Is cutting public sector pensions over 50k the solution.
Discussion
I find it a bit confusing. The reason why people used to endure public sector jobs rather than work in the same job in the private sector was because, while the salaries were lower, the pensions were better. I'm sure this was the general perception in the '80s and '90s. However, I heard recently that the equivalent job now pays typically 30% more in the public sector... this seems to be a good argument for cutting pensions in the public sector, then?
(I'm happy to be told I'm talking s
t, as I have little proof to back up my claim or my understanding.)
(I'm happy to be told I'm talking s
t, as I have little proof to back up my claim or my understanding.)Edited by ShadownINja on Tuesday 22 June 12:11
el stovey said:
Why not wait until you retire, cut whatever you have saved by a third and give that to the government?
I fail to see how this arguement is any different than the bonus arguement....Private sector got their bonuses cut because people disagreed mainly from the public sector.
Public secotr may get their pensions cut (which was the reason why they took the public sector job, blah, blah, blah) cause people disagree... public sector kick up a stink about it and b
h and moan...Public sector do the job cause of good pensions, private sector do it cause of good pay and bonuses... You f
k with a mans bonus and the reason why they joined the secotr... now the tables could be turned and the public secotr dont like it... well suck it up boys, I hear a small violin playing in the background!!el stovey said:
IF there is a genuine gap 30% average gap in pay for equivalent positions (I'm not sure that there is) then a public sector pay freeze until the private sector catches up and increased employee pension contributions would be fairer.
Not taking away a third of someone's pension pot.
Why not they have retired, 50k a year okay to tender the flower beds and 3 hols a year ! senior civil servants have enjoyed a life of privilage and this is not being excessive and is it going to hurt them really ?Not taking away a third of someone's pension pot.
SystemParanoia said:
why should my countributions go to paying for some jobsworth who spent his life doing his best to waste my tax money on round-a-bout art and such crap, so he can retire to some idelic village in france on my money. sod that
Maybe because he's doing a job you cannot do, or want to do.simba1 said:
SystemParanoia said:
why should my countributions go to paying for some jobsworth who spent his life doing his best to waste my tax money on round-a-bout art and such crap, so he can retire to some idelic village in france on my money. sod that
Maybe because he's doing a job you cannot do, or want to do.Bankers do a job you cant do or dont want to do and thanks to the public they got their bonuses screwed over as 'tax/cutback' even the ones that needed no bailout.
(if anyone comes acroos and say its all the banks fault and noone elses I suggest you use the search function on PH and look up the truth)
So they have a nice tax which is unjustified and now the fact this could happen to the public sector pensions, all public sector is up in arms (well their Unions are) about how its unfair and you worked for it... Well so did the bankers but you had no remorse for them... Karma would be a b
h if they did get rid of the black hole by cutting all the pensions in it to sort out a public sector created issue...Incidentally did you know that the only public sector pensions that have no black hole are by your masters... the government who always make sure theirs is the one topped up first and up-to-date.
Go figure!!
Nobody in the public sector has any business drawing more than 2/3rds of the average wage as a pension, including their state pensions. Period.
We can't afford it and there is no good moral reason why we should. Any existing pensions over this amount can be targetted for a special tax (of the sort that bankers bonuses were hit with).
We can't afford it and there is no good moral reason why we should. Any existing pensions over this amount can be targetted for a special tax (of the sort that bankers bonuses were hit with).
Dupont666 said:
el stovey said:
Why not wait until you retire, cut whatever you have saved by a third and give that to the government?
I fail to see how this arguement is any different than the bonus arguement....Private sector got their bonuses cut because people disagreed mainly from the public sector.
Did companies who didn't get bailed out also give in to this 'public sector worker pressure' and cut employee bonuses?
sussexjob said:
el stovey said:
IF there is a genuine gap 30% average gap in pay for equivalent positions (I'm not sure that there is) then a public sector pay freeze until the private sector catches up and increased employee pension contributions would be fairer.
Not taking away a third of someone's pension pot.
Why not they have retired, 50k a year okay to tender the flower beds and 3 hols a year ! senior civil servants have enjoyed a life of privilage and this is not being excessive and is it going to hurt them really ?Not taking away a third of someone's pension pot.
el stovey said:
sussexjob said:
el stovey said:
IF there is a genuine gap 30% average gap in pay for equivalent positions (I'm not sure that there is) then a public sector pay freeze until the private sector catches up and increased employee pension contributions would be fairer.
Not taking away a third of someone's pension pot.
Why not they have retired, 50k a year okay to tender the flower beds and 3 hols a year ! senior civil servants have enjoyed a life of privilage and this is not being excessive and is it going to hurt them really ?Not taking away a third of someone's pension pot.
simple as. f
k emSystemParanoia said:
el stovey said:
sussexjob said:
el stovey said:
IF there is a genuine gap 30% average gap in pay for equivalent positions (I'm not sure that there is) then a public sector pay freeze until the private sector catches up and increased employee pension contributions would be fairer.
Not taking away a third of someone's pension pot.
Why not they have retired, 50k a year okay to tender the flower beds and 3 hols a year ! senior civil servants have enjoyed a life of privilage and this is not being excessive and is it going to hurt them really ?Not taking away a third of someone's pension pot.
simple as. f
k emk themselves and just deal with it...Typical Public sector response, I would expect nothing less.
ShadownINja said:
I find it a bit confusing. The reason why people used to endure public sector jobs rather than work in the same job in the private sector was because, while the salaries were lower, the pensions were better. I'm sure this was the general perception in the '80s and '90s. However, I heard recently that the equivalent job now pays typically 30% more in the public sector... this seems to be a good argument for cutting pensions in the public sector, then?
(I'm happy to be told I'm talking st, as I have little proof to back up my claim or my understanding.)
In my experience, and certainly where I work in the NHS, the business bods, lawyers, managers and research support staff get paid less than they would in industry. I myself am paid less than my equivalent in industry who has far less responsibilities than I do. (I'm happy to be told I'm talking s
t, as I have little proof to back up my claim or my understanding.)Personally speaking I'm here because they offer a more stable, ethical and pleasant working environment than those offered by big pharmaceutical companies. I can't speak for my colleagues.
My pension isn't as good as they used to be, but it is a better package than I could afford in the private sector. The caveat is however I have to stay in the public sector to maintain it.
The other financial incentive is the banding system. Depending on where you sit in your paid band you have a guaranteed pay increase every year until you max out your band. The caveat with this is however you cannot outgrow your band. It is a glass ceiling you will probably never overcome. Your only altnative is often to move back into the private sector and no longer being allowed to contribute to your pension.
I've no complaints but it's not the free for all the Daily Mail would have us believe. At least not in my area.
Dupont666 said:
Private sector got their bonuses cut because people disagreed mainly from the public sector.
Public sector may get their pensions cut (which was the reason why they took the public sector job, blah, blah, blah) cause people disagree... public sector kick up a stink about it and bh and moan...
just wanted to highlight this common misconception/piece of ususal bullsPublic sector may get their pensions cut (which was the reason why they took the public sector job, blah, blah, blah) cause people disagree... public sector kick up a stink about it and b
h and moan...t....there are some public sector workers who took a job in the civil service because there are no other equivilent jobs like it in the private sector you know?!?
who gives a flying what the pension might be like in 40 years time?! if, for example, you wanted to work in the foreign office, an overseas embassay or MI5, what else can you do?!?! life is for living, not worrying about what the pension might be. i'll take a unique job in a unique environment and say come what may thanks!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff