as a society, from other people's children being educated - for a number of reasons. Imo, it's also right that poorer families are helped to bring up children (so maybe the benefit should be means-tested), though not to the extent of encouraging an unsustainable birthrate.


----------



## dieseldog (16 December 2011)

fburton said:



			Don't you think people should be rewarded for working hard, doing particularly unpleasant or dangerous jobs, having to bear responsibility, etc.? I do - although I also think some of the pay differentials are obscene.


I believe we _all_ benefit, as a society, from other people's children being educated - for a number of reasons. Imo, it's also right that poorer families are helped to bring up children (so maybe the benefit should be means-tested), though not to the extent of encouraging an unsustainable birthrate.
		
Click to expand...

The system would never work as some people do work harder than others in more pressurised/dangerous jobs etc.  If everyone could have an equal job and earn equal money and contribute equally and take the same amount out I'm sure it would work great


----------



## Dirtymare (16 December 2011)

fburton said:



			I believe we _all_ benefit, as a society, from other people's children being educated - for a number of reasons. Imo, it's also right that poorer families are helped to bring up children (so maybe the benefit should be means-tested), though not to the extent of encouraging an unsustainable birthrate.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this......


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2011)

at work said:



			Actually - I agree with you. But what finaces us all is industry. I heard an old industrialist speak a few years back and what he basically said is that all the service industries (i.e. shops, banks, beauty parlours, hotel chains) are just pushing around the money made from things Other People produce. Service industries - including those wonderful collapsing finance houses known as banks, produce nothing. 

So - unless you are producing something useful as in mining something, making something, growing food etc - you too are being financed.
		
Click to expand...

There is a lot of truth in this. We need more people to make things in this country and we need to import less of our stuff from China.


----------



## BeesKnees (16 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			or do you believe you should just get it for free? That no one in the Public Sector should get paid a wage, maybe community service is the way forward?

Maybe only companies that won't charge should be allowed to take over the Public Service when it is outsourced.
		
Click to expand...

This is the hysterical nonsense I was referring to, the 'you clearly don't value the public sector' type of posts from yourself and others, that gets trotted out as soon as anyone dares to try and have a discussion about the public sector. The public sector belongs to all of us, not just those that work in it, and therefore we have a perfectly justified right to discuss it without being accused of wanting to destroy it! That kind of irrational response is as insulting as anything I may have said.

And you still did not answer my question. I didn't ask if low paid private sector workers should pay taxes. I asked if you think it is fair for them to pay for your pension, when they can't afford one for themselves?


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			Of course you are paying the Public Sector wages .....  Because.... you are using the Public Sector - or do you believe you should just get it for free?
		
Click to expand...

No of course not. I have not suggested any such thing and neither has anyone else. Quite frankly, it's a stupid question.



dieseldog said:



			That no one in the Public Sector should get paid a wage, maybe community service is the way forward?
		
Click to expand...

possibly even more stupid a suggestion than the question above.


Where do you get these dumb questions from because they certainly aren't anywhere in what I'm writing!?

You were insistent that you paid towards your own pensions. I pointed out that you do not, and how it is that you do not. END. That's all I said. Nothing about whether you do your jobs well, deserve what you are paid, provide an invaluable service which holds society together. NOTHING.

Why do you persist in attempting to put value judgements that I have not  made and will not make into my mouth?


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2011)

fburton said:



			So... to whom is the debt that's causing all the current misery owed? I don't think we actually got to the bottom of that one. 

Click to expand...

The debt is not causing the pension misery that this thread is discussing. That has been caused by people living 4-5 times longer after their retirement date than they used to.

The private sector adjustments were made some time ago. I feel for public sector workers, who will be geniunely worse off after their pension contributions are increased, but it is no less than has aready happened years ago in the private sector in a much worse way, and it has to happen.


To answer your question China owns most of the world's debt that is not already owed by one indebted country to another (Spain owes Greece billions and Greece owes Spain billions, for example. Meanwhile, the Chinese have just bought the port of Piraeus (Athens) and own a subtantial amount of America).  The Chinese, in spite of much lower wages than this country, average a saving rate of 30% of their take home pay. Our average is negative. They own us.


----------



## Scoutie (16 December 2011)

I haven't had the time to read every post so I may be repeating what has already been said so forgive me if this is the case however I do wish to add to this discussion.  I trained as a nurse and worked in the NHS for 11 years before moving to the private sector 20 years ago so I feel that I am able to comment to a degree on both.  

When I left the NHS I had a final salary pension, at the time I was unaware what this meant so when advised to move it into a private pension I did so.  This was a huge mistake as the NHS pension was widely accepted as being one of the best in the country.  Some 10 years later I was able to sue and recover the money I lost, this I think shows that the NHS pension is very highly regarded.  At no time did I believe that I was poorly paid but to compensate I would have a really good pension when I retired (when did this belief start?).  I should also add that when I joined the private sector I had to take a pay drop!  I did not complain about this but decided that it was a risk worth taking (my choice).

Since I have been in the private sector I have had several final salary pensions.  In my last company they had to review the situation as the fund was not sufficient to cover the future outgoings; the final salary pension was stopped, company contributions were reduced and each company member had to increase their own contributions.  I know that this has happened in a number of companies in recent years.  

What I have just described is exactly the same as what is now happening in the public sector, but this happened four or five years ago.  Of course none of us liked it but when the figures were shown there was clearly no choice but to change.  Whilst some people in the company were highly paid others were not (the vast majority), again similar to the NHS.  Certainly the admins and lower level support staff are no more highly paid than the public sector and many earnt below the average wage for this country.

I struggle to understand why the public sector cannot understand that they are not being penalised but the system cannot take the strain due to the changing environment (economic situation, increasing life expectancy, etc).  Those complaining have not been able to explain where the money should come from only that they are 'entitled' to continue as before.  No one is entitled to anything, it is naive to think otherwise.

I agree with previous comments about peoples views being entrenched and so opposing that they will never meet however I had a similar discussion with a teacher who had moved from the private sector (business not teaching) to the public one, she was in agreement with my views but was much stronger in voicing them.


----------



## dieseldog (16 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			No of course not. I have not suggested any such thing and neither has anyone else. Quite frankly, it's a stupid question.



possibly even more stupid a suggestion than the question above.


Where do you get these dumb questions from because they certainly aren't anywhere in what I'm writing!?

You were insistent that you paid towards your own pensions. I pointed out that you do not, and how it is that you do not. END. That's all I said. Nothing about whether you do your jobs well, deserve what you are paid, provide an invaluable service which holds society together. NOTHING.

Why do you persist in attempting to put value judgements that I have not  made and will not make into my mouth?
		
Click to expand...


Stop insulting people, it belittles your arguments,  if you can not post without calling me dumb and stupid maybe you should refrain from posting?.  

I have not been insistent anywhere that I pay towards my own pension - I understand your point of view that my pension that I pay into I am doing with taxpayers money - which has been paid to me for providing a service.  Just like you don't pay into your pension as you are using money that has been paid to you for doing a service too.  Unless of course you are in the small majority that works in the mining industry in this country.  Everyones wages and pensions are paid for by someone else.

You say you want a public service, you say you are happy to pay for the public servants so what exactly is your issue?  The fact that you are having to pay them a realistic package to do the job?  That public servants aren't actually prepared to work for a pittance - is that your problem?


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			You say you want a public service, you say you are happy to pay for the public servants so what exactly is your issue?  The fact that you are having to pay them a realistic package to do the job?  That public servants aren't actually prepared to work for a pittance - is that your problem?
		
Click to expand...

O.F.F.S!

My problem is that public sector workers, in sptite of the fact that they are in the main paid a salary at or often above what they could earn in the private sector,  withdrew their labour a week or so back in order to prevent  a change to their pension which,  even after the changes is still FAR AND AWAY better than anything that the taxpayers who pay for their pension will ever have.  The Public Sector should be fairly paid. At the moment, their total remuneration is VERY unfair because the pension is worth so much money and Private Sector workers do not have anything like it.

I can't believe that you really needed me to repeat that Dieseldog, I must have said it twenty times already on this thread and the JC one. I shall, however, as you request, refrain from calling this last question of yours stupid as well.

Everyone outside the public sector is involved in some way in adding value/money into the system. When I worked in a shop I helped my employer take a jumper that cost £3.33 and sell it for £10 and the shop paid tax on the difference. They also paid me out of the difference and I paid tax on that payment. And the customer paid VAT on the jumper. So between us all, we increased the amount available to be spent on the Public Sector by that amount.  All economic activities in the private sector increase the amount of money available to be spent on the public sector. 

This discussion has been all about how Public Sector activities do not add to the amount of  money which is available to run the Public Sector, and how unfair current Public Sector pensions are now that they are almost completely unavailable to the Private sector. 

Government Health Warning:
NO VALUE JUDGEMENT ON THE WORTH OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS CONTAINED IN THIS POST


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			Stop insulting people, it belittles your arguments,  if you can not post without calling me dumb and stupid maybe you should refrain from posting?.
		
Click to expand...

Dieseldog I have not called you stupid or dumb. I have called two questions that you asked stupid and dumb. I'm sorry, but I think they were. They were also phrased in a deliberately deliberately provocational manner, so please don't preach to me about whether I should post or not.


----------



## dieseldog (16 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			O.F.F.S!

My problem is that public sector workers, in sptite of the fact that they are in the main paid a salary at or often above what they could earn in the private sector,  withdrew their labour a week or so back in order to prevent  a change to their pension which,  even after the changes is still FAR AND AWAY better than anything that the taxpayers who pay for their pension will ever have.  The Public Sector should be fairly paid. At the moment, their total remuneration is VERY unfair because the pension is worth so much money and Private Sector workers do not have anything like it.

I can't believe that you really needed me to repeat that Dieseldog, I must have said it twenty times already on this thread and the JC one. I shall, however, as you request, refrain from calling this last question of yours stupid as well.

Everyone outside the public sector is involved in some way in adding value/money into the system. When I worked in a shop I helped my employer take a jumper that cost £3.33 and sell it for £10 and the shop paid tax on the difference. They also paid me out of the difference and I paid tax on that payment. And the customer paid VAT on the jumper. So between us all, we increased the amount available to be spent on the Public Sector by that amount.  All economic activities in the private sector increase the amount of money available to be spent on the public sector. 

This discussion has been all about how Public Sector activities do not add to the amount of  money which is available to run the Public Sector, and how unfair current Public Sector pensions are now that they are almost completely unavailable to the Private sector. 

Government Health Warning:
NO VALUE JUDGEMENT ON THE WORTH OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS CONTAINED IN THIS POST
		
Click to expand...

There you go with the swearing and shouting IN CAPS again.  Please just one post without resulting to bullying tactics would be nice, do you think you can manage that?


----------



## Dab (16 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			You say you want a public service, you say you are happy to pay for the public servants so what exactly is your issue?  The fact that you are having to pay them a realistic package to do the job?  That public servants aren't actually prepared to work for a pittance - is that your problem?
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it appears that public servants are not prepared to be paid a realistic package. On average they are paid and receive far greater benefits than those in the private sector and this is not realistic!


----------



## DragonSlayer (16 December 2011)

Bliss, this is...

Agree to disagree, then go find something much more exciting to do....


----------



## BeesKnees (16 December 2011)

DragonSleigh-Bells said:









Bliss, this is...

Agree to disagree, then go find something much more exciting to do....
		
Click to expand...

But this is so much fun


----------



## DragonSlayer (16 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			But this is so much fun 

Click to expand...

I have to agree.. but it's moved from the usual healthy debate to derogatory insults, as it always seems to on forums.

No-one wants to back down, so they chide each other backwards and forwards, then at some point someone will spit their dummy out, and report said thread to the FC, and it will be removed.

..a week or so later will see it all happening again!


----------



## BeesKnees (16 December 2011)

Scoutie said:



			I struggle to understand why the public sector cannot understand that they are not being penalised but the system cannot take the strain due to the changing environment (economic situation, increasing life expectancy, etc).  Those complaining have not been able to explain where the money should come from only that they are 'entitled' to continue as before.  No one is entitled to anything, it is naive to think otherwise.
.
		
Click to expand...

Thak you Scoutie for your considered post. 

I can understand why PS works wish to keep the very valuable pension system they have. Why wouldn't you? But I am yet to hear to a valid argument as to why they should legitimately have it, and how it should be paid for.

So far the reasoning has been:
Because we work hard
Because we have demanding jobs
Because we do unpaid overtime
Because we were promised it
Because we are more qualified and have more responsibility than people who work on a till
Because we could earn more in the private sector
Because the bankers and politicians are to blame for the economic crisis
Because you'll be in trouble when you want care on the NHS and it's all been privatised

All of this is either also true of the private sector workers, not actually based on current stats, or a bit facile.

I just want someone to to explain to me why they think it is fair for them to have a very generous pension, funded by people who can't afford one of their own?


----------



## BeesKnees (16 December 2011)

DragonSleigh-Bells said:



			I have to agree.. but it's moved from the usual healthy debate to derogatory insults, as it always seems to on forums.

No-one wants to back down, so they chide each other backwards and forwards, then at some point someone will spit their dummy out, and report said thread to the FC, and it will be removed.

..a week or so later will see it all happening again! 

Click to expand...

I think there's frustration, due to people not engaging with the actual debate but rather choosing to make sweeping comments that don't relate to what has been said. How do you have a healthy debate with that?


----------



## cptrayes (16 December 2011)

dieseldog said:



			There you go with the swearing and shouting IN CAPS again.  Please just one post without resulting to bullying tactics would be nice, do you think you can manage that?
		
Click to expand...

Do you think you can manage to stop asking me questions as if I have said that the entire public sector are lazy b******s who don't seserve half the pay they get and should all be sacked? 

Cos quite frankly, I'm sick of it and I don't understand how I can stop you without the emphasis in my replies.  If you can manage to do that, please, then I will have no need to "bully" you by writing in capital letters. 

If you are genuinely feeling bullied please report me to the Fat Controller. And if you are that upset by the way I answer you, please stop asking me questions. And if my answers to other peoples questions upset you please, please, please, press the ignore button so that you do not have to see them.

ps Scoutie what a great post.


----------



## perfect11s (16 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Do you think you can manage to stop asking me questions as if I have said that the entire public sector are lazy b******s who don't seserve half the pay they get and should all be sacked? 

Cos quite frankly, I'm sick of it and I don't understand how I can stop you without the emphasis in my replies.  If you can manage to do that, please, then I will have no need to "bully" you by writing in capital letters. 

If you are genuinely feeling bullied please report me to the Fat Controller. And if you are that upset by the way I answer you, please stop asking me questions. And if my answers to other peoples questions upset you please, please, please, press the ignore button so that you do not have to see them.

ps Scoutie what a great post.
		
Click to expand...

 It's geting more polarised between us in the productive economy and the PS lot I guess when the economy picks up and we can ballance the books the PS lot filling there boots wont seem quite so bad, and hopefully we will have had some proper cuts not like the half hearted tinkering round the edges like we have seen so far !!!the thing that amazes me about these threads is the PS lot keep reminding us how much they are getting and as a result people who were previously blissfully unaware of the public sector  pay and pensions  are comparing and getting sick of the wingeing and worse looking at them with a critical eye , so as before stop digging you are doing your case no good ....


----------



## fburton (16 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			It's geting more polarised between us in the productive economy and the PS lot
		
Click to expand...

Are you implying the entire public sector are lazy b******s who don't seserve half the pay they get and should all be sacked?


----------



## DragonSlayer (16 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			I think there's frustration, due to people not engaging with the actual debate but rather choosing to make sweeping comments that don't relate to what has been said. How do you have a healthy debate with that?
		
Click to expand...

Very true. It's why so often I will not join in at all as I know where it will go, or I'll say me piece then just leave it.


----------



## perfect11s (16 December 2011)

fburton said:



			Are you implying the entire public sector are lazy b******s who don't seserve half the pay they get and should all be sacked? 

Click to expand...

You tell me !!!


----------



## Mithras (16 December 2011)

YuletideG said:





Mithras said:



			I don't know why some public sector workers have this tendency to take things so personally.  Reform of the public sector is of interest to every member of society, and every member of society has a right to be involved in it.  

In your case Mithras perhaps it is because you have consistantly claimed that you have knowlege of LA working and the lazy ways exhibited there, based on your experience of what appears to be one legal department and I think that may say more about members of your profession than it does about most public sector workers.
		
Click to expand...

You're not going to annoy me saying that!  I'm not particularly fond of a lot  of fellow members of my profession either.  Though to be fair, in my experience in the LA, there was inter-departmental working (endless consultation of course) and some of the inertia and incompetence outwith my department was of a level I had never previously deemed existed.  Other local authorities in other areas may of course be far better.

But I have also worked in a national agency, which was public sector.  It was actually quite tightly managed, (my department detected fraudulent or incompetent applications) probably because its job was to allocate millions of pounds of funding.  And I've also done some part time academic work, which is public sector (but I actually found quite good compared to the LA).

I have to say, in relation to your other post above, I haven't been scathing about the public sector particularly.  There are bad examples in all areas.  But this doesn't mean the public sector is some special case, beyond criticism or modernisation.  I would say though that in my field, working in the public sector for too long is recongised as making you a bit unemployable.  That is another reason I didn't stay too long.  If you stayed longer than about 18 months, you would struggle to convince a private sector company to take you on.  And thats nothing to do with specialism, and all to do with working practises.  This isn't a criticism by me of the public sector btw, simply an illustration of the realities of working in the private sector.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Mike007 (17 December 2011)

For me,the fundamental point is that if a private sector business makes a serious mistake ,it costs them and maybe they go bust. If a public sector industry ****s up ,private sector businesses pay and maybe go bust.The public sector have been a law unto themselves for far too long.


----------



## paddy555 (17 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			T
 But I am yet to hear to a valid argument as to why they should legitimately have it, 



own?
		
Click to expand...

because it is part of the terms and conditions of their employment. 
If you don't attch pensions to public sector jobs what happens then? Are people left to make their own pension arrangement? If so then that is fine for the ones that take that responsibility. However what happens to those, and there are equally many in the private sector, who don't make pension arrangements? They get to 66 or whatever age and draw their state pension. That is their only income so what then? It is topped up with various credits/benefits? Who pays for those credits? The private sector workers through their taxes or public sector workers through taxes on their earnings and on their annuities. (and yes public sector workers do pay tax and NI. Most of us realised that we did when we saw those little words on our payslip ie "tax paid". (Please don't reiterate the tedious explanation that public sector workers don't pay tax for the "n"th time.)


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			If you don't attch pensions to public sector jobs what happens then? Are people left to make their own pension arrangement? If so then that is fine for the ones that take that responsibility. However what happens to those, and there are equally many in the private sector, who don't make pension arrangements? They get to 66 or whatever age and draw their state pension. That is their only income so what then? It is topped up with various credits/benefits? Who pays for those credits? The private sector workers through their taxes or public sector workers through taxes on their earnings and on their annuities.
		
Click to expand...


And how do you think ANY of what you have written differs from the private sector who pay for those pensions? That's the whole point. They have something worth a total  MINT, even after the proposed reductions, which the people who are paying for it cannot have.

It would be a damned sight cheaper to pay them top up benefits than the pensions that the ones earning professional level salaries get. Nothing much would change for the bottom end.


----------



## perfect11s (17 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			because it is part of the terms and conditions of their employment. 
If you don't attch pensions to public sector jobs what happens then? Are people left to make their own pension arrangement? If so then that is fine for the ones that take that responsibility. However what happens to those, and there are equally many in the private sector, who don't make pension arrangements? They get to 66 or whatever age and draw their state pension. That is their only income so what then? It is topped up with various credits/benefits? Who pays for those credits? The private sector workers through their taxes or public sector workers through taxes on their earnings and on their annuities. (and yes public sector workers do pay tax and NI. Most of us realised that we did when we saw those little words on our payslip ie "tax paid". (Please don't reiterate the tedious explanation that public sector workers don't pay tax for the "n"th time.)
		
Click to expand...

UM I think its called equality !!!and on your other point Im not sure how much longer the state will be able to provide for the feckless and irisposable who spend every penny , on drinking smoking gambling and tat from argos during there working lifes and then expect the state to provide nursing care and free this and that , that others have saved to provide for  in their old age ????  so we all need to put something aside !!


----------



## BeesKnees (17 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			because it is part of the terms and conditions of their employment. 
If you don't attch pensions to public sector jobs what happens then? Are people left to make their own pension arrangement? If so then that is fine for the ones that take that responsibility. However what happens to those, and there are equally many in the private sector, who don't make pension arrangements? They get to 66 or whatever age and draw their state pension. That is their only income so what then? It is topped up with various credits/benefits? Who pays for those credits? The private sector workers through their taxes or public sector workers through taxes on their earnings and on their annuities. (and yes public sector workers do pay tax and NI. Most of us realised that we did when we saw those little words on our payslip ie "tax paid". (Please don't reiterate the tedious explanation that public sector workers don't pay tax for the "n"th time.)
		
Click to expand...

Thank you Paddy55 for making a case at least. Interesting though that you only quoted half my sentence, the other half being "and how it should be paid for?". 

You are right of course that people without pension provision are a drain on the state, but the reality is that it is less of a drain than paying for public sector pensions, quite simply because the amounts provided are under credits and state pension are less. 

I am going to be tiresome and reiterate the PS works don't really pay tax and NI. Yes you receive a payslip that says tax and NI paid on it. Did you ever have that money? No like all PAYE it is taken from your employer, in your case the state. So the state says on a piece of paper given to you 'we paid your tax and have given it to........ourselves'. You see? It isn't real, it's smoke and mirrors. It never went anywhere, it's just in the tax pot, in the treasury. That pot is no richer after the paper transaction than it was before.

In my case, my employer has to ring up HMRC and make a payment each month from the business account, which has money in it from the services we provide and which people pay for, to cover my tax and NI. That is money the 
state now have that they didn't have before. 

The bottom line is if the public sector has a legal right to the pension provision as it stands then they should be in court fighting it out, not striking.

And I still haven't heard how you think your pension should be paid for?


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

And besides which

NOBODY

has suggested the total removal of public sector pensions.

Public sector workers struck over reductions which would still leave them with MASSIVELY better pensions than the private sector who finance them.


ps so sorry if my capitals upset anyone but this dumb and stupid text editor on HHO does not give any easy way to get italics, underline or bold to emphasize a word.


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

Pensions are not generally part of an employment contract. Check your contract, I think you may find that it is not there. This is normal.


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (17 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			ps so sorry if my capitals upset anyone but this dumb and stupid text editor on HHO does give any *easy way to get italics, underline or bold* to emphasize a word.
		
Click to expand...

SP if you use the advanced button you or if you quote someone you are in the advanced edit options where you just highlight the words you want and then click on the bold, underline or italic icons at the top


----------



## fburton (17 December 2011)

Off at a tangent again, but as this seems the place to air niggles...

Are road diggers / navvies (or whatever they are called these days... road maintenance operatives probably!) generally public or private sector? Every time I pass a team of them in the car, all but one are 'resting' - chatting amongst themselves, on the mobile, or wandering about in a leisurely fashion. That's in this country. In contrast, whenever I'm in the Netherlands or Germany, all of them have their heads down and appear to be working very hard. Even the ones that aren't doing stuff with their hands are striding about purposefully. If these are private UK companies, how on earth do they manage to prosper with such an (apparently) lackadaisical approach to work?


----------



## perfect11s (17 December 2011)

fburton said:



			Off at a tangent again, but as this seems the place to air niggles...

Are road diggers / navvies (or whatever they are called these days... road maintenance operatives probably!) generally public or private sector? Every time I pass a team of them in the car, all but one are 'resting' - chatting amongst themselves, on the mobile, or wandering about in a leisurely fashion. That's in this country. In contrast, whenever I'm in the Netherlands or Germany, all of them have their heads down and appear to be working very hard. Even the ones that aren't doing stuff with their hands are striding about purposefully. If these are private UK companies, how on earth do they manage to prosper with such an (apparently) lackadaisical approach to work?
		
Click to expand...

 They are actualy practising to be nurses in a dementure ward


----------



## fburton (17 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			dementure ward 

Click to expand...

What's that then - something to do with false teeth?


----------



## Wundahorse (17 December 2011)

So much for the private sector,i bought a settee and armchair from a well known firm,clearly from money that SP pays me through her taxes.After weeks of delivery delay the furniture arrived,but they sent the wrong chair.How is that for efficiency.And i get fed up trying to buy goods from very bored staff who would clearly prefer to be elsewhere.Some people decline to put money into their pensions by choice,and then complain when they have little other than what the state provides when they retire.Also all the people who fritter their money in their working lives can look forward to care home fees being paid.I have always been careful and saved,and when i eventually retire,that is if i live long enough to enjoy retirement after working all those extra years the Govt..have heaped on us,my savings and pension will be diverted to paying my care home fees.


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			So much for the private sector,i bought a settee and armchair from a well known firm,clearly from money that SP pays me through her taxes.After weeks of delivery delay the furniture arrived,but they sent the wrong chair.How is that for efficiency.And i get fed up trying to buy goods from very bored staff who would clearly prefer to be elsewhere.Some people decline to put money into their pensions by choice,and then complain when they have little other than what the state provides when they retire.Also all the people who fritter their money in their working lives can look forward to care home fees being paid.I have always been careful and saved,and when i eventually retire,that is if i live long enough to enjoy retirement after working all those extra years the Govt..have heaped on us,my savings and pension will be diverted to paying my care home fees.
		
Click to expand...

And what has ANY of that, all true, got to do with public sector workers striking over a reduction in their pensions to a position where they will still be way over what the private sector has?  I hope the whinge helped you feel better, but it has nothing to do with the discussion!


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

fburton said:



			Off at a tangent again, but as this seems the place to air niggles...

Are road diggers / navvies (or whatever they are called these days... road maintenance operatives probably!) generally public or private sector? Every time I pass a team of them in the car, all but one are 'resting' - chatting amongst themselves, on the mobile, or wandering about in a leisurely fashion. That's in this country. In contrast, whenever I'm in the Netherlands or Germany, all of them have their heads down and appear to be working very hard. Even the ones that aren't doing stuff with their hands are striding about purposefully. If these are private UK companies, how on earth do they manage to prosper with such an (apparently) lackadaisical approach to work?
		
Click to expand...

Road diggers are mostly private sector. If they are working for gas, water, telecoms or electricity companies then they contribute money to the public sector. If they are working on road maintenance for the council, they do not contribute money to the public sector, because for that piece of work, they effectively ARE the public sector.

I agree about the men who stand and stare down the hole!


----------



## paddy555 (17 December 2011)

fburton said:



			Are road diggers / navvies (or whatever they are called these days... road maintenance operatives probably!) generally public or private sector? Every time I pass a team of them in the car, all but one are 'resting' - chatting amongst themselves, on the mobile, or wandering about in a leisurely fashion.
		
Click to expand...


do you live near me? I only  ask because this totally describes our road diggers.


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

tinselunicorn said:



			SP if you use the advanced button you or if you quote someone you are in the advanced edit options where you just highlight the words you want and then click on the bold, underline or italic icons at the top 

Click to expand...

I got no icons    Snot fair !!!  I shall thcream and thcream until I get thome.

TU what am I doing wrong? My browser is Firefox, perhaps that's why I don't get the icons. Do you get to see the text commands - _ and _ for example? If so, can you tell me the commands for italic bold and underline and I'll use those.


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (17 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			I got no icons    Snot fair !!!  I shall thcream and thcream until I get thome.

TU what am I doing wrong? My browser is Firefox, perhaps that's why I don't get the icons. Do you get to see the text commands - _ and _ for example? If so, can you tell me the commands for italic bold and underline and I'll use those.
		
Click to expand...

Go into User CP at the top and check your settings - maybe you haven't got something ticked


----------



## paddy555 (17 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			Thank you Paddy55 for making a case at least. Interesting though that you only quoted half my sentence, the other half being "and how it should be paid for?". 

You are right of course that people without pension provision are a drain on the state, but the reality is that it is less of a drain than paying for public sector pensions, quite simply because the amounts provided are under credits and state pension are less. 

I am going to be tiresome and reiterate the PS works don't really pay tax and NI. Yes you receive a payslip that says tax and NI paid on it. Did you ever have that money? No like all PAYE it is taken from your employer, in your case the state. So the state says on a piece of paper given to you 'we paid your tax and have given it to........ourselves'. You see? It isn't real, it's smoke and mirrors. It never went anywhere, it's just in the tax pot, in the treasury. That pot is no richer after the paper transaction than it was before.

In my case, my employer has to ring up HMRC and make a payment each month from the business account, which has money in it from the services we provide and which people pay for, to cover my tax and NI. That is money the 
state now have that they didn't have before. 

The bottom line is if the public sector has a legal right to the pension provision as it stands then they should be in court fighting it out, not striking.

And I still haven't heard how you think your pension should be paid for?
		
Click to expand...

  I think the taxpayer should pay as part of their funding of public servces. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. 

I agree that things have changed in recent years however I remember many pay reviews in the past when our pay was compared to comparable outside jobs and the pension "benefit" was taken into account. The level of civil service pensions was not always considered to be so exceptional. I remember my father who started his pension in about 1987 from a large private sector employer was on a superior scheme to the civil service one. However that was in the past. 


I also understood that civil servants (I don't know enough about others to comment) have a right, as part of their conditions of service to join the civil service pension scheme. That is not compulsory. As a member of that pension scheme one then gets the benefits set out in the scheme. 

You make a comment about "fighting it out in court" that is what I understand the unions did a couple of years ago when changes were proposed. My understanding was that the changes introduced had to be reversed as a result of the court decision. 

The  question seems to be should the conditions of the pension scheme be updated to bring it inline with modern life expectancy etc. I see no problem with this. There are always going to be winners and losers when anything changes. 
For example when the female retirement age was increased from 60 to 65 I lost out badly. I lost out a second time when it was increased to 66. 
So some public sector workers will lose out when the retirement age is increased. This will be inevitable. It is a fact of life as society progresses. 
In the same way to reflect economic conditions then public sector workers will have to make contributions towards their pensions. 
What suprises me is that it has taken so long for the government to take a stand to implement this. What was the government doing for the last 10 years? 

as for "paying tax" I perfectly understand your "gross" and "net" argument. 
I just think it is a silly one that doesn't really add anything to how public sector pensions should be calculated.


----------



## Mithras (17 December 2011)

fburton said:



			Off at a tangent again, but as this seems the place to air niggles...

Are road diggers / navvies (or whatever they are called these days... road maintenance operatives probably!) generally public or private sector? Every time I pass a team of them in the car, all but one are 'resting' - chatting amongst themselves, on the mobile, or wandering about in a leisurely fashion. That's in this country. In contrast, whenever I'm in the Netherlands or Germany, all of them have their heads down and appear to be working very hard. Even the ones that aren't doing stuff with their hands are striding about purposefully. If these are private UK companies, how on earth do they manage to prosper with such an (apparently) lackadaisical approach to work?
		
Click to expand...

To continue with your tangent (and agree with it), in the Netherlands and Germany, not only do I see road workers actually working, but they aren't universally male either.  Its quite normal to get female ones.

Such companies are usually what I term "quasi public sector" - dependent on the public sector to get work, most likely wouldn't survive if they depended on purely private sector work.


----------



## Mithras (17 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Pensions are not generally part of an employment contract. Check your contract, I think you may find that it is not there. This is normal.
		
Click to expand...

They not form part of a written contract of employment or statement of terms and conditions, but if habitually recieved, will usually form one of the implied terms of the contract.  This does not mean it cannot be changed at reasonable notice, and with the agreement of both parties to the contract.


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

tinselunicorn said:



			What suprises me is that it has taken so long for the government to take a stand to implement this. What was the government doing for the last 10 years?
		
Click to expand...



It's a good point. A Labour government ducked it because they knew it was a vote loser. To rub salt in the wound, they ducked it partly by taking £5 *billion* a year, every year, plus compound interest on all the previous years' £5 billions, out of the private sector pension pot.


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

tinselunicorn said:



			Go into User CP at the top and check your settings - maybe you haven't got something ticked

Click to expand...

*yeah!*

_yeah!_

yeah!

Ta TU!!


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			And i get fed up trying to buy goods from very bored staff who would clearly prefer to be elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

Wundahorse can I suggest that before you criticise a bored shop worker who would prefer to be elsewhere, that you try working for 40 hours a week for under £12,000 a year (taxed and contributing to your pension), no sick pay for the first 5 days, no life assurance, no fallback if too ill to work again (just the sack), 4 weeks holidays, mandatory working on Bank Holidays, and no realistic pension?

*Everyone* would prefer to be elsewhere!


----------



## BeesKnees (17 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			I think the taxpayer should pay as part of their funding of public servces. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
		
Click to expand...

So as an addendum, can you explain why that seems fair to you when many of those tax payers can't afford a pension of their own? 



paddy555 said:



			as for "paying tax" I perfectly understand your "gross" and "net" argument. I just think it is a silly one that doesn't really add anything to how public sector pensions should be calculated.
		
Click to expand...

Silly or just an inconvenient reality? It is a valid argument when people are justifying the level of pension provision by saying 'we pay for it', when strictly speaking from an accounting point of view, they aren't?


----------



## BeesKnees (17 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



*yeah!*

_yeah!_

yeah!

Ta TU!!
		
Click to expand...

What did you do? It all seems random, sometimes I get smilies and stuff and sometimes I don't


----------



## Anglebracket (17 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Wundahorse can I suggest that before you criticise a bored shop worker who would prefer to be elsewhere, that you try working for 40 hours a week for under £12,000 a year (taxed and contributing to your pension), no sick pay for the first 5 days, no life assurance, no fallback if too ill to work again (just the sack), 4 weeks holidays, mandatory working on Bank Holidays, and no realistic pension?

*Everyone* would prefer to be elsewhere!
		
Click to expand...

It would be illegal to only give someone 4 weeks holidays. You are legally entitled to 28 days or pt equivalent.


----------



## Oliver12 (17 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			It would be illegal to only give someone 4 weeks holidays. You are legally entitled to 28 days or pt equivalent.
		
Click to expand...

Excuse me. I've had many jobs where I only receive 20 days holiday per year. In fact when I say "only" I've counted myself lucky. I have several friends who only receive 15 or 17 days a year. On what planet do you live?


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

duplicate


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			It would be illegal to only give someone 4 weeks holidays. You are legally entitled to 28 days or pt equivalent.
		
Click to expand...


The law:


"Bank and public holidays can be included as part of your minimum 5.6 weeks' holiday entitlement."


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (17 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			It would be illegal to only give someone 4 weeks holidays. You are legally entitled to 28 days or pt equivalent.
		
Click to expand...

Haha! 

What planet do you live on?

Try talking to people who are employed in Costa, supermarkets and places like that who have to sign contrracts to say they will work on Bank Holidays - that includes Boxing Day

I think you will find in the private sector unlike the public sector you are not 'entitled' to a lot of things


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (17 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			What did you do? It all seems random, sometimes I get smilies and stuff and sometimes I don't 

Click to expand...

Go to User CP at the top and check all your settings - there is a drop down box in one called Miscellaneous - you need to change it to the alternative dropdown to get smilies all the time


----------



## Anglebracket (17 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			The law:


"Bank and public holidays can be included as part of your minimum 5.6 weeks' holiday entitlement."
		
Click to expand...

5.6 weeks = 28 days, as I have stated. 

I am aware that none of these 28 days has to fall on a bank holiday.


----------



## Mince Pie (17 December 2011)

Last time I checked there were 7 days a week? And on that note it's not a given that I will get _any_ paid holiday let alone 4 weeks.
I am also one of those people that SP mentioned. To earn £300 a week gross I would have to work 50 hours a week - and I don't get a pension. I work in industries where I am exected to work on any day of the week, I don't get extra money for working bank holidays, therefore why the hell should I subsidise your pension as well as scrimping and saving to try and put a little bit aside for myself, as well as your cushy time and a half wages for working on a bank holiday?

And just to clarify, I left school at 16 years old - with A levels, have a HND in equine  science (which did have a lot of science involved) plus having an NVQ on top. I gave myself a decent education I am not a "high school dropout".


----------



## Anglebracket (17 December 2011)

tinselunicorn said:



			Haha! 

What planet do you live on?

Try talking to people who are employed in Costa, supermarkets and places like that who have to sign contrracts to say they will work on Bank Holidays - that includes Boxing Day

I think you will find in the private sector unlike the public sector you are not 'entitled' to a lot of things

Click to expand...

Again, no matter who you work for you are entitled to 28 days (5.6 weeks) holiday if you work full-time. You are not entitled to have bank holidays (including boxing day) off. I never claimed that anyone was legally entitled to have bank holidays off. I merely pointed out that everyone who works 5 days a week is entitled to 28 days off. 

I thought this information might be useful to someone reading this and not being aware of their legal holiday entitlement.


----------



## cptrayes (17 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			5.6 weeks = 28 days, as I have stated. 

I am aware that none of these 28 days has to fall on a bank holiday.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely the reverse of what you have read. All the 8 bank holidays can be included in the 28 days. Minimum holiday entitlement excluding bank holidays  for a private sector worker is 20 days, 4 weeks.


----------



## paddy555 (18 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			So as an addendum, can you explain why that seems fair to you when many of those tax payers can't afford a pension of their own? 



Silly or just an inconvenient reality? It is a valid argument when people are justifying the level of pension provision by saying 'we pay for it', when strictly speaking from an accounting point of view, they aren't?
		
Click to expand...


I am lost, haven't read all the threads, but I'm not sure if you are saying changes need to be made to public section pension schemes or that, in your opinion, they should simply be abolished and workers should make their own arrangements. 
It seems fair that if it is part of the terms of their employment that public sector workers should receive pensions. Public services have to be funded if we are going to have them. 

Silly or inconvenient reality? well to me just silly. I cannot see anything inconvenient about it. It is just reality that public sector workers pay tax and NI in the same way as every other employee. I cannot see anything to be gained by looking at it any other way. Money is recirculating all the time. 
Taking it onto the next stage then the public sector spends their wages (or I am sure you would prefer to call it their handout from the private sector) on goods which keeps the shop assistant in work and the business owner in profit. Round and round we go. 

Looking at it a different way. I am sure you would prefer that your tax (presuming you are employed) did not fund public sector pensions. Equally I would prefer that my tax did not fund many other things. There are various benefits I object to. I feel a bit peeved that I am paying for some very wealthy higher tax rate pensioners to get bus passes and the winter fuel allowance. I feel peeved that there are some very ill people who are not getting enough in  benefits. Peeved at some of the amounts of child benefits being paid. I suppose you would think it irrelevant as in your opinion I don't pay any tax so I have no right to an opinion.

The example was quoted of the 12k pa shop assistant contributing to my pension but are they not bothered about contributing to say winter fuel allowance? 

Did any the people who are obviously so very unhappy about public sector workers getting pensions not think to join the public sector?


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			Equally I would prefer that my tax did not fund many other things.
		
Click to expand...

Your tax funds NOTHING.

Absolutely NOTHING.

Read the thread if you do not understand that.


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			The example was quoted of the 12k pa shop assistant contributing to my pension but are they not bothered about contributing to say winter fuel allowance?
		
Click to expand...

You actually think the two compare? I am stunned.

The shop worker will get winter fuel allowance when it is their turn. They will never, ever, have a defined benefit pension like yours even after the reductions your Union asked you to  strike about.

Can you _really_ not see what is unfair about that?


----------



## paddy555 (18 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Your tax funds NOTHING.

Absolutely NOTHING.

Read the thread if you do not understand that.
		
Click to expand...

I don't need to read the thread again. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just don't happen to agree with your interpretation. Please don't feel the need to repeat your comments for my benefit.


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			I don't need to read the thread again. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just don't happen to agree with your interpretation. Please don't feel the need to repeat your comments for my benefit.
		
Click to expand...

It is not "my interpretation". It is fact. Tax paid by a public sector employee does not fund the public sector. 

I will repeat it while you keep repeating that you do pay towards the public sector and your own pension. Because you don't.


----------



## paddy555 (18 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			You actually think the two compare? I am stunned.

The shop worker will get winter fuel allowance when it is their turn. They will never, ever, have a defined benefit pension like yours even after the reductions your Union asked you to  strike about.

Can you _really_ not see what is unfair about that?
		
Click to expand...

the shop worker will certainly get winter fuel allowance. However do YOU really think it fair that YOU (obviously not me) are funding winter fuel etc for higher rate taxpayers? If you are happy to do that then I cannot see why you are unhappy about funding public sector pensions. 

Please also get your facts correct. "my union" is incorrect. Don't assume my  union as I did not belong to the union. The reason for that was that I was not prepared to strike. 
If you read some of my earlier comments you will see that I agree reductions/changes are required, although I am probably one of the few who does. 
Actually, I am almost starting to change my mind on that when I read some of the vitriol which seems to be levelled at public sector workers.


----------



## paddy555 (18 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			It is not "my interpretation". It is fact. Tax paid by a public sector employee does not fund the public sector. 

I will repeat it while you keep repeating that you do pay towards the public sector and your own pension. Because you don't.
		
Click to expand...

I don't intend to keep repeating anything as I simply see no need to.  However as it is obviously terribly important to you please do so (but just not for my benefit).


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			I don't intend to keep repeating anything as I simply see no need to.  However as it is obviously terribly important to you please do so (but just not for my benefit). 

Click to expand...

Paddy555 you are quite right. It is terribly important to me that the people who struck against changes to their pensions that will still leave them better off than almost all the people who pay their wages understand what they have done.

You clearly do not, which is a shame. Though I am pleased to hear that you did not strike.

Can I ask you what job you actually do?


----------



## cptrayes (18 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			the shop worker will certainly get winter fuel allowance. However do YOU really think it fair that YOU (obviously not me) are funding winter fuel etc for higher rate taxpayers?
		
Click to expand...

I don't but it has nothing to do with your pension. The argument is that if you means test it then thousands of pensioners who need it will not apply. Unlike later generations, many current pensioners regard payments like that as charity and will not apply. Until that changes, paying it to everyone is probably as close to fair as we can get.



paddy555 said:



			If you are happy to do that then I cannot see why you are unhappy about funding public sector pensions.
		
Click to expand...

This comment just indicates that you are unaware of how much your pension costs and that you do not see the injustice that, unlike winter fuel payments,  it is unavailable to almost anyone except a public sector worker. 




paddy555 said:



			Please also get your facts correct. "my union" is incorrect. Don't assume my  union as I did not belong to the union. The reason for that was that I was not prepared to strike.
		
Click to expand...

I apologise for the assumption. 



paddy555 said:



			Actually, I am almost starting to change my mind on that when I read some of the vitriol which seems to be levelled at public sector workers.
		
Click to expand...

If you are intending to accuse me of vitriol please point out to me where it is in my posts and I will apologise for inadvertantly being vitriolic towards the Public Sector.


----------



## perfect11s (19 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Your tax funds NOTHING.

Absolutely NOTHING.

Read the thread if you do not understand that.
		
Click to expand...

 Look ! sorry to tell
you this But if the public sector  dont understand they will look at the mirror ,guardian,
or ask a labour mp or their union rep for the facts ...and not someome who lives in the real world


----------



## BeesKnees (19 December 2011)

Paddy555 you are wrong in your assumptions. If you had read the thread you would have seen that I have stated my support for the public sector. In answer to one of your questions, I did work in the public sector for 4 years ( as have several of the people on this thread questioning the strike, again something you would have seen had you read the thread fully).

So no, I don't consider my taxes going to pay for those services as a 'handout' and I'm not against the pension per se, although my expeerience showed me that many in the public sector are not valiant frontline workers, and do very little to deserve their generous pay and conditions.

I do object to people striking to keep a pension that is no longer affordable at a time when everyone is struggling and having to accept cutbacks, especially when as SantaPAws says, the adjusted pension is still very generous and will make you much better off in retirement than many of the people who funded it.

It is true that a few on here have stated very negative views of the PS, but I don't think most of us have been in any way vitriolic. We have questioned assumptions and misinformation that people supporting the strikes have made on the thread, including the idea stated by some that they fund their own pensions, and contribute to services through tax, when in reality they don't. 

Far from being a silly or unhelpful argument, understanding the realities of PS financing is a fundamental part of the argument for reform. I believe that if more PS workers truly understood how their salaries and pensions are financed, instead of continuing under the illusion that they contribute, it might enable some realistic negotiation.

 Instead I have been quite appalled by how little many people on this thread and the JC 
one, understand about their pensions, yet they are happy to strike over it.


----------



## Wundahorse (19 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			I don't intend to keep repeating anything as I simply see no need to.  However as it is obviously terribly important to you please do so (but just not for my benefit). 

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more Paddy555,i have tried to assert the same points,but find that some people seem to believe they are self declared experts whose opinions are more valid than others without even attending to some of the salient points made.I do know exactly how my pension is funded,and how it is sustained over time,and again repeat that the members contribute to their pension with contributions from the employer,out of funds agreed for this purpose.I agree some pensions are gross because some staff earn mega bucks compared to others,and this is not right.I have only tried to defend those staff who are on comparatively low wages.I also know barely any Nurses went on strike,for the record,as we could not leave services short of staff,or compromise patient care.Some people here should try a shift on duty at A&E to appreciate how hard staff have to work during times where cutbacks are biting very hard.I have also tried to say i do appreciate how difficult things are in the private sector,but again people are very selective about what they focus on in this debate.My eldest daughter is in the private sector and has to work hard to get enough money to barely live on,and my son will be looking for work when he leaves Uni next year.It is this generation and those that follow who i really feel for.


----------



## BeesKnees (19 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			...some people seem to believe they are self declared experts whose opinions are more valid than others without even attending to some of the salient points made.

*Please can you point me to the salient points that have been made? I would like to address anything I have missed.*

I do know exactly how my pension is funded,and how it is sustained over time,and again repeat that the members contribute to their pension with contributions from the employer,out of funds agreed for this purpose.

*What 'funds agreed for this purpose' are you meaning?*

I have only tried to defend those staff who are on comparatively low wages.

*Can you be more specific about which staff you mean? *

Some people here should try a shift on duty at A&E to appreciate how hard staff have to work during times where cutbacks are biting very hard.

*Can you explain how this point relates to the argument about pension reform?*

My eldest daughter is in the private sector and has to work hard to get enough money to barely live on,and my son will be looking for work when he leaves Uni next year.It is this generation and those that follow who i really feel for.
		
Click to expand...

So Wundahorse, if you see you daughter struggling to even live, do you still feel it fair that her taxes should be diverted towards paying foran unaffordable pension system, when they could go towards frontline services, or paying better salaries for those you describe as relatively low paid?


----------



## Wundahorse (19 December 2011)

BeesKnees said:



			So Wundahorse, if you see you daughter struggling to even live, do you still feel it fair that her taxes should be diverted towards paying foran unaffordable pension system, when they could go towards frontline services, or paying better salaries for those you describe as relatively low paid?
		
Click to expand...

Public services are necessary to maintain society,and this has to be funded via taxes.If people were told they had to make provision for services that are essential,they would have to set up some funds to support this privately,so it still costs any way to live in a decent society whether it comes from private or public money.I  get the strong feeling that some people would rather we provided our services entirely voluntarily.This is not a debate as the views are so polarised there will never be any consensus,even to agree to disagree.Furthermore,the media's campaign against public sector staff,has i believe,been successful,despite the fact that much of what the Daily Mail,for example reports,is based on distorted information which they dress up to appear quite sensational.


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			self declared experts whose opinions are more valid than others
		
Click to expand...

The fact that public sector pensions are entirely financed by the private sector taxpayer, who does not have the same wonderful benefit themselves, is not an "opinion" - it's a fact.




Wundahorse said:



			without even attending to some of the salient points made.
		
Click to expand...

Can you please remind me Wundahorse and I will answer you. I have not knowlingly failed to answer any point that you have made.




Wundahorse said:



			I do know exactly how my pension is funded,and how it is sustained over time,
		
Click to expand...

It cannot be sustained over time without massive increases in taxation for the private sector workers. Can you tell me why we should pay it, when it is a benefit that we cannot hope to have ourselves and your salaries are already at par or greater?




Wundahorse said:



			and again repeat that the members contribute to their pension with contributions from the employer
		
Click to expand...

I hope that you are not still confusing money being deducted out of your salary with who is actually providing that money. That goes for your employer's contribution too - the private sector taxpayer is your employer.





Wundahorse said:



			.I agree some pensions are gross because some staff earn mega bucks compared to others,and this is not right.
		
Click to expand...

So do I, it goes for the private sector too. The gap between top and bottom is obscene.




Wundahorse said:



			I have only tried to defend those staff who are on comparatively low wages.
		
Click to expand...

I have tried to defend those staff in the private sector on even lower wages who, unless you take big cuts in your pensions, face paying even more tax so that you can keep a benefit that they will never see the like of. 




Wundahorse said:



			Some people here should try a shift on duty at A&E to appreciate how hard staff have to work during times where cutbacks are biting very hard.
		
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that A&E staff do a great job, but I can't really see how much worse it is than a number of private sector jobs.  If being a public sector nurse is so bad, I can't help but wonder why the vast majority of the entire nursing staff at a private hospital not 5 miles from two very  major NHS hospitals with vacancies, which I visited earlier this year for 5 days in a row, 12 til 7, were foreigners on work permits? 



Wundahorse said:



			I have also tried to say i do appreciate how difficult things are in the private sector,but again people are very selective about what they focus on in this debate.
		
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you appreciate it but the point of debate was very narrow. It was about whether public sector staff were justified in striking to retain a benefit which would result in the private sector staff who fund it paying massively more in tax in the coming years.



Wundahorse said:



			My eldest daughter is in the private sector and has to work hard to get enough money to barely live on,and my son will be looking for work when he leaves Uni next year.It is this generation and those that follow who i really feel for.
		
Click to expand...

So do I. They have been "done to" by the have-it-all-on-credit generation, the unbelievable laxity in controlling the behaviour of the banks by our elected governments,  and some very greedy bankers. Nothing much to do with your pension though, which is almost all about how long we are all living.


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			Public services are necessary to maintain society,and this has to be funded via taxes.If people were told they had to make provision for services that are essential,they would have to set up some funds to support this privately,so it still costs any way to live in a decent society whether it comes from private or public money.I  get the strong feeling that some people would rather we provided our services entirely voluntarily.This is not a debate as the views are so polarised there will never be any consensus,even to agree to disagree.Furthermore,the media's campaign against public sector staff,has i believe,been successful,despite the fact that much of what the Daily Mail,for example reports,is based on distorted information which they dress up to appear quite sensational.
		
Click to expand...

Wundahorse no-one is suggesting that we dismantle the public sector. All we want you to do is be more reasonable about your expectations of how much money we should provide for your pensions when we cannot have a pension like it ourselves.

A number of people have given their own stories of working in the public and private sector on this forum, nothing to do with the Daily Mail, but you do not want to hear them. 

Why are you trying to make this into a discussion about wiping out the Public Sector? It's not.

It's about your unaffordable and unfair pensions and what possible justification there may have been for striking to try and retain them. I'm sorry but "we work hard and do a useful job" is not a strong argument, however true it may be.


----------



## Wundahorse (19 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			The fact that public sector pensions are entirely financed by the private sector taxpayer, who does not have the same wonderful benefit themselves, is not an "opinion" - it's a fact.




Can you please remind me Wundahorse and I will answer you. I have not knowlingly failed to answer any point that you have made.




It cannot be sustained over time without massive increases in taxation for the private sector workers. Can you tell me why we should pay it, when it is a benefit that we cannot hope to have ourselves and your salaries are already at par or greater?




I hope that you are not still confusing money being deducted out of your salary with who is actually providing that money. That goes for your employer's contribution too - the private sector taxpayer is your employer.





So do I, it goes for the private sector too. The gap between top and bottom is obscene.




I have tried to defend those staff in the private sector on even lower wages who, unless you take big cuts in your pensions, face paying even more tax so that you can keep a benefit that they will never see the like of. 




I dont' doubt that A&E staff do a great job, but I can't really see how much worse it is than a number of private sector jobs.  If being a public sector nurse is so bad, I can't help but wonder why almost the entire nursing staff at a private hospital not 5 miles from two very  major NHS hospitals with vacancies, which I visited earlier this year for 5 days in a row, 12 til 7, were foreigners on work permits? 



I'm glad that you appreciate it but the point of debate was very narrow. It was about whether public sector staff were justified in striking to retain a benefit which would result in the private sector staff who fund it paying massively more in tax in the coming years.



So do I. They have been done to by the have-it-all-on-credit generation, the unbelievable laxity in controlling the behaviour of the banks by our elected governments,  and some very greedy bankers. Nothing much to do with your pension though, which is almost all about how long we are all living.
		
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself,and not union members i felt that the strike really should have centred on Government cutbacks in essential front-line services,and not about pensions at this stage,as more staff will lose their jobs,leaving greater gaps in the delivery of patient care,which i agree is not as good as it should be.I am much more concerned with what is going on now,and what is yet to come,all of which is more bad news for anyone needing medical care.


----------



## cptrayes (19 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			Speaking for myself,and not union members i felt that the strike really should have centred on Government cutbacks in essential front-line services,and not about pensions at this stage,as more staff will lose their jobs,leaving greater gaps in the delivery of patient care,which i agree is not as good as it should be.I am much more concerned with what is going on now,and what is yet to come,all of which is more bad news for anyone needing medical care.
		
Click to expand...

I'm really glad you feel that way Wundahorse. Unfortunately it *was* about pensions and by striking for their pensions the Public Sector as a whole turned the Private Sector against them in a big, big way 

Cuts in nurses and police worry me a lot.


----------



## Wundahorse (19 December 2011)

I realise that which is why i felt the public perception was influenced strongly by the media.At the moment there is so much going on that public sector staff,at least in the NHS, fear for their services and worry about the impact on patient care for the foreseeable future.Anyway i am of to Olympia now for the annual outing.


----------



## BeesKnees (19 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			At the moment there is so much going on that public sector staff,at least in the NHS, fear for their services and worry about the impact on patient care for the foreseeable future.
		
Click to expand...

But they didn't strike about that. They struck, or supported the strike, over keeping their own benefits as high as possible. You don't need the hideous Daily Mail to spin how selfish that looks!

I'm sorry but you cannot talk about having fears for the future funding of the PS services and at the same time want vauable taxes to be diverted into your unsustainable pension scheme. It just doesn't add up.


----------



## Scoutie (19 December 2011)

I haven't looked at this post for a couple of days but it seems to go around in circles.  Please could someone explain to me:

- Why the public sector pensions should not change, private sector ones already have as they are simply not affordable.  What makes the public sector different and isolated from reality?  I do not consider it sufficient to say that this is what we were promised, no one promised this, it is only a belief that seems to developed in recent years.  Nor is a contractual issue, my pension rights are considered a benefit and are not in my terms of employment, I am highly doubtful if this is different in the public sector.

- If public sector pensions do not change who is going to fund this?  There is no money, most of the world is in a economic crisis (excluding the BRICs and a few other countries), to cover this taxes will have to increase, this includes taxes paid by the public sector so the public sector will end up paying for this as will everyone else.  

If we continue as we are we will run out of money like Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland and believe me things are a lot worse there.  In a number of these countries public sector workers simply not being paid, they do not know if they have a job from one week to the next and as a result private sector business is coming to a stand still but it is this business that will keep the country afloat.   These people are simply working out how to survive next week.


----------



## Oliver12 (19 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			I realise that which is why i felt the public perception was influenced strongly by the media.At the moment there is so much going on that public sector staff,at least in the NHS, fear for their services and worry about the impact on patient care for the foreseeable future.Anyway i am of to Olympia now for the annual outing.
		
Click to expand...

All I can say is thank goodness for the media in making us aware of the discrepancies between public and private sector pensions.

And the cynical in me is screaming that the public sector do not worry so much about cuts in services and "the impact on patient care" but about not getting annual pay increases and mega pensions. And I know so many people who work in the public sector and that is all they harp on about.


----------



## paddy555 (19 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Paddy555 you are quite right. It is terribly important to me that the people who struck against changes to their pensions that will still leave them better off than almost all the people who pay their wages understand what they have done.

You clearly do not, which is a shame. Though I am pleased to hear that you did not strike.

Can I ask you what job you actually do?
		
Click to expand...

I am really sorry to disillusion you but the facts seem very simple to me. Public sector employees are aware that their employer is the government, NHS, local authority or whatever. They are aware that their salaries etc are therefore funded by the treasury ie taxation. You do not need to keep going on about this. Public sector workers know this. I appreciate it is important to you but I can assure they do know. 

Many, and certainly the unions believe they should maintain their current level of pensions. Some have more moderate views. Some of those could be considered greedy. Many in the private sector would think them very greedy. Many in the public sector believe it is their entitlement ie part of their "remuneration" package. (for want of a better word) and as part of their employment they were entitled to join the pension scheme. 


There are other issues involved that Wundahorse pointed out. Staff morale, fear of job losses, reductions in services, closing of offices and dreadful management to name but a few. A generally unhappy workforce. Add to the equation that their employer wants to reduce their pension and this is the situation you have. 

A lot has been stated about shop assistants funding public sector pensions although on 11K pa their tax and NI contribution is not that great and they may well be in receipt of benefits themselves. 

There are a lot of people who are remunerated in excess of public sector workers. The whole of the private sector are not shop assistants. 

Many years ago I considered leaving the public sector and going to the private side. Some of my colleagues did and received a higher level of remuneration. I chose to stay, my pension provision being one of the reasons for this. 

I disagree strongly with your notion that public sector workers do not pay tax/NI.
As I have said I understand your argument just don't think it particuarly contributes.
Personally as a taxpayer I have no problem funding public sector pensions. 
My tax, as indeed does yours, helps to fund this. I feel very confident that I can say this, as even if I went along with your argument that tax paid in my public service income is not really "tax" then I pay a fair amout of tax on my other income. Just looking ahead to your next comment I can assure you that this is not derived in anyway from the public service and I can therefore be confident, at least in your eyes, that I am a PROPER taxpayer. 

you can certainly ask about my job but I don't put that sort of personal information on a public forum.


----------



## fburton (20 December 2011)

If an argument can be made for reducing public sector pension provision for those who have not yet retired, is there not also an argument to claw back _some_ - 5-10% say - of existing pensions for redistribution and/or support of those private sector pensions that have gone from adequate to inadequate through govt policy changes? No one who has worked hard all their life should suffer financial misery in their old age, and some retired PS workers seem to be living the life of Riley. Such inequality can't be considered fair, surely?


----------



## perfect11s (20 December 2011)

fburton said:



			If an argument can be made for reducing public sector pension provision for those who have not yet retired, is there not also an argument to claw back _some_ - 5-10% say - of existing pensions for redistribution and/or support of those private sector pensions that have gone from adequate to inadequate through govt policy changes? No one who has worked hard all their life should suffer financial misery in their old age, and some retired PS workers seem to be living the life of Riley. Such inequality can't be considered fair, surely?
		
Click to expand...

 Life isnt fair!!  things are in a mess the goverment's credit card is maxed out!!! sorry but the truth is we all have to work a little harder and longer and be happy with less this has been reality for the private sector and now it applys to the public sector too !!!


----------



## Fellewell (20 December 2011)

fburton said:



			If an argument can be made for reducing public sector pension provision for those who have not yet retired, is there not also an argument to claw back _some_ - 5-10% say - of existing pensions for redistribution and/or support of those private sector pensions that have gone from adequate to inadequate through govt policy changes? No one who has worked hard all their life should suffer financial misery in their old age, and some retired PS workers seem to be living the life of Riley. Such inequality can't be considered fair, surely?
		
Click to expand...

It's an interesting thought, but it would probably cost the govt more to implement those changes than the funds they'd actually recoup. And let's face it, they don't have the staff anymore


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			Public sector workers know this.
		
Click to expand...

Many still do not. I work with a lot of highly quaified and highly paid and intelligent public sector workers who still think that their tax contributes to the payment of their pensions. I actually believe that the majority of public sector employees believe this. I am please to see that you realise that only the tax on your savings interest and private sector earnings actually contribute to finance the public sector.



paddy555 said:



			A lot has been stated about shop assistants funding public sector pensions although on 11K pa their tax and NI contribution is not that great and they may well be in receipt of benefits themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Benefits which are paid for by private sector taxation, of course, and therefore of no relevance to the discussion as to whether a shop assistant on less than 12k a year should be asked to pay more tax to fund a £30,000 a year nursing sister's 40/55ths pension, which if she nurses from 25 to 65 will give her a pension of approaching twice what that shop assistant earns for full time work.




paddy555 said:



			There are a lot of people who are remunerated in excess of public sector workers. The whole of the private sector are not shop assistants.
		
Click to expand...

So what? Should a vet on £50,000 a year pay additional tax to fund a nurse on £30,000 a year to get a £20,000 a year pension when they would need to build up a fund of about half a million pounds to get the same benefit? (but without early retirement for ill health, just the sack if they can't work any more).




paddy555 said:



			Many years ago I considered leaving the public sector and going to the private side. Some of my colleagues did and received a higher level of remuneration. I chose to stay, my pension provision being one of the reasons for this.
		
Click to expand...

Many years ago I left the public sector for a more stimulating job than public administration and took a major pay cut to do so.  You made a different choice, and even after the proposed changes you will have a pension few people in the public sector can dream of, so you made the right choice.



paddy555 said:



			I disagree strongly with your notion that public sector workers do not pay tax/NI.
		
Click to expand...

Of course they pay it, it's on their payslip. It just means nothing that they pay it because they could equally well be paid net and there would be no difference. Unfortunately, the fact that it shows on their payslip is a major cause of the confusion in public sector workers' minds thinking that they contribute to the funding of the private sector when they don't. Your paragraph reads as if you still doubt this, but I'll take your word for it that you don't.


Paddy555 are you aware that we are not talking about taxes staying the same to fund your pensions?. We are talking about major tax increases for everyone for you to keep your pensions because there are big black holes in the finances and we are still continuing to live longer. Ironically, , because you are on a pay freeze, you _will_ actually be truly contributing more while your pay remains frozen, because there will be a bigger deduction returned to the Treasury from a fixed amount paid out. 

Can you tell me, do you really think the private sector, whose defined benefit pensions like yours were removed years ago, should pay even more for you to keep that benefit at the level you have it now, when even after the reductions proposed they are still beyond them even dreaming about?

And if so, can you tell me _*why*_?   Because I'm sorry but "we work hard", "people need our work", "morale will drop if our pensions go down a bit", "there are lots of people paid more than us" and "sometimes our jobs aren't nice" don't hack it for me.


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			I can therefore be confident, at least in your eyes, that I am a PROPER taxpayer.
		
Click to expand...

Paddy555 why do you make a value judgement out of this when I didn't? There is no such thing as a "proper" tax payer. There are only tax payers whose taxes fund the public sector and tax payers whose taxes do not fund the public sector and some like you who are a mix.

There is no good or bad implied in that. It's just an economic fact.


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

I must admit I've never liked the business model of pensions.  Seem far too risky to me to base your retirement financial wellbeing on.  Better to invest your own money.  Anyway, what about a radical change to pension provision?

- Much higher state pension for all.  Funded by slightly higher tax directly linked to funding the state pension.  If the lower paid were no longer so compelled to pay such a high proportion of their income into private pensions, they could presumably afford slightly higher tax.

- Increased Inheritance Tax.  I must admit I've never understood why people are so against inheritance tax, which is paid on an estate after death and the only benefit of which is to give surviving relatives something for nothing, and income tax, which penalises you for working.

I cannot see how people coming into the workplace now, with student loans, tuition fees and unemployment are supposed to save for a pension as well.  Maybe it will balance out a bit, as some people have benefitted too much from over-generous pensions.  My inlaws for example, both too early retirement from public sector jobs at 53 and 57 respectively.  Both live a life of quiet luxury on generous pensions, with 6 months abroad in their holiday home and 6 at home, big homes, new cars, caravans, etc..  Both retired from quite "ordinary" jobs.  That can't be right when you have young people graduating with huge loans to pay off with little prospect of ever buying a house, never mind enjoying a prosperous retirement as their taxes will go to pay the more greedy people demanding unrealistic provision working right now.


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			- Much higher state pension for all.  Funded by slightly higher tax directly linked to funding the state pension.  If the lower paid were no longer so compelled to pay such a high proportion of their income into private pensions, they could presumably afford slightly higher tax.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Mithras, all that has happened is that fewer people paid under £20,000 a year have a private pension of any kind at all to look forward to and in any case next year they are going to be forced to put money into a NEST pension. I also think the higher tax would be huge, not slight, but I don't have the figures.




Mithras said:



			- Increased Inheritance Tax.  I must admit I've never understood why people are so against inheritance tax, which is paid on an estate after death and the only benefit of which is to give surviving relatives something for nothing, and income tax, which penalises you for working.
		
Click to expand...

My favourite too. I'm guessing you have no kids ? Unfortunately it would not increase the tax take, the parents would just give it away when they were still alive. It might boost the economy though!




Mithras said:



			I cannot see how people coming into the workplace now, with student loans, tuition fees and unemployment are supposed to save for a pension as well.
		
Click to expand...

They are going to be forced to from 2012, with NEST pensions.


----------



## Anglebracket (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I must admit I've never liked the business model of pensions.  Seem far too risky to me to base your retirement financial wellbeing on.  Better to invest your own money.  Anyway, what about a radical change to pension provision?

- Much higher state pension for all.  Funded by slightly higher tax directly linked to funding the state pension.  If the lower paid were no longer so compelled to pay such a high proportion of their income into private pensions, they could presumably afford slightly higher tax.

- Increased Inheritance Tax.  I must admit I've never understood why people are so against inheritance tax, which is paid on an estate after death and the only benefit of which is to give surviving relatives something for nothing, and income tax, which penalises you for working.

I cannot see how people coming into the workplace now, with student loans, tuition fees and unemployment are supposed to save for a pension as well.  Maybe it will balance out a bit, as some people have benefitted too much from over-generous pensions.  My inlaws for example, both too early retirement from public sector jobs at 53 and 57 respectively.  Both live a life of quiet luxury on generous pensions, with 6 months abroad in their holiday home and 6 at home, big homes, new cars, caravans, etc..  Both retired from quite "ordinary" jobs.  That can't be right when you have young people graduating with huge loans to pay off with little prospect of ever buying a house, never mind enjoying a prosperous retirement as their taxes will go to pay the more greedy people demanding unrealistic provision working right now.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like a very fair solution to me.


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I must admit I've never liked the business model of pensions.  Seem far too risky to me to base your retirement financial wellbeing on.  Better to invest your own money.  Anyway, what about a radical change to pension provision?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. If you have a completely private pension you can choose a low risk, low growth fund which is about as safe as it can get. For every contribution you make, you do not pay tax, so paying in £120 actually costs you £100 of taxed income. That's effectively 20% growth before you even start, which can be handy.

If you are employed, of course, you'll miss out on your employer contributions if you make your own arrangements.

And of course if you just save it, and aren't the kind of person who can completely resist spending it, then you may just go and buy that new car with it, or a bigger house, and then end up with nothing for a pension after all.

You might ask a few people who bought houses as pension investments at the height of the housing boom how their investments are doing now


----------



## Anglebracket (20 December 2011)

"_My favourite too. I'm guessing you have no kids ? Unfortunately it would not increase the tax take, the parents would just give it away when they were still alive. It might boost the economy though!_" *Santapaws*

It's not that easy to just give things away. Generally speaking, when giving a gift of high monetary value a gift tax is often due (which is paid for by the individuals giving the gift). Also, should the parents die within 7 years of making a gift, the children may still be liable for inheritance tax.


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Maybe, maybe not. If you have a completely private pension you can choose a low risk, low growth fund which is about as safe as it can get. For every contribution you make, you do not pay tax, so paying in £120 actually costs you £100 of taxed income. That's effectively 20% growth before you even start, which can be handy.

If you are employed, of course, you'll miss out on your employer contributions if you make your own arrangements.

And of course if you just save it, and aren't the kind of person who can completely resist spending it, then you may just go and buy that new car with it, or a bigger house, and then end up with nothing for a pension after all.

You might ask a few people who bought houses as pension investments at the height of the housing boom how their investments are doing now 

Click to expand...

Theres no rule to say that you have to pay top dollar even at the top of the market...  Don't forget that pensions aren't the only investments to offer tax relief.  If you develop only your main residence, all gains are free from CGT, plus you have to pay for somewhere to live anyway, so can write off the cost.  Some rentals may be CGT if you have ever lived in them as your main residence, and you can apply taper relief to CGT.  With pure rentals, you can deduct your mortgage costs from any profits.  And then on other investments, theres business relief.  

I think your third point, about people's lack of discipline to save on their own, is your most salient.

I often think being employed is a very expensive way to live your life, and not particularly tax efficient.  The pension tax relief and employer's contributions don't really get round that, as you can't deduct other expenses, such as travelling costs, provision of a vehicle for commuting and devaluation thereof, buying of (stupid) work clothes, lunches, entertaining, materials, professional fees, etc..

Hmmn, Inheritance Tax - I do think such low IHT contributes heavily to the unaffordability of housing - how many people use inheritances to pay over-inflated prices for homes, at whatever stage of their lives?  How can that be fair when you have hard working, very intelligent people, who due to an accident of birth, no matter how hard they work, will never afford a comparable standard of living?

And I do think leaving children large inheritances sort of condemns the less intelligent/less motivated of them to a bit of an under-achieving life.  Or at least their children.  If I had children, I'd want to leave them with the gift of independence.

Just trying to think out of the box a little!


----------



## Mince Pie (20 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			There are other issues involved that Wundahorse pointed out. Staff morale, fear of job losses, reductions in services, closing of offices and dreadful management to name but a few. A generally unhappy workforce. Add to the equation that their employer wants to reduce their pension and this is the situation you have.
		
Click to expand...

same with us in the private sector, only on lower pay with no extra benefits.



paddy555 said:



			A lot has been stated about shop assistants funding public sector pensions although on 11K pa their tax and NI contribution is not that great and they may well be in receipt of benefits themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I am not entitled to any benefits and at one point I was on just over 10k a year. Seems very unfair to me that I am paying for something for you to have that I can only dream of.


----------



## fburton (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			- Increased Inheritance Tax.  I must admit I've never understood why people are so against inheritance tax, which is paid on an estate after death and the only benefit of which is to give surviving relatives something for nothing, and income tax, which penalises you for working.
		
Click to expand...

A Land Value Tax (LVT) would be a good idea, imho.

http://www.philippelegrain.com/tax-land-not-labour/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucNXhRhCNIE


----------



## perfect11s (20 December 2011)

I seriouly doubt the sanity of people calling for more tax and more complicated taxes, that  just causes red tape and suppress  peoples wish to work  hard or build  up bussinesses!!!!, less tax and more enterprise will help get us straight  I  would say at this moment the best thing is  to lower taxes and maybe   a simple flat tax then  the economy will grow and tax take with it , personaly as a self employed tradesman the last thing I would  want to do is employ someone and Ive little interest in growing my bussiness  its just not worth the hassle sad  ?? but how many other people think the same way  Hmm!!!


----------



## perfect11s (20 December 2011)

fburton said:



			A Land Value Tax (LVT) would be a good idea, imho.

http://www.philippelegrain.com/tax-land-not-labour/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucNXhRhCNIE

Click to expand...

 Great idea its the perfect solution !!! if you are socilist mong ...  oh well  I guess it would stop the proles owning horses ...


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

fburton said:



			A Land Value Tax (LVT) would be a good idea, imho.

http://www.philippelegrain.com/tax-land-not-labour/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucNXhRhCNIE

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't.  Awful idea.

Perfect11s - I'm not really in favour of higher tax, but fairer tax.  I can't see why people object so much to Inheritance Tax but are always in favour of higher Income Tax (or at least they are in Scotland).  Seems illogical to me to penalise the working in favour of those getting something for nothing.  

Plus, you might as well consider pension contributions a tax in all but name anyway, and if you realise that you are paying for people who will not save for their own retirement in other taxes, it ought eventually to be cheaper.

Why should the government not actually do something useful and collect and provide a good basic state pension?  One not condeming people to total poverty in their old age?  Since the present set up seems to be doing just that in numerous cases and also costs a lot?


----------



## fburton (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			No, it wouldn't.  Awful idea.
		
Click to expand...

Why's that? I'm genuinely interested to know why it would be so awful because it seems a pretty fair sort of tax from what I have read, and would encourage some good things like better land use in cities and put a much-needed damper on artificial property price bubbles.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200409200007


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

fburton said:



			Why's that? I'm genuinely interested to know why it would be so awful because it seems a pretty fair sort of tax from what I have read, and would encourage some good things like better land use in cities and put a much-needed damper on artificial property price bubbles.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200409200007

Click to expand...

Too controlling.  Like all overly socialist policies, it takes away from people's motivation to do anything useful.  It would most likely penalise individuals than big business who would simply work out ways to get round it, or be able to afford to sit on it until most fiscally expedient.  And land tax has a particularly poor record in countries which have used it.

I actually believe in minimal state interference, but provision of essentials done well (I include in that provision of a livable basic state pension).  Get rid of all the other unnecessary guff and we could probably afford it.

There already is a tax on land use in this country.  Its called planning permission.  by the time you've paid your multiple application fees (for slightly changed applications successively) and your bat, badger, environmental impact and water course surveys to LA cronies, you certainly feel heavily taxed!


----------



## paddy555 (20 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Many years ago I left the public sector for a more stimulating job than public administration and took a major pay cut to do so.  You made a different choice, and even after the proposed changes you will have a pension few people in the public sector can dream of, so you made the right choice.
		
Click to expand...

I just wonder if you had chosen to remain in the public sector and had now been in the position, with further years under your belt in the public sector, of looking forward to your much dreamt of gold plated pension if we would be having this discussion.


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2011)

fburton said:



			Why's that? I'm genuinely interested to know why it would be so awful because it seems a pretty fair sort of tax from what I have read, and would encourage some good things like better land use in cities and put a much-needed damper on artificial property price bubbles.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200409200007

Click to expand...



My farrier bought a paddock for £40,000 out of taxed income. Why do you think would it be a good idea to tax him on it again, year after year? That's about as fair as taxing someone more every year because they invested £40,000 in a nice work of art or a 6 year old 2* eventer, isn't it?

Isn't taxing a static asset just a product envy?


----------



## martlin (20 December 2011)

I have to say, Land Tax sounds super scary idea. It's all very good talking about holdings in Mayfair etc, but what about the farmers? It's just another cost of producing food, which means that prices would have to rise... and hit the Joe Public.


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			I just wonder if you had chosen to remain in the public sector and had now been in the position, with further years under your belt in the public sector, of looking forward to your much dreamt of gold plated pension if we would be having this discussion.
		
Click to expand...


Yes, my attitude would not have changed.  If you knew me you would know the truth of that.


----------



## paddy555 (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Hmmn, Inheritance Tax - I do think such low IHT contributes heavily to the unaffordability of housing - how many people use inheritances to pay over-inflated prices for homes, at whatever stage of their lives?  How can that be fair when you have hard working, very intelligent people, who due to an accident of birth, no matter how hard they work, will never afford a comparable standard of living?
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately life is unfair from the minute people are born due to their choice of parents. That is not necessarily due to money but do to the parent's attitude to education, discipline, work ethic, aspirations for their children etc as well. 

I can see both sides on the IHT angle. My parents were typical of the generation where you worked, valued education and "pushed" your kids to achieve. They made provision for their retirement with both savings and a company pension. (private sector) 
They saved considerable amounts on the basis that they would then be able to fund their care in private care homes. Their hope then was that whatever remained of their assets would be distributed between their family. 

It is difficult to see why if someone has worked hard, as my dad did, to make provision for their retirement and care home fees (out of his taxed earnings) that a large percentageo of his estate should be taken in IHT. 

His generation were responsible and he saw it as his responsibility to make sure that he provided sufficient capital for the care of himelf and my mother. He could just have adopted the attitude of "why bother" if the state are going to take whats left in IHT.


----------



## perfect11s (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			No, it wouldn't.  Awful idea.

Perfect11s - I'm not really in favour of higher tax, but fairer tax.  I can't see why people object so much to Inheritance Tax but are always in favour of higher Income Tax (or at least they are in Scotland).  Seems illogical to me to penalise the working in favour of those getting something for nothing.  

Plus, you might as well consider pension contributions a tax in all but name anyway, and if you realise that you are paying for people who will not save for their own retirement in other taxes, it ought eventually to be cheaper.

Why should the government not actually do something useful and collect and provide a good basic state pension?  One not condeming people to total poverty in their old age?  Since the present set up seems to be doing just that in numerous cases and also costs a lot?
		
Click to expand...

  if the goverment did a better (higher) pension I doubt they would be very good value for the tax payer sadly  the waste and extra admin would absorb billions, sadly gordo put the final nail in the coffin of private pensions with his tax grab , yes im all for fair tax and helping the less fortunate but the more folk are taxed to more they fiddle, avoid, or dont bother to try and earn..  it has been proved time and time again lower taxes = more collected
and a stronger economy, we need to cut waste, get people to work building bussinesses 
seriously considder our abusive marriage to the EU ,  cut the thing that has done the thing that has dammaged  ordanary folks lives, and wages  more than any single thing in the last 20 or so years IE uncontroled immigration,  make work pay and the dole a help up not a way of life  it would go a long way to addressing the huge pay gap  due to the minimum wage being "the wage" for the more manual work... I would also tax the highest paid on the basis on the lowest paid in a firm or goverment dept  to make it  very unatractive to have very low paid along side very highly paid so if lowest was on 10k  maybe the guy on 100k could be asked to pay say 10 times the tax .... or base taxes on average wages  lower and you pay less higher and you pay more...


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			and a stronger economy, we need to cut waste, get people to work building bussinesses seriously considder our abusive marriage to the EU ,  cut the thing that has done the thing that has dammaged  ordanary folks lives, ...
		
Click to expand...

Germany seems to be doing pretty well.  In terms of Northern European countries, the UK and Ireland seem to be pretty much getting left behind.  I've no idea why British people are so against the EU (please don't anyone answer this with a rant but a sensible explanation would suffice!).  Honestly, having lived in Germany and Holland, the standard of living over there is far, far higher than in the UK, and people seem to be generally wealthier too (without attracting any of the vitriol people who have done well for themselves do here).



perfect11s said:



			I would also tax the highest paid on the basis on the lowest paid in a firm or goverment dept  to make it  very unatractive to have very low paid along side very highly paid so if lowest was on 10k  maybe the guy on 100k could be asked to pay say 10 times the tax .... or base taxes on average wages  lower and you pay less higher and you pay more...
		
Click to expand...

So you'd punish people for doing well for themselves and pushing themselves harder in their jobs?  And reward them for being unambitious or not so clever/hardworking?

And if students have to pay back tuition fees and student loans, and we talk about a graduate tax, why do benefits claimants not have to pay back their benefits?  (controversial!)


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			Unfortunately life is unfair from the minute people are born due to their choice of parents. That is not necessarily due to money but do to the parent's attitude to education, discipline, work ethic, aspirations for their children etc as well. .
		
Click to expand...

But you can ensure that the bright people are not prevented from progressing through being financially denied access to education, and it does no country any good if jobs are allocated through who your father is, rather than merit.  The UK is now one of the least socially mobile countries in the developed world, so again, the present system obviously isn't working.



paddy555 said:



			It is difficult to see why if someone has worked hard, as my dad did, to make provision for their retirement and care home fees (out of his taxed earnings) that a large percentageo of his estate should be taken in IHT. 

His generation were responsible and he saw it as his responsibility to make sure that he provided sufficient capital for the care of himelf and my mother. He could just have adopted the attitude of "why bother" if the state are going to take whats left in IHT.
		
Click to expand...

You would have to make free elderly nursing care part of the system.  As in Scotland.  What you describe is all very laudible, but remember the other side of the coin is people avoiding going into nursing homes when it may be medically best for them, in order to preserve their inheritance for their children, who may have given up work to look after them and be on benefits as a result.  And then when the parents do die, are the carers going to go back into the workplace?


----------



## Wundahorse (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Germany seems to be doing pretty well.  In terms of Northern European countries, the UK and Ireland seem to be pretty much getting left behind.  I've no idea why British people are so against the EU (please don't anyone answer this with a rant but a sensible explanation would suffice!).  Honestly, having lived in Germany and Holland, the standard of living over there is far, far higher than in the UK, and people seem to be generally wealthier too (without attracting any of the vitriol people who have done well for themselves do here).



So you'd punish people for doing well for themselves and pushing themselves harder in their jobs?  And reward them for being unambitious or not so clever/hardworking?

And if students have to pay back tuition fees and student loans, and we talk about a graduate tax, why do benefits claimants not have to pay back their benefits?  (controversial!)
		
Click to expand...

I wonder why our Government does not explore the German model as this seems to work very efficiently,productivity is good,the standard of living high,and,much lower house prices and rentals.When my Nephew lived in Germany as part of his language degree my sister in law could not believe the difference in the cost of living compared to the UK,and still be more efficient.The UK denigrates the Germans but they are doing much better than us.


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I've no idea why British people are so against the EU (please don't anyone answer this with a rant but a sensible explanation would suffice!).
		
Click to expand...


Because decisions are taken by an unelected group of bureaucrats, currently in control of Greece and Italy, having substantially removed democracy from those two countries.

Because the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for, I think, eleven years because they cannot account for where all the money has gone.

Because there is no real evidence that I can find that we are actually better off by being in it. We can still trade with Europe without it. Canada is not a US state. Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU and seem happily outside it.

Because the happy wealthy Germans you met got that way partly from selling to the Greeks and bankrupting them with a common currency that the Greek economy could not deal with.

And those happy wealthy Germans have a Bank, Commerzbank, that was bailed out by the USA last week to stop it going under. Didn't make many papers that one, I don't know why.


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (20 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Because decisions are taken by an unelected group of bureaucrats, currently in control of Greece and Italy, having substantially removed democracy from those two countries.

Because the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for, I think, eleven years because they cannot account for where all the money has gone.

Because there is no real evidence that I can find that we are actually better off by being in it. We can still trade with Europe without it. Canada is not a US state. Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU and seem happily outside it.

Because the happy wealthy Germans you met got that way partly from selling to the Greeks and bankrupting them with a common currency that the Greek economy could not deal with.

And those happy wealthy Germans have a Bank, Commerzbank, that was bailed out by the USA last week to stop it going under. Didn't make many papers that one, I don't know why.
		
Click to expand...

SP you beat me to it 

That and the disproportionate amount of EU subsidies that go to France, Italy, Greece, Spain etc bouying up industries that would just not be financially viable anyother way. Take a look at the fishing quotas - has a decimated our fishing industry but supports the Spanish amongst others......


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

Wundahorse said:



			I wonder why our Government does not explore the German model as this seems to work very efficiently,productivity is good,the standard of living high,and,much lower house prices and rentals.When my Nephew lived in Germany as part of his language degree my sister in law could not believe the difference in the cost of living compared to the UK,and still be more efficient.The UK denigrates the Germans but they are doing much better than us.
		
Click to expand...

Because it presumably suits the Government, spin doctors and media to lead the British population to be slightly zenophobic, believe certain spin and not to question.  

I am trying to persuade my husband to go back to Germany to work.  Higher salary too.  House prices, including with land are so much more affordable in certain parts such as the main horsy area!  But shhh, keep it quiet!


----------



## Wundahorse (20 December 2011)

Tempted to join you Mithras.As for France i gather from my In laws who used to live and work there,that the state is highly subsidised by the Government,which makes me wonder how the president can be so high and mighty when his own country is in dire straights.Productivity is not that great there,as the French are very reliant on the state,and their farmers seem to do as they please outside of the agricultural agreements,while ours have to toe the line.My Sister in law cannot understand why there is less private enterprise in France,there being abundant opportunities in the travel industry alone.They still have a home in France,so are au fait with the culture(and they speak French).If the French president is not too careful,he could face serious problems as their economy cannot support the public sector as it is.


----------



## perfect11s (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Germany seems to be doing pretty well.  In terms of Northern European countries, the UK and Ireland seem to be pretty much getting left behind.  I've no idea why British people are so against the EU (please don't anyone answer this with a rant but a sensible explanation would suffice!).  Honestly, having lived in Germany and Holland, the standard of living over there is far, far higher than in the UK, and people seem to be generally wealthier too (without attracting any of the vitriol people who have done well for themselves do here).



So you'd punish people for doing well for themselves and pushing themselves harder in their jobs?  And reward them for being unambitious or not so clever/hardworking?

And if students have to pay back tuition fees and student loans, and we talk about a graduate tax, why do benefits claimants not have to pay back their benefits?  (controversial!)
		
Click to expand...

 The EU we paid in more than we get back , Red tape petty soul destroying  directives, 3 rate unalected morons , coruption, our laws overriden, fishing industry shafted , unaudited  accounts ,   l Love europe just hate the EU !!!  I dont want to live in what is looking more like something modeled on the  soviet union!!!......Oh and   no wonder Germany  is so sucesfull massive help with reconstution after the 2nd world war which we  and the americans paid for, we had huge debts to pay back ... as for my second point my tax idea was more  to have people paid more at the bottom, sorry but a hospital cleaner is as if not more important to the safe running of a hospital  than one the  many managers or admin staff!!! my point was hoping to address my concern about the vast differnce in salary between  say a jumped up 3rd rate acountant  and the person that actuly does the work !!!   I certainly would never want to discorage ambition, hard work, personal responsibilty and people being rewarded for so doing...


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Because it presumably suits the Government, spin doctors and media to lead the British population to be slightly zenophobic, believe certain spin and not to question.
		
Click to expand...

Oooh, just _slightly_ patronising there 

I've lived in continental Europe and I much prefer the freedom and eccentricity that we have in this country compared with the northern countries and the way we mostly stick by the rules (like queuing) compared with the southern ones. It's a nice, balanced, middle as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Sunshine (20 December 2011)

Ok -just my thoughts after 15 yrs in public sector and almost the same in private sector employment. And I am registered disabled, so have fought tooth and nail for each job and been penalised because people saw my disability rather than my potential and that limited the work I could do.

Back in the 1980s public sector admin type work paid less than the equivalent in private sector when perks & opportunities included. Then the pension was one of the big selling points for public sector work. Even teachers couldn't be recruited at one point because the salaries couldn't match private sector possibilities with similar qualifications, now look at the imbalance the other way, a job for £23k + final salary pension at 60 which also allows for 13 weeks a year leave and short hours week with no enforced anti-social hours.

By the mid 90s (after the early 90s slump) the balance swung towards the public sector, but at that point the Govt did nothing to address the burgeoning costs of an increasing public sector and its pension commitments, never mind consider the impact ALL ROUND on increasing life expectancy. This includes the commitment to State Pensions, including SERPS - paid to public and private sector employees alike. Instead no Government was strong enough to stand up and say that everyone had to wait longer for the state pension, or to take on the unions and upwardly revise the minimum retirement ages for several public sector schemes. When they were first set up it was an acceptable risk that people could be too unfit/not upto medical requirements to maintain an active and satisfactory role as (eg) a beat police officer at 50, when people expected to die not long after 60/65. They should have insisted at that point that the minimum ages were increased and that reallocation of duties be implemented before paying people off then re-employing.

Pensions - both state and private are overgrown insurance policies. The monies are paid in on a calculated rate that would pay the expected benefits at the future date. The problems have arisen because the risks were not accurately reassessed on a regular basis. This is a standard requirement and any fool could have forecast the difficulties when the contributions (premiums) reduced as a proportion of the payouts required. The demands on the public purse from increasing unemployed (those who have no intention of ever working because it pays less than benefits) and increased immigration and EU rules over equal benefit payments were there for all to see. 

Now we ALL have to pay the price. I would guess that many of the public sector workers can see that, but feel that as the minions at the bottom of the food chain, they are the ones being forced to forego the promised (contracted) benefits, whilst the upper echelons (Directors, MPs, top civil servants or police commanders and so forth) do not have any impact at all.

Oh, and Santa Claus, you forgot to calculate that out of your £200 tax there is a proportion allocated towards your own state pension premiums. Just a shame that some on this thread seemed to be so anti-establishment that you would think they never expereienced or appreciated the work that some public sector employees (mental health or dementia nurses for example) put in, and so let it become a slanging match against all.


----------



## DragonSlayer (20 December 2011)

mnmnm said:



			Now we ALL have to pay the price. I would guess that many of the public sector workers can see that, but feel that as the minions at the bottom of the food chain, they are the ones being forced to forego the promised (contracted) benefits, whilst the upper echelons (Directors, MPs, top civil servants or police commanders and so forth) do not have any impact at all.

Oh, and Santa Claus, you forgot to calculate that out of your £200 tax there is a proportion allocated towards your own state pension premiums. Just a shame that some on this thread seemed to be so anti-establishment that you would think they never expereienced or appreciated the work that some public sector employees (mental health or dementia nurses for example) put in, and so let it become a slanging match against all.
		
Click to expand...

Very well put, I just wanted to rant, you said it all for me.


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2011)

mnmnm said:



			Oh, and Santa Claus, you forgot to calculate that out of your £200 tax there is a proportion allocated towards your own state pension premiums. Just a shame that some on this thread seemed to be so anti-establishment that you would think they never expereienced or appreciated the work that some public sector employees (mental health or dementia nurses for example) put in, and so let it become a slanging match against all.
		
Click to expand...

What a shame you finished an excellent post with this paragraph 

I did  not forget that my tax pays for my state pension. It was not part of the discussion, which was that none of a public sector employees tax pays for any of their pension.

In any case, it is not true because state pensions are unfunded, they are paid out of current taxation. It will not be true until I start receiving a state pension, when ironically, the tax I pay on my private pension will indeed finance my state one.

Have you read the thread? At no point did it become a "slanging match against all" the public sector.  And it was never about whether mental health nurses do a good job, just about whether any of them should have struck to try to preserve their unaffordable pensions.


----------



## cptrayes (20 December 2011)

mnmnm said:



			Back in the 1980s public sector admin type work paid less than the equivalent in private sector when perks & opportunities included.
		
Click to expand...

In 1980 I left a job as Personnel Manager for a company with about 200 employees to take an AP4 admin job administering a Recreation Department. My salary rose from £3,250 no pension to £5,250 full benefits, shorter hours, more holiday and flexitime allowing me to work up another 12 days off  a year.

In 1983 I left a job as a PO1 Finance and Admin Manager of a Fire Brigade because I was bored out of my wits with the lack of responsibility in the role and I took a pay cut from £10,500, to £9,000 two years  later after retraining to work as an analyst/programmer. You will recall that in those days computing was a very high paying sector and my employer was also a  high paying American company.

I am not suggesting that all jobs were paid higher than in the private sector, but it was by no means as black and  white as you suggest, in my experience.


----------



## Oliver12 (20 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			I just wonder if you had chosen to remain in the public sector and had now been in the position, with further years under your belt in the public sector, of looking forward to your much dreamt of gold plated pension if we would be having this discussion.
		
Click to expand...

What a rather narrow-minded attitude. My daughters both work in the public sector and chose not to strike as they actually disagree with what they were striking for. As part of the younger generation they can actually see the bigger picture.


----------



## paddy555 (20 December 2011)

Oliver12 said:



			What a rather narrow-minded attitude. My daughters both work in the public sector and chose not to strike as they actually disagree with what they were striking for. As part of the younger generation they can actually see the bigger picture.
		
Click to expand...

why is it narrow minded? As someone who has spent their entire career in the public sector (and who never went on strike) I was asking as I felt a  bias against PS workers.


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Oooh, just _slightly_ patronising there 

I've lived in continental Europe and I much prefer the freedom and eccentricity that we have in this country compared with the northern countries and the way we mostly stick by the rules (like queuing) compared with the southern ones. It's a nice, balanced, middle as far as I am concerned.
		
Click to expand...

I actually find the UK one of the strictest, most over-regulated countries to live in!  Everything is controlled, restricted or licensed in some way, except some of the areas that need it most!  People are afraid to do things due to fear of health and safety (the fire service refusing to rescue people until they are dead and calling it successful springs to mind), events are constantly cancelled for spurious reasons, the country grinds to a halt every time its snowy, windy or rainy (or even dry and sunny), I could go on!  

I dare say the freedom and eccentricity you are speaking of must have been nice once, but those days are long gone.  Remember too I live in Scotland, which is even more of a nanny state than the rest of the country now.  Perhaps things are not quite so bad down south.


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			l Love europe just hate the EU !!!  I dont want to live in what is looking more like something modeled on the  soviet union!!!........
		
Click to expand...

I increasingly think it must be modelled on the Roman Empire!  Which probably explains why the Brits don't like it...



perfect11s said:



			Oh and   no wonder Germany  is so sucesfull massive help with reconstution after the 2nd world war which we  and the americans paid for, we had huge debts to pay back
		
Click to expand...

No, its because the Germans work damned hard and very productively, and are good at starting up and running successful businesses, and don't have this lax attitude towards increasing the number of people on benefits.  They still expect people to take responsibility for themselves, if reasonably fit and able to do so.  

Just realised that so many things I own are not British.  There just aren't British goods out there of the quality to buy.  My car is German, my horsebox is French, most of my riding wear is German (Pikeur, Cavallo, ELT), even my horse is German!  Where are the British companies producing goods I might actually want to buy?  Just bought a new washing machine, its a German Miele, which everyone knows is by far the best on the market.


----------



## Sunshine (20 December 2011)

Actually Santa Claws - I wasn't referring to you personally 'having a go' at all public sector, there are others that have posted on the thread who have done so, Perfect11 as an example, who I hope, has never had cause to rely on the services of the mental health nurses I used in my example. So please do not assume that I am intending to start a dispute against you.

Yes, I know that the current taxation is taken to pay the current pensions, but that is as a result of them being unfunded due to the short-sightedness of earlier Governments. The difference being that you are paying for the pension for your parents/grandparents pension and your children, and mine, would be the ones paying for ours. Perhaps we should all expect our pensioner relatives with considerable state-funded or private/employer final  pensions to pay an increased tax rate on the monthly benefits to account for the enhanced payments they were lucky enough to receive? Would that be the fairest way to redress the inequality? Either way the money taken from you in tax does not all go to directly pay the wages of public servants as you have previously asserted. That is the only reason I referred to it.

After your 3 years in public sector roles and a time retraining, we are to assume that you made your career financially very successful in the private sector. I would guess that in the IT industry since the mid 80s you have been able to secure a salary in excess of the average, especially as an A/P during the Millenium Bug era. In which case, it is purely about life choices and the luck of the draw, because nobody knows what the future holds and that is your credit. At that time many of the 'institutionalised' civil servants who would have possibly 20 years service would have baulked at the idea of leaving because of the promised terminal benefits. Since that time most of these will have also gone to on retire and reaped the benefits of the enhanced pensions and index-linking that everyone is so irritated by. And, by the market forces that have been in play since, these pensioners are most likely to have gone on to benefit from the property market, and even possibly, subsequent careers after an early retirement. 

I personally do not agree with the public sector striking for the pensions, because I accept the need for them to be reviewed. What I am most disgruntled at is the fact that at the top level there is no intention to 'cut the cloth' accordingly and so can understand why many of the lower paid staff feel the need to make a point and that is the only way they feel they will be heard.


----------



## Sunshine (20 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I increasingly think it must be modelled on the Roman Empire!  Which probably explains why the Brits don't like it...



No, its because the Germans work damned hard and very productively, and are good at starting up and running successful businesses, and don't have this lax attitude towards increasing the number of people on benefits.  They still expect people to take responsibility for themselves, if reasonably fit and able to do so.  

Just realised that so many things I own are not British.  There just aren't British goods out there of the quality to buy.  My car is German, my horsebox is French, most of my riding wear is German (Pikeur, Cavallo, ELT), even my horse is German!  Where are the British companies producing goods I might actually want to buy?  Just bought a new washing machine, its a German Miele, which everyone knows is by far the best on the market.
		
Click to expand...

Not withstanding the work ethics of the German population the fact remains that the restitution funds post-war have had a massive impact on their economy since. Take VW - it would not have been in existence without the efforts of the British immediately after the war ended. Ford didn't want to get involved with it. The Americans also invested a lot of other trade, be that guilt-driven or for the scientific advances (rockets and 3M as examples), which helped them to pick up after the devastation. I admire and agree with the ethos of work hard and perfectionism that the Germans are known for as far as their economic production goes. But it is not as cut and dried as to state that Germany is in such a strong financial position today purely because of it's population's sheer hard work over and above other countries. 
I think Greece also had something to say recently about a certain 'war loan' to Germany that has still not been repaid....
But that is worthy of another discussion.


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

mnmnm said:



			Yes, I know that the current taxation is taken to pay the current pensions, but that is as a result of them being unfunded due to the short-sightedness of earlier Governments. The difference being that you are paying for the pension for your parents/grandparents pension and your children, and mine, would be the ones paying for ours. Perhaps we should all expect our pensioner relatives with considerable state-funded or private/employer final  pensions to pay an increased tax rate on the monthly benefits to account for the enhanced payments they were lucky enough to receive? Would that be the fairest way to redress the inequality? Either way the money taken from you in tax does not all go to directly pay the wages of public servants as you have previously asserted. That is the only reason I referred to it.
		
Click to expand...

Perfectly reasonable solution.  If students now have to pay for their education, I don't see why those on state funded high level pensions shouldn't pay extra tax for the privelege.

Alternatively, how about making it a rule that pension must be based on a proportion of final salary?  This is how its done in many countries after all.  It seems illogical for someone on a final salary of say £25,000 getting a pension equivalent to that which someone in the private sector would typically have to earn £50,000 to benefit from.



mnmnm said:



			At that time many of the 'institutionalised' civil servants who would have possibly 20 years service would have baulked at the idea of leaving because of the promised terminal benefits. Since that time most of these will have also gone to on retire and reaped the benefits of the enhanced pensions and index-linking that everyone is so irritated by. And, by the market forces that have been in play since, these pensioners are most likely to have gone on to benefit from the property market, and even possibly, subsequent careers after an early retirement.
		
Click to expand...

I often wonder whether the generation before ours was rather feckless.  They benefitted from free education, much lower house prices, early retirement in many cases, cheaper fuel, and so on.  None of which the next generation will be able to expect.  

And I also have to wonder, what with the free education (and student grants!) and cheaper house prices, why so few of them have managed to save adequately for their retirement years!


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

mnmnm said:



			Not withstanding the work ethics of the German population the fact remains that the restitution funds post-war have had a massive impact on their economy since. Take VW - it would not have been in existence without the efforts of the British immediately after the war ended. Ford didn't want to get involved with it. The Americans also invested a lot of other trade, be that guilt-driven or for the scientific advances (rockets and 3M as examples), which helped them to pick up after the devastation. I admire and agree with the ethos of work hard and perfectionism that the Germans are known for as far as their economic production goes. But it is not as cut and dried as to state that Germany is in such a strong financial position today purely because of it's population's sheer hard work over and above other countries. 
I think Greece also had something to say recently about a certain 'war loan' to Germany that has still not been repaid....
But that is worthy of another discussion.
		
Click to expand...

You think thats bad - what do you think is happening in Scotland?!

The UK is getting left behind, thats the truth of it.  It doesn't "do" things, such as provision of basic services, as well as other Northern European countries.  Its businesses are not producing so many goods wanted on the international market.  It has higher levels of people on benefits and indeed, sorry to say, far higher levels of "disabled" people than any other European country by far.  Its clear that it needs to be radically modernised and working practices improved drastically in order to compete on an international stage.  But in the UK, you are almost encouraged not to criticise it, or compare it to other countries.  

Theres very good reason why the UK's top showjumpers are struggling to compete with the best in the world - they cannot afford the best horses, neither can they afford to breed them.  Obviously there are some lucky exceptions, but there really isn't anyone in the UK who can afford to invest in a string of horses, the most expensive one costing 3.4 million Euros like Rackel Chavannaise.


----------



## Mithras (20 December 2011)

Does anyone know the percentage of the working population employed in the public sector in the UK as a whole?  In Scotland it is around 1/3 I believe, in Germany its 9%.


----------



## Sunshine (20 December 2011)

Exactly Mithras - and not just on an individual level. The Government frittered away the benefits of the North Sea Oil finds in the 70s, the opportunities to develop patents and scientific discoveries in the 80s - computers, even the internet was a British man's idea - and I would suggest several more possibilities to strengthen this country in the 1990s. A very recent discovery, Graphene, was ignored by British politicians and companies (what is left of them) and is being taken forward enthusiastically by most other nations because of its numerous applications.


----------



## Sunshine (20 December 2011)

Subsequent generations have seen the erosion of the 'work premium' where the benefits of work are proportionally and considerably greater than welfare benefits. This has led to a loss of motivation in all but those who have a strong work ethic and self discipline. The tying-in of benefits to the 'relative poverty' measures has skewed the ratings to such that it is no longer a payment to prevent absolute poverty, which it was even as recently as the late 80s, and converted it into an equivalent income without the effort required to earn that sum as a salary.

Britain has endured a succession of short-termist politicians who do not seem to have any interest in building the country like a good CEO would be responsible for developing his company. And that, for me, is what has been a big problem with them.


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I increasingly think it must be modelled on the Roman Empire!  Which probably explains why the Brits don't like it...



No, its because the Germans work damned hard and very productively, and are good at starting up and running successful businesses, and don't have this lax attitude towards increasing the number of people on benefits.  They still expect people to take responsibility for themselves, if reasonably fit and able to do so.  

Just realised that so many things I own are not British.  There just aren't British goods out there of the quality to buy.  My car is German, my horsebox is French, most of my riding wear is German (Pikeur, Cavallo, ELT), even my horse is German!  Where are the British companies producing goods I might actually want to buy?  Just bought a new washing machine, its a German Miele, which everyone knows is by far the best on the market.
		
Click to expand...

 Maybe they havent had a succesion of labour goverments  that the idiot population vote in every so often , they wreck the economy, line there friends pockets and reward the feckless, then we get the torys who try to sort it out only to have it wrecked again , yes agree on british manufactured goods , mind we do make some good cars if you have the money  jaguar, landrover, RR bentley, aston,lotus or just want run of the mill honda ,nissan, toyota, vauxhall made here but no british owned maufactures...
you can get a good uk made horse box oakley, kevin parker etc so no excuse to buy french!! bet a lot of the top brands of riding wear  are made in china !! as are an increasing number of  white goods ... I try to buy british first then american , euro ,japanese,  so have american washing machine , saddles ,tack ,riding wear, pick up truck, dutch daf lorry with british bodywork,italian van, !!!!


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

mnmnm said:



			Subsequent generations have seen the erosion of the 'work premium' where the benefits of work are proportionally and considerably greater than welfare benefits. This has led to a loss of motivation in all but those who have a strong work ethic and self discipline. The tying-in of benefits to the 'relative poverty' measures has skewed the ratings to such that it is no longer a payment to prevent absolute poverty, which it was even as recently as the late 80s, and converted it into an equivalent income without the effort required to earn that sum as a salary.

Britain has endured a succession of short-termist politicians who do not seem to have any interest in building the country like a good CEO would be responsible for developing his company. And that, for me, is what has been a big problem with them.
		
Click to expand...

One main  reason!!! LABOUR  goverments since the second world war .....


----------



## cptrayes (21 December 2011)

mnmnm said:



			Either way the money taken from you in tax does not all go to directly pay the wages of public servants as you have previously asserted. That is the only reason I referred to it.
		
Click to expand...

I did not say that it did, still less did I "assert" it.

I said that the public sector pensions and salaries are entirely funded by private sector taxation, not that nothing else was funded by it when clearly overseas aid, state pensions, benefits etc are.




mnmnm said:



			After your 3 years in public sector roles and a time retraining, we are to assume that you made your career financially very successful in the private sector. I would guess that in the IT industry since the mid 80s you have been able to secure a salary in excess of the average.
		
Click to expand...

Please stop assuming and guessing. I did not stay in that career. I retrained again when other sectors of the economy offered me more challenge and more opportunity.

Of what relevance is the fact that I am lucky enough to have had a higher than average income to this discussion? We do not live in a Communist State where everyone is supposed to earn the same. People with higher ability and/or more drive and/or rarer skills and/or more luck do earn more than other people. 

My income is irrelevant, but I haven't lost touch with the world I live in. What *really* makes me mad on this thread is people like a District Nurse on £30,000 a year thinking that some poor kid on a till in Tesco on £11,500 should pay additional tax so that she can still retire on a £20,000 pension 



mnmnm said:



			In which case, it is purely about life choices and the luck of the draw, because nobody knows what the future holds and that is your credit.
		
Click to expand...

The whole of life from before we are born when our parents meet is the luck of the draw. I got a lucky draw with a good brain and I worked damned hard to make the most of it and saved 1/3 of what I earned to give myself a pension that I think I deserve. Do you have a problem with that?

While you are thinking about your answer you might like to consider that I have made no value judgements whatsoever on this forum about the social value of the public sector.

It is other people who persist in interpreting my explanations of how it is financed, and my opinion that Public Sector pensions are unjust, as in some way being against the sector as a whole.

It is nothing of the kind.




mnmnm said:



			the enhanced pensions and index-linking that everyone is so irritated by.
		
Click to expand...


"Irritated by"

Rather a trivialisation of the fact that private sector workers will have to find billions more in tax if the public sector is to keep their pensions as they curently are, don't you think?

I think that people who have already retired are completely irrelevant to this discussion. It cannot be changed in retrospect except by additional taxation of pensioners which would also hit the private sector.




mnmnm said:



			I personally do not agree with the public sector striking for the pensions, because I accept the need for them to be reviewed. What I am most disgruntled at is the fact that at the top level there is no intention to 'cut the cloth' accordingly and so can understand why many of the lower paid staff feel the need to make a point and that is the only way they feel they will be heard.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you. If you read the thread you would see that I have already agreed with this. We all agree with you.

I didn't see or hear anyone during the strike saying "one rule for all", all I saw were people saying "leave my pension alone". I don't agree with you that the lower paid staff struck because senior managers have a better pension than they do, sorry.


----------



## cptrayes (21 December 2011)

mnmnm said:



			Britain has endured a succession of short-termist politicians who do not seem to have any interest in building the country like a good CEO would be responsible for developing his company. And that, for me, is what has been a big problem with them.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the problem is democracy 

People won't vote for a Party saying things they don't want to hear until it is obvious that the lot that are in power have messed it up.

Benign dictatorship is the way to go to get this country moving, but unfortunately benign dictators have a way of becoming very un-benign over time


----------



## cptrayes (21 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			One main  reason!!! LABOUR  goverments since the second world war .....
		
Click to expand...



Let me guess perfect, you're a 

green  ?

liberal  ?

ah, no, got it, you're a Tory aren't you  ?


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Unfortunately the problem is democracy 

People won't vote for a Party saying things they don't want to hear until it is obvious that the lot that are in power have messed it up.

Benign dictatorship is the way to go to get this country moving, but unfortunately benign dictators have a way of becoming very un-benign over time 

Click to expand...

 I think things would improve if scotland got independence they could have their socilist SNP dream and we would be free of alot of destructive policys.. and best of all it would finish labour south of the border for ever unless they changed to represent the working population


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			Let me guess perfect, you're a 

green  ?

liberal  ?

ah, no, got it, you're a Tory aren't you  ?
		
Click to expand...

 Well maybe but not this current lot!!!
my vote went elsewhere and am still happy it was the right decision .....


----------



## cptrayes (21 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Well maybe but not this current lot!!!
my vote went elsewhere and am still happy it was the right decision .....
		
Click to expand...

UKIP    ! (Face chosen on colour not expression)


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			UKIP    ! (Face chosen on colour not expression)
		
Click to expand...

 Yep  we need to change from this blue tie red tie  flip floping its just a slow death for the UK...


----------



## Anglebracket (21 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Does anyone know the percentage of the working population employed in the public sector in the UK as a whole?  In Scotland it is around 1/3 I believe, in Germany its 9%.
		
Click to expand...

There are around 6 million public sector workers in the UK. The UK workforce totals around 30 million. See:

http://www.civilservant.org.uk/numbers.pdf


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (21 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Does anyone know the percentage of the working population employed in the public sector in the UK as a whole?  In Scotland it is around 1/3 I believe, in Germany its 9%.
		
Click to expand...

The Public Sector is so large in Scotland as it has been an easy way of securing the Labour Vote for years.  The sooner they give Scotland their financial Independence the better.


----------



## Mithras (21 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			I think things would improve if scotland got independence they could have their socialist SNP dream and we would be free of alot of destructive policys.. and best of all it would finish labour south of the border for ever unless they changed to represent the working population  

Click to expand...

It probably would be much better for the UK, no idea why England wants to hang onto Scotland and have its voting patterns distorted by it.  That said, I'd be out of Scotland in a flash.  Do you have any idea of how strongly communist some of the SNP "party activists" are, or the way they behave?  We are talking about really dirty tactics, not giving people jobs because they are not in the "party", high high taxes, jobs for the boys, state control of just about everything, I could honestly imagine them legislating for a Mugabe style land or property grab.  The latest thing to come from Alex Salmond is that Scottish people are all to become Scandinavian now, as he wants to model Scotland on high tax, high public service economies - I think he is forgetting that Scotland is a mainly Celtic country, and Scandinavian policies just wouldn't work there.  Oh, and apparantly another of his policies is to double the population by immigration from eastern Europe.  Just about gets rid of the only reason for actually living in Scotland - the peace and quiet.

The economic uncertainty is terrifying.  You just don't know what is going to happen next, or how to plan for your future, including pensions.  

I always think a country gets the government it deserves though.


----------



## Mithras (21 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			My income is irrelevant, but I haven't lost touch with the world I live in. What *really* makes me mad on this thread is people like a District Nurse on £30,000 a year thinking that some poor kid on a till in Tesco on £11,500 should pay additional tax so that she can still retire on a £20,000 pension 

Click to expand...

Which would be solved by my idea of the introduction of a rule which tied final salary pensions to a set percentage of final salary.  With the excess to go into the pot.  Yes, you say, it might not be fair if someone who had worked all their life for 15k a year got a smaller pension than someone who had earned 45k, but this is what happens in life.  Plus my other idea is guarantee of a good enough state pension funded by slightly higher tax which people would save on having to pay for a private pension.


----------



## Mithras (21 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Maybe they havent had a succesion of labour goverments  that the idiot population vote in every so often , they wreck the economy, line there friends pockets and reward the feckless, then we get the torys who try to sort it out only to have it wrecked again , yes agree on british manufactured goods , mind we do make some good cars if you have the money  jaguar, landrover, RR bentley, aston,lotus or just want run of the mill honda ,nissan, toyota, vauxhall made here but no british owned maufactures...
you can get a good uk made horse box oakley, kevin parker etc so no excuse to buy french!! bet a lot of the top brands of riding wear  are made in china !! as are an increasing number of  white goods ... I try to buy british first then american , euro ,japanese,  so have american washing machine , saddles ,tack ,riding wear, pick up truck, dutch daf lorry with british bodywork,italian van, !!!!
		
Click to expand...

I don't hold with this buy British thing at all.  If it can't compete with other goods produced abroad, then I'm not going to be replacing things that break down after a short time to subsidise poor production values.  Plus I'm not 100% British.

But really there is hardly anything British made that is best to buy.  My Cavallo puffa jacket is so much better than the British makes, warmer, lighter and stands up to washing better.  No matter where they are made, German companies like Pikeur are producing breeches of the quality I want to wear and UK companies just aren't.  They're on a different level entirely to UK companies with their fabrics, appearance and tailoring.  Miele appliances save money in the long run because they last so long.  As for cars, you'd never get me in a Jaguar or Land Rover as I value comfort and reliability.  I currently have two Mercedes, one runs like new although its done 166,000 miles and the other is a smart newer one.  mpg is great on both.  Parts are surprisingly cheap and usually next day delivery.  Even my tyres are Continentals or Vredesteins!  And as for horsebox manufacturers, unless you are going to spend 40k plus in the UK, they just aren't interested in customer service.  Total snobbery.  And even then they seem to be full of little niggles - my friend's megabucks Equitrek 7.5 tonner certainly is, latest was the ramp stuck and they couldn't get the horses out!

So for me I'm afraid its usually buy my German preferred brand first, not because I deliberately buy German but because in most categories they offer the best product for the best price.  e.g. for washing machines its Miele first, then AEG, then Siemens/Bosch pretty much together.  I know my washing machines - I have to buy so many in my line of business!


----------



## paddy555 (21 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			There are around 6 million public sector workers in the UK. The UK workforce totals around 30 million. See:

http://www.civilservant.org.uk/numbers.pdf

Click to expand...

of this half a million are civil service. 

The percentage of PS workers is massive compared to Germany's 9%. Are the figures comparing like for like and if so how is Germany functioning on 9%. 
I can see wastage and slack in the system here but not that much. 

Having only lived in England how do things run in Germany civil service, health servicewise etc etc.


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (21 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			Having only lived in England how do things run in Germany civil service, health servicewise etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

They do not have a free at point of delivery Health Service - no other country in the world does


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			I don't hold with this buy British thing at all.  If it can't compete with other goods produced abroad, then I'm not going to be replacing things that break down after a short time to subsidise poor production values.  Plus I'm not 100% British.

But really there is hardly anything British made that is best to buy.  My Cavallo puffa jacket is so much better than the British makes, warmer, lighter and stands up to washing better.  No matter where they are made, German companies like Pikeur are producing breeches of the quality I want to wear and UK companies just aren't.  They're on a different level entirely to UK companies with their fabrics, appearance and tailoring.  Miele appliances save money in the long run because they last so long.  As for cars, you'd never get me in a Jaguar or Land Rover as I value comfort and reliability.  I currently have two Mercedes, one runs like new although its done 166,000 miles and the other is a smart newer one.  mpg is great on both.  Parts are surprisingly cheap and usually next day delivery.  Even my tyres are Continentals or Vredesteins!  And as for horsebox manufacturers, unless you are going to spend 40k plus in the UK, they just aren't interested in customer service.  Total snobbery.  And even then they seem to be full of little niggles - my friend's megabucks Equitrek 7.5 tonner certainly is, latest was the ramp stuck and they couldn't get the horses out!

So for me I'm afraid its usually buy my German preferred brand first, not because I deliberately buy German but because in most categories they offer the best product for the best price.  e.g. for washing machines its Miele first, then AEG, then Siemens/Bosch pretty much together.  I know my washing machines - I have to buy so many in my line of business!
		
Click to expand...

 Oh im not for buying british at any cost.. however  a strong economy is a net exporter so buying products made in the country you reside in helps ballance the books  , I totaly agree about poor service you make a good point and yes equitrek is a good example having read the threads on here about their products  and the dismisive attitude to faults and faulty workmanship!!! instead of seeing it as feedback and a chance to improve, its the same old our products are the best!!! and you a just a moaning  pest and their are plenty of customers 
...  If you want a good washing machine trust me The BEST are the american made whirlpool ours is over 10 years old ,    ..


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			of this half a million are civil service. 

The percentage of PS workers is massive compared to Germany's 9%. Are the figures comparing like for like and if so how is Germany functioning on 9%. 
I can see wastage and slack in the system here but not that much. 

Having only lived in England how do things run in Germany civil service, health servicewise etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

 Possibly the do what they are paid for IE  provide services and not sit around moaning and pretending to be busy !!!!! However my guess is there are more indians than chiefs  less  form filling , bovine scatter   and more motivated workers !!!???


----------



## paddy555 (21 December 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Possibly the do what they are paid for IE  provide services and not sit around moaning and pretending to be busy !!!!!
		
Click to expand...

sorry, perhaps I should have worded my question more carefully. I was looking for facts rather than "lets slag off the public sector" type comments.


----------



## cptrayes (21 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Which would be solved by my idea of the introduction of a rule which tied final salary pensions to a set percentage of final salary.  With the excess to go into the pot.  Yes, you say, it might not be fair if someone who had worked all their life for 15k a year got a smaller pension than someone who had earned 45k, but this is what happens in life.
		
Click to expand...

Mithras I must be explaining myself very badly because you keep misunderstanding me. 

I am not and never have been against one person having a higher pension than another when they have earned more.

I am and always have been very against public sector employees striking to retain a hugely disproportionately generous salary linked pension when the private sector who finance it do not have a salary linked pension at all. Particularly when some of the people paying for it are on a pittance of a salary with no pension whatsoever.

Perhaps considering two people earning the same will make it clearer. My 25 year old friend is an accounts clerk earning 20k a year. With her employer contributions of 10% and her own 10% she will end up with a money purchase fund worth £160k. Enough to buy her a pension of £6,400 a year.

Why should she pay more tax (and more, and more, higher as the years go by if things do not change) to fund a clerk in the town hall on 20k a year to get a 40/55ths salary after 40 years of work, £14,250?


No one has yet answered this question, no matter how many times or ways it has been put by different people.


[Note that I have left growth and inflation out of these figures. Inflation does not alter the comparison as long as both are subject to the same inflation. Growth on private funds is currently, and has been for a long time, below the rate of inflation. It may be possible to get higher growth, but only at higher risk, and since the public sector pension is wholly risk free it seems reasonable to me to assume that zero real growth will continue.]




Mithras said:



			Plus my other idea is guarantee of a good enough state pension funded by slightly higher tax which people would save on having to pay for a private pension.
		
Click to expand...

Have you any idea what this would cost? The higher tax would not be "slight" it would be *ginormous.* 

A very high proportion of people earning under the national average do not make any pension provision at all. There would be no extra money to come from them, and they are much more than half the workforce.

It sounds like a good idea, but the sums will just not add up


----------



## cptrayes (21 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			of this half a million are civil service. 

The percentage of PS workers is massive compared to Germany's 9%. Are the figures comparing like for like and if so how is Germany functioning on 9%. 
I can see wastage and slack in the system here but not that much. 

Having only lived in England how do things run in Germany civil service, health servicewise etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

I believe  from those figures that the German health service is a private sector business with reimbursements from the state for those who qualify for them. It is not free at point of use, is it?

German culture is very much to stick by the rules and I suspect they employ a lot less people checking up on what other people are doing. There are blocks of flats where someone will report you if you do not have your curtains in the colour specified in your tenancy agreement, or there were when  a friend of mine lived there ten years ago. I doubt very much that such a society employs five-a-day advisors.

Does the German figure include Police and Fire and Rescue, I don't know?

I too would love to know the detail of how they run on so low a number of employees defined as public sector.


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (21 December 2011)

The NHS employs over a 1 million people - in thrid place after the Chinese Army and the Indian Railways - so will always skew the figures employed by the Public Sector as we are the ONLY country in the world that has a totally State funded free at the point of delivery Health Service. It is the ultimate black hole in financial terms which is why no other country has it


----------



## cptrayes (21 December 2011)

tinselunicorn said:



			The NHS employs over a 1 million people - in thrid place after the Chinese Army and the Indian Railways - so will always skew the figures employed by the Public Sector as we are the ONLY country in the world that has a totally State funded free at the point of delivery Health Service. It is the ultimate black hole in financial terms which is why no other country has it

Click to expand...

Wow, that's a big number!

I have a real problem with health care that is not free at point of use. Much as I can see that it would save a fortune by stopping people with a cold going to the doc when they could go and get lemsip, it also means that some poor people with pneumonia won't go and they'll die.

I actually think a health service free at point of use is part of what makes Great Britain great.

I don't care how much of it is delivered by private companies, but free at point of use has to stay.

I cannot understand how rich Americans can sleep at night knowing children are dying for want of some money to pay for basic medication


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (21 December 2011)

I have no problem with the concept of free at the point of delivery but I think there are ways in which it could be better monitored. In the cities there is a massive problem with health 'tourists' who cost the NHS as a whole a fortune - fly in and on arrival need dialysis, treatment for HIV, delivering their babies etc etc as it is all so expensive in their country of origin and they know they will be treated here no questions asked there is a fairly pathetic attempt to recoup some of these costs There are many ways in which money can be saved and the NHS be more effective - and not by redcuing staff levels but by looking at prescription costs, bringing back the sterilisation and reuse of some equipment instead of using 'disposable' versions all the time......etc etc the list goes on but no one ever deals with it they just employ more expensive 'consultants'


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			sorry, perhaps I should have worded my question more carefully. I was looking for facts rather than "lets slag off the public sector" type comments.
		
Click to expand...

 Oh what part was slaging them off???,  sorry you asked I just offered
my take, lack of motivation, too many bosses and pen pushers,   or maybe you think the average kraut is superhuman and can do the work of 2 brits perhaps?????


----------



## Anglebracket (21 December 2011)

tinselunicorn said:



			They do not have a free at point of delivery Health Service - no other country in the world does

Click to expand...

In Germany everyone is signed up to mandatory health insurance. For employees both the employee and the employer make a contribution towards the employees health insurance (a bit like national insurance contributions). If you are unemployed your health insurance will be covered by the state. Children are covered by their parents health insurance. To the best of my knowledge so are students. Homeless people can fall through the cracks (in that they are not associated with any particular insurance company) but should be covered by the state if they seek medical care. To all intends and purposes the German system is quite similar to that of the UK in that you pay for your health care through deductions from your salary.

The above describes public health insurance which most employees have. High earners can alternatively sign up to private health insurance.


----------



## Mithras (21 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			of this half a million are civil service. 

The percentage of PS workers is massive compared to Germany's 9%. Are the figures comparing like for like and if so how is Germany functioning on 9%. 
I can see wastage and slack in the system here but not that much. 

Having only lived in England how do things run in Germany civil service, health servicewise etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

No, that will be right, as the German figure doesn't include an equivalent amount employed in the NHS - because they don't have one.  Their system is insurance based.  It works really well - I had my tonsils out in a hospital in Munich, and it was much cheaper to get it done there than in Scotland privately (although technically it wasn't possible in the UK at that time anyway as there was a moritorium on all tonsilectomies due to contaminated instruments).  Public transport in Germany is superb - when I lived outside Munich, I had an S Bahn line with trains every 20 minutes, running til 4am.  Munich itself is connected then by U Bahn, also by trams and busses.  It had 8 concentric S Bahn lines linking up its suburbs to the centre, although I believe they have now built a new one to the airport, in less time than the controversial Edinburgh tramline has taken so far.  Most German and Dutch towns have similar public transport, also with proper cycle lanes seperate from the roads.


----------



## Anglebracket (21 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			No, that will be right, as the German figure doesn't include an equivalent amount employed in the NHS - because they don't have one.  Their system is insurance based.  It works really well - I had my tonsils out in a hospital in Munich, and it was much cheaper to get it done there than in Scotland privately (although technically it wasn't possible in the UK at that time anyway as there was a moritorium on all tonsilectomies due to contaminated instruments).  Public transport in Germany is superb - when I lived outside Munich, I had an S Bahn line with trains every 20 minutes, running til 4am.  Munich itself is connected then by U Bahn, also by trams and busses.  It had 8 concentric S Bahn lines linking up its suburbs to the centre, although I believe they have now built a new one to the airport, in less time than the controversial Edinburgh tramline has taken so far.  Most German and Dutch towns have similar public transport, also with proper cycle lanes seperate from the roads.
		
Click to expand...

Mitras where did you get the 9% figure from? I was looking for this information a few days back and could not find anything.


----------



## Slinkyunicorn (21 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			To all intends and purposes the German system is quite similar to that of the UK in that you pay for your health care through deductions from your salary.
		
Click to expand...

Similar but no the same as they pay more for their drugs than stupid notional 7 quid here which only applies to a pathetic 10% of precriptions due to all the exemptions etc They are also more used to speaking to their pharmacists for advise on the more routine conditions and then buying medicine from them instead of sitting in a GP's surgery to demand a 'free' prescription for something that can be bought over the counter Each 10 minute GP appointment cost the NHS approx £800+


----------



## Mithras (21 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			German culture is very much to stick by the rules and I suspect they employ a lot less people checking up on what other people are doing. There are blocks of flats where someone will report you if you do not have your curtains in the colour specified in your tenancy agreement, or there were when  a friend of mine lived there ten years ago. I doubt very much that such a society employs five-a-day advisors.
		
Click to expand...

I think theres more individual responsiblity for society, rather than placing everything on the state.  Certainly, German "grannies" are renowned for telling people off, but sometimes this can be quite useful and perhaps if more people did it here there would be less thugs around.  I've had some good experiences with the German "grannies", they can be very kind.  I think people in apartment buildings might get reported to the Hausmeister if they had really scruffy curtains and were dirty or something.  But generally its for things such as if people are shouting late at night in apartment blocks, or constantly leaving their washing machines on.  But I found Germany to be a much freer society.  

Scotland's really strict now.  For instance, we have these HMO Regulations for all rented properties, which keep changing, but there must be 30 minute fire resistant self closing doors in all rooms, because people are not trusted to close their own doors after them!  Each property is licensed and inspected each year by the local authority.  The regulations are so prescriptive and strict, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they brought in a rule saying that a landlord has to actually move in with their tenants, give up their job, and look after their every need full time, in the next edition.  In contrast, in Germany you only need to ensure to renew your central heating boiler and windows in rented properties at least every 25 years.  Germans are shocked when I tell them about the HMO Regulations, and because of this, I don't think we will invest in property in Scotland again.


----------



## Mithras (21 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			Mitras where did you get the 9% figure from? I was looking for this information a few days back and could not find anything.
		
Click to expand...

Can't find it now, somewhat frustratingly.  But I did find this:

http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_14069-544-1-30.pdf

Which refers to 7.1%, not 9%!  It refers to "civil servants" but I am pretty sure this means all the public sector, as the translation means public sector worker.

Also see this one, which states it is 6.7 million in Germany, which with a population of nearly 82 million, would be just under 9%:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/fsdust.pdf

Also, look at this for the British position, which claims that the public sector accounts for 53% of the economy!:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...my-record-6-09million-Britons-work-state.html

Yes, sorry its the Daily Mail, but it came up when I googled it!

(I just googled "German employment in the public sector").


----------



## DragonSlayer (21 December 2011)

...so we should all bugger off to Germany then? Sounds peachy....

Actually, I'll stay here.

I love my country, we might not be the best in the world and get it wrong some of the time, but I'm not into comparisons, being told 'how much better it is there because....'...

If it's that good, then stay.

I am proud to be British.


----------



## Mithras (21 December 2011)

DragonSleigh-Bells said:



			...so we should all bugger off to Germany then? Sounds peachy....

Actually, I'll stay here.

I love my country, we might not be the best in the world and get it wrong some of the time, but I'm not into comparisons, being told 'how much better it is there because....'...

If it's that good, then stay.

I am proud to be British.



Click to expand...

I don't know, comparison and critical analysis are valuable academic techniques, and I think living abroad so you can make comparisons is invaluable experience.  Its actually shocking how bad Britain has got in many areas, when you do use comparitive analysis like this when compared to other Northern European nations.  I dare say it wouldn't work so well with somewhere like Portugal or Greece, but some of the things that go on in the UK are quite shocking.  (trams fiasco, London riots, poor manufacturing sector, etc).

Also remember, if you have any Anglo-Saxon blood in you, your ancestors will have made a decision based on economics of the time (basically where there was more good quality farmland available) and emigrated anyway.  Seems a bit backward thinking to totally discount the same prospect.  Although I agree there are parts of England which are still absolutely stunning and offer a very good standard of living.


----------



## DragonSlayer (21 December 2011)

I'm sure there are many good things you can pick out when you are looking at your comparisons, but I think we sometimes have to look at what we HAVE got, rather than the 'What If...' factor.

...and here I am comparing...! Compared to some countries, I think we have it pretty decently.

Freedom, I'm sat in a warm house, money in the bank, able to cover my bills, we eat pretty decently, if I need to, I can get treatment from medical professionals...etc etc etc....

Let's not loose sight of that whilst looking at 'What Could Be...'....

On another note, it has been a very educational thread so far.


----------



## Anglebracket (21 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Can't find it now, somewhat frustratingly.  But I did find this:

http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_14069-544-1-30.pdf

Which refers to 7.1%, not 9%!  It refers to "civil servants" but I am pretty sure this means all the public sector, as the translation means public sector worker.

Also see this one, which states it is 6.7 million in Germany, which with a population of nearly 82 million, would be just under 9%:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/fsdust.pdf

Also, look at this for the British position, which claims that the public sector accounts for 53% of the economy!:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...my-record-6-09million-Britons-work-state.html

Yes, sorry its the Daily Mail, but it came up when I googled it!

(I just googled "German employment in the public sector").
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. I had a read through the slides (first link) and the presentation appears to focus specifically on administrative jobs rather than all public sector jobs.


----------



## Mithras (21 December 2011)

DragonSleigh-Bells said:



			I'm sure there are many good things you can pick out when you are looking at your comparisons, but I think we sometimes have to look at what we HAVE got, rather than the 'What If...' factor.

...and here I am comparing...! Compared to some countries, I think we have it pretty decently.

Freedom, I'm sat in a warm house, money in the bank, able to cover my bills, we eat pretty decently, if I need to, I can get treatment from medical professionals...etc etc etc....

Let's not loose sight of that whilst looking at 'What Could Be...'....

On another note, it has been a very educational thread so far.
		
Click to expand...

Well thats just the crux of it though.  In Germany, and to a lesser extent Holland, Belguim and France, you expect a bit more than basic survival.  If you have a decent job, you expect and feel entitled to a bit of luxury in your life.  Neither are you made to feel guilty for it. 

I was just thinking last night about how depressing it is living here.  I went to university in Holland (Leiden) and when I went running there, it was down to the local club, who had their own rather lavish club rooms, with bar and pool room, showers, sauna, etc at the local athletics track.  Which had plenty of parking and a 50m swimming pool right next door, all beautifully looked after.  All subsidised heavily by the local council.  In Germany, the track was free because it was included in your equivalent of Council tax (£250 a year).  Here its running round a potholed pavement in the park, with most of the street lights on the blink, being shouted abuse at by neds, the public toilets locked and parking at the side of a busy road.  Its crap.  The athletics track costs £5.80 to get into, is badly needing resurfacing, theres not enough parking and the floodlights don't work.

And I had to get my tonsils out in Germany, because the NHS couldn't do the operation due to contaminated instruments...


----------



## paddy555 (21 December 2011)

40/55ths salary after 40 years of work, 

Santa Paws, chance would be a fine thing!! As a civil servant we talk about 80th's. It was changed a few years ago to 60th's but many of the people retiring now (or who have retired) and many who will retire in the future are paid a pension of the number of years service divided by 80. 

When it was changed to 60th's then to benefit from this required contributions that did not make it effective to change onto 60th's for many of us.(from memory that was people over about 45 when it was changed)  So, for many, the most they will get is half their salary and for many, especially women who have taken time off for family, it will be considerably less. 
Still a taxpayer funded pension I agree but not quite as generous as you make out, at least not for us.


----------



## Mithras (21 December 2011)

Anglebracket said:



			Thanks for the links. I had a read through the slides (first link) and the presentation appears to focus specifically on administrative jobs rather than all public sector jobs.
		
Click to expand...

No, this article indicates it is all public sector employees:- 

"Public sector employment in Germany has risen from 2.2 million in 1950 to 2.9
million in 1960 to 4.6 million in the early 1980s to 4.97 million in 1992 for West
Germany and to 6.7 million for Germany as a whole.3 The most rapid expansion
of the public sector took place in the 1960s and 1970s. This was mainly induced
by an extension of the welfare state and the corresponding expansion of social,
educational and medical services (see Becker (1987))...

Public sector employment occurs at different levels: the central government,
state (Länder) and local authorities (Gemeinden), and financial and non-financial
public enterprises. In 1990, 77 per cent of all public employees were employed in
administrative jobs at government, state or local authority level...

The public sector in Germany distinguishes between two types of employees 
civil servants proper (Beamte) and both blue-collar (Arbeiter) and white-collar
(Angestellte) public sector employees."

What I will grant you is that I am unsure whether it refers to the 9% as being a percentage of all workers, or of all of the working age population.


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			Well thats just the crux of it though.  In Germany, and to a lesser extent Holland, Belguim and France, you expect a bit more than basic survival.  If you have a decent job, you expect and feel entitled to a bit of luxury in your life.  Neither are you made to feel guilty for it. 

I was just thinking last night about how depressing it is living here.  I went to university in Holland (Leiden) and when I went running there, it was down to the local club, who had their own rather lavish club rooms, with bar and pool room, showers, sauna, etc at the local athletics track.  Which had plenty of parking and a 50m swimming pool right next door, all beautifully looked after.  All subsidised heavily by the local council.  In Germany, the track was free because it was included in your equivalent of Council tax (£250 a year).  Here its running round a potholed pavement in the park, with most of the street lights on the blink, being shouted abuse at by neds, the public toilets locked and parking at the side of a busy road.  Its crap.  The athletics track costs £5.80 to get into, is badly needing resurfacing, theres not enough parking and the floodlights don't work.

And I had to get my tonsils out in Germany, because the NHS couldn't do the operation due to contaminated instruments...
		
Click to expand...

 Im wondering what the hell I see in this country some days ??? its got some hold!! Ive worked abroad  (NZ) and traveled north america, aus, some of europe  holland is fantastic  like germany, not sure I would be willing to fit in with the french so despite having relations living there will swerve it !! anyway yes it is great to work abroad as appossed to visiting as a tourist as you get a more gritty and true idea of real life and after a while are detached enough from home to have a objective view ..... I would definatly not be here save for being on the property ladder anyone  with skils or an apitite  for hard work but without a finacial cussion  would be better of in a lot more places than here IMHO...


----------



## Anglebracket (21 December 2011)

Mithras said:



			No, this article indicates it is all public sector employees:- 

"Public sector employment in Germany has risen from 2.2 million in 1950 to 2.9
million in 1960 to 4.6 million in the early 1980s to 4.97 million in 1992 for West
Germany and to 6.7 million for Germany as a whole.3 The most rapid expansion
of the public sector took place in the 1960s and 1970s. This was mainly induced
by an extension of the welfare state and the corresponding expansion of social,
educational and medical services (see Becker (1987))...

Public sector employment occurs at different levels: the central government,
state (Länder) and local authorities (Gemeinden), and financial and non-financial
public enterprises. In 1990, 77 per cent of all public employees were employed in
administrative jobs at government, state or local authority level...

The public sector in Germany distinguishes between two types of employees 
civil servants proper (Beamte) and both blue-collar (Arbeiter) and white-collar
(Angestellte) public sector employees."

What I will grant you is that I am unsure whether it refers to the 9% as being a percentage of all workers, or of all of the working age population.
		
Click to expand...

I was referring to the powerpoint presentation (from the Economic Institute in Cologne), not the article. The article and the slides appear to be dealing with different subsections of the German public sector.


----------



## cptrayes (21 December 2011)

paddy555 said:



			40/55ths salary after 40 years of work, 

Santa Paws, chance would be a fine thing!! As a civil servant we talk about 80th's. It was changed a few years ago to 60th's but many of the people retiring now (or who have retired) and many who will retire in the future are paid a pension of the number of years service divided by 80. 

When it was changed to 60th's then to benefit from this required contributions that did not make it effective to change onto 60th's for many of us.(from memory that was people over about 45 when it was changed)  So, for many, the most they will get is half their salary and for many, especially women who have taken time off for family, it will be considerably less. 
Still a taxpayer funded pension I agree but not quite as generous as you make out, at least not for us.
		
Click to expand...


Apologies, the 55ths is NHS, currently striking over being asked to move to 60ths and likely to settle for 58ths.

The career breaks are no different in the private sector and for the point of the comparison I made are irrelevant.


----------



## cptrayes (21 December 2011)

I love this country and I never want to live anywhere else.

I am reminded by my OH that Germany are prevented from the terms of their settlement after WW II that they cannot have a standing army, and presumably have no significant air force or navy either? That must reduce their public sector rather a lot.

Have I said? I love this country and I never want to live anywhere else. The grass may look greener but it rarely is. I wonder why people who think it's so great to live in another country in Europe don't just go and do it instead of sitting here whinging about Britain.


----------



## perfect11s (21 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			I love this country and I never want to live anywhere else.

I am reminded by my OH that Germany are prevented from the terms of their settlement after WW II that they cannot have a standing army, and presumably have no significant air force or navy either? That must reduce their public sector rather a lot.

Have I said? I love this country and I never want to live anywhere else. The grass may look greener but it rarely is. I wonder why people who think it's so great to live in another country in Europe don't just go and do it instead of sitting here whinging about Britain.
		
Click to expand...

 Maybe we arnt  like  rats deserting a sinking ship!!! we want it to be better  great even !!!! Mind if labour get back in im ether leaving or getting a public sector job


----------



## paddy555 (21 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			The grass may look greener but it rarely is. I wonder why people who think it's so great to live in another country in Europe don't just go and do it instead of sitting here whinging about Britain.
		
Click to expand...

agreed


----------



## skint1 (21 December 2011)

England is indeed a great country but I admit to being a bit dismayed by some features of our modern life, but that could just be me getting old and becoming an irrelevant dinosaur


----------



## Mithras (21 December 2011)

Santa Paws said:



			I love this country and I never want to live anywhere else.

I am reminded by my OH that Germany are prevented from the terms of their settlement after WW II that they cannot have a standing army, and presumably have no significant air force or navy either? That must reduce their public sector rather a lot.

Have I said? I love this country and I never want to live anywhere else. The grass may look greener but it rarely is. I wonder why people who think it's so great to live in another country in Europe don't just go and do it instead of sitting here whinging about Britain.
		
Click to expand...

If you don't criticise, analyse and compare, its the slippery slope to a continual lessening of standards.  Nothing wrong with valid criticism and comparison with other countries.  IMHO preferable to sticking the head in the sand and pretending everything is wonderful, when it can simply be improved by a little effort.  What I also found in Germany is that in general the average person is more aware of the issues that led them into two world wars, and more educated about things like racism, strong nationalism and so on.  I cannot believe how tolerant the Germans are to the way some of the immigrant communities behave.

I think I already made the point that the UK is comprised significantly of Anglo-Saxons, who manage to have the courage to leave presumably poor conditions in their home country 1500 years ago.  I see no reason why, with the assistance of modern technology, it should not be possible to have a similar attitude now!

But I do know what you mean, I often feel homesick for a more continental way of life, particularly things like the cycling culture in Holland and Belguim, the smell of the fields in the flat lands in summer, the rain sheeting down over the dykes, the shape of the houses, the tidyness, the way people clear snow from the path in front of their houses, the food - pancakes in nice cafes, and so on.  Gezellig.

I don't feel myself particularly tied to a country, I would say I prefer to live in North Western Europe, but I have a bit of an abhorence of really strong nationalism.  And if Scotland does go independent I will certainly be leaving them to their high tax and spend supposed Utopia.  Come to think of it, I'd probably be happier even in England than in Scotland, with what is going on here lately!  It can be a strange place...


----------

