+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 43 of 43
General Chat Thread, Gove sacks quarter of DfE :jaw: in General; Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster I'm bitter that Gordon Brown sold half Britain's gold at 1/3 of its current price. I'm ...
  1. #31

    TechMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    3,286
    Thank Post
    225
    Thanked 405 Times in 302 Posts
    Rep Power
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster View Post
    I'm bitter that Gordon Brown sold half Britain's gold at 1/3 of its current price.
    I'm bitter that he publicly announced he was going to do it something like 3 months before hand so the price dropped and that is why we got 1/3 of the price

    Quote Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster View Post
    I'm bitter that I will never be able to afford to retire while I'm paying for public sector workers to retire much too early.
    That's a bit of a Daily Wail claim really. If they retire early they get less of pension. & you are paying for it because you pay taxes and they surprisingly go towards public sector remuneration. You may as well be bitter about paying for people's wages at all and just stop buying anything.

    Apart from that I agree completely.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    631
    Thank Post
    52
    Thanked 106 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by TechMonkey View Post
    That's a bit of a Daily Wail claim really.
    No it isn't.
    If they retire early they get less of pension.
    I said too early, not 'early'. By 'too early' I mean that their retirement age is too low. It should have been raised years ago and it should keep going up.

    & you are paying for it because you pay taxes and they surprisingly go towards public sector remuneration.
    If that was the case I wouldn't have a problem. I have a problem because the contributions made by the taxpayer are insufficient to cover the shortfall, and there's a shortfall because the workers themselves aren't contributing enough to their retirement. And, of course, Labour decided not to deal with this, preferring to leave it for the Tories to deal with, because Labour is vicious, evil, hate-filled and deserves to burn.

  3. #33

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,680
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,451 Times in 1,897 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster View Post
    I said too early, not 'early'. By 'too early' I mean that their retirement age is too low. It should have been raised years ago and it should keep going up.
    Slight problem with that thought. There are currently not enough jobs to go around - leading to a high rate of youth unemployment. If older people stay in jobs longer, that leads to less jobs further still for young people. So, you end up paying for benefits instead of pensions. Which would you prefer?

    Also, you seem to be saying that public sector workers aren't paying enough into their public sector pensions? Am I reading that right? The LGPS is a funded pension - it had a surplus last time I looked at it, and that was before the adjustment to put our contribution rate up and our return rate down.
    Last edited by localzuk; 15th November 2012 at 01:54 PM.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    187
    Thank Post
    4
    Thanked 20 Times in 16 Posts
    Rep Power
    10
    Top ranting.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    631
    Thank Post
    52
    Thanked 106 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Slight problem with that thought. There are currently not enough jobs to go around - leading to a high rate of youth unemployment. If older people stay in jobs longer, that leads to less jobs further still for young people. So, you end up paying for benefits instead of pensions. Which would you prefer?
    Benefits are cheaper, so I'd choose benefits.

    Obviously this problem has been around for about 15 years. Back in 2002 youth unemployment was around 7%, which would have been a great time to bring the policy in. But, we're talking about Labour here.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    631
    Thank Post
    52
    Thanked 106 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Also, you seem to be saying that public sector workers aren't paying enough into their public sector pensions? Am I reading that right?
    That's exactly right.

    The LGPS is a funded pension - it had a surplus last time I looked at it, and that was before the adjustment to put our contribution rate up and our return rate down.
    Don't know when you last looked, but as of 2010 it was running a £100Bn deficit.

    Latest LGPS deficit forecast challenged | Public Finance

    It has a positive cash flow, which, the unions being innumerate, moronic liars, they assume means a surplus.

  7. #37

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,680
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,451 Times in 1,897 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster View Post
    That's exactly right.

    Don't know when you last looked, but as of 2010 it was running a £100Bn deficit.

    Latest LGPS deficit forecast challenged | Public Finance

    It has a positive cash flow, which, the unions being innumerate, moronic liars, they assume means a surplus.
    You do realise that the article you've just linked debunks your own argument - pointing out that a face value analysis of the funds using a snapshot is misleading.

    From a House of Commons report on the LGPS:

    The LGPS has funds to cover about three-quarters of its future liabilities, and there is a positive cashflow.
    This means that it is improving, after recent changes. Returns from investment are higher than they were also.

    The LGPS assets will cover the costs of pensions in payment for the foreseeable future, given the positive cashflow and constitutional permanence of local government as an employer.
    A high proportion of the pensions costs of current employees in the LGPS are paid for up-front, reducing the reliance on future generations to fund pensions in payment.
    Sure, from this report, there is a long term liability issue, but it is just that - long term. There is plenty of time to remedy it. It does appear my belief that it was in surplus was incorrect, but as is yours that it is £100bn in the hole.

    In this report, it also makes note that increasing employee contributions (I pay 6.5% at the moment) is one avenue, but it would have to be managed carefully, as people opt-out when this sort of change is made - which would make the fund worse off rather than better off.

    One of the main methods of increasing the funds is better investment.

    Another thing to bear in mind is that people in the LGPS have suffered a pay freeze for, what, 2 or 3 years now. In real terms, that works out as about 10 - 15% pay cut. Increasing pension contributions would be yet another reduction of income for some of the countries lowest paid workers (more than half of all LGPS pensions pay out less than £3,000 a year).

    Now, after all that, the LGA and various trade unions have agreed in June to the following:

    The scheme will be career average, using CPI.
    The accrual rate will be 1/49th rather than the 1/60th previously
    The pension age will be the state pension age for each person
    The contribution rates are being adjusted - so the lower end will not see much change, or potentially paying less into the scheme, and the higher end will increase their contributions. Average contribution will remain the same at 6.5%.

    So, reforms have already been made. Are you wanting more still?

    The report - http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05823.pdf
    Last edited by localzuk; 15th November 2012 at 02:33 PM.

  8. #38

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,176
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 773 Times in 583 Posts
    Rep Power
    335
    Since this is the current ranting thread, why the have England only played one full time spinner in the test against India??? Pitch is breaking up already, England are going to get stuffed

  9. #39

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,176
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 773 Times in 583 Posts
    Rep Power
    335
    Oh, and DLT has been arrested...

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    631
    Thank Post
    52
    Thanked 106 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    You do realise that the article you've just linked debunks your own argument - pointing out that a face value analysis of the funds using a snapshot is misleading.

    From a House of Commons report on the LGPS:

    This means that it is improving, after recent changes. Returns from investment are higher than they were also.
    It's still in deficit and it will remain so and that deficit will be paid by taxpayers like me who can not afford to save for their own retirement but are expected to featherbed public sector workers.

    I find it extraordinary that people who are nominally of the Left and who claim to be so exercised by 'fairness' are prepared to defend a brutally inequitable scheme.

    [Sure, from this report, there is a long term liability issue, but it is just that - long term. There is plenty of time to remedy it. It does appear my belief that it was in surplus was incorrect, but as is yours that it is £100bn in the hole.
    And this is exactly the problem. The attitude is 'oh, it can be dealt with later, it doesn't matter'. We've had 13 years of that attitude and I'm fed up to the back teeth with it. Public sector pensions deficit? Oh, leave it for later. State pension deficit? Oh, leave it for later. PFI? Oh, leave it for later. EU rebate? Oh, leave it for later.

    Thanks to Bodgit Labour's "Fix it later" attitude we're spending the equivalent of twice the defence budget servicing the interest on our debts. Those debts don't include PFI, of course, or the public sector or state pension deficits, because all of those are 'off book'.

    This country needs fiscal discipline and it needs it yesterday.

    In this report, it also makes note that increasing employee contributions (I pay 6.5% at the moment) is one avenue, but it would have to be managed carefully, as people opt-out when this sort of change is made - which would make the fund worse off rather than better off.
    HAahahaha. Anyone opting out of a state pension system would be barking mad. Even with a decent level of contribution such as you'd pay in the private sector, there is no better, safer place for you (as a public sector worker) to stash your money.

    One of the main methods of increasing the funds is better investment.
    That's what we call 'gambling'. Given the state of the global economy for the foreseeable future, it's a recipe for disaster. No, the shortfall must be made up by contributions or it just won't happen and in 20 years' time we'll all be saying "Oh look, a huge public sector pension deficit".

    Another thing to bear in mind is that people in the LGPS have suffered a pay freeze for, what, 2 or 3 years now. In real terms, that works out as about 10 - 15% pay cut.
    That brings them close to the situation felt by the private sector. Except the private sector don't have a secure pension and private sector salaries grew slower than public sector ones. In fact, by 2007 the average public sector salary was higher than that in the private sector.

    Increasing pension contributions would be yet another reduction of income for some of the countries lowest paid workers (more than half of all LGPS pensions pay out less than £3,000 a year).
    Oh, that sounds like such a small sum, until you remember that over half of local government workers are part time, a majority of them have not contributed for their whole working life, and it's paid out every year for an average of 30 years and that, to achieve that pension pot a private sector worker would have to put away something like 25% of their salary.

    Now, after all that, the LGA and various trade unions have agreed in June to the following:

    The scheme will be career average, using CPI.
    The accrual rate will be 1/49th rather than the 1/60th previously
    The pension age will be the state pension age for each person
    The contribution rates are being adjusted - so the lower end will not see much change, or potentially paying less into the scheme, and the higher end will increase their contributions. Average contribution will remain the same at 6.5%.

    So, reforms have already been made. Are you wanting more still?
    Yes. If the unions are happy with that deal, it's too light.

  11. #41

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,680
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,451 Times in 1,897 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by Flatpackhamster View Post
    It's still in deficit and it will remain so and that deficit will be paid by taxpayers like me who can not afford to save for their own retirement but are expected to featherbed public sector workers.
    No. It isn't. You aren't paying anything extra. The surplus cashflow means it *currently* is funded. So, taxpayers are not feathering anything. It isn't my fault you can't sort a pension out for yourself.

    I find it extraordinary that people who are nominally of the Left and who claim to be so exercised by 'fairness' are prepared to defend a brutally inequitable scheme.
    Because it isn't unfair?

    And this is exactly the problem. The attitude is 'oh, it can be dealt with later, it doesn't matter'. We've had 13 years of that attitude and I'm fed up to the back teeth with it. Public sector pensions deficit? Oh, leave it for later. State pension deficit? Oh, leave it for later. PFI? Oh, leave it for later. EU rebate? Oh, leave it for later.
    There is NO WAY TO FIX IT RIGHT NOW. Ok? Do you understand that yet? The changes have been made to move it into a better situation. Making more changes, or more abrupt changes would do one thing - make it worse off. People would opt-out, and suddenly, the cashflow surplus would become a deficit too, making it an unfunded fund, meaning that taxpayers suddenly *do* have to pay something extra.

    HAahahaha. Anyone opting out of a state pension system would be barking mad. Even with a decent level of contribution such as you'd pay in the private sector, there is no better, safer place for you (as a public sector worker) to stash your money.
    I know loads of people who did at the last contribution change, because it affected their already meagre wage, meaning they wouldn't be able to pay their rent *now*. You know, TAs can take home less than £10k a year?

    That's what we call 'gambling'. Given the state of the global economy for the foreseeable future, it's a recipe for disaster. No, the shortfall must be made up by contributions or it just won't happen and in 20 years' time we'll all be saying "Oh look, a huge public sector pension deficit".
    You do realise that all pensions are funded by investment, and therefore 'gambling'? Look earlier in this very thread, and you'll see that some of Vodafone's biggest investors are... pension funds.

    That brings them close to the situation felt by the private sector. Except the private sector don't have a secure pension and private sector salaries grew slower than public sector ones. In fact, by 2007 the average public sector salary was higher than that in the private sector.
    Whose fault is it that the pension schemes in the private sector are bad? Mine? Nope. They're the making of companies more interested in profit than their staff - its only now that the government has legislated that companies over a certain size must offer a pension scheme that things might change. It shouldn't be for the government to legislate that companies have to treat their employees properly.

    Oh, that sounds like such a small sum, until you remember that over half of local government workers are part time, a majority of them have not contributed for their whole working life, and it's paid out every year for an average of 30 years and that, to achieve that pension pot a private sector worker would have to put away something like 25% of their salary.
    And here you show an ignorance of the scheme. Don't contribute? Don't get anything. That's how the LGPS has always worked. Average of 30 years? Are you confused? Retirement age in public sector historically 60 for women and 65 for men - meaning that using your average, half of public sector workers are living past 90!!! Nonsense plain and simple. Stop making things up.

    Yes. If the unions are happy with that deal, it's too light.
    You're being unrealistic. If I stay at the same pay level for my career, I will pay around £54,000 into my scheme. If my employer also paid the same amount, that's £108k. Investment of that should return at least 10%, so say £120k pension pot. Life expectancy is 84ish now. So, that is 17 years retirement for me. Meaning if that pot is just chopped up, I would get about £7k a year. I believe that I won't actually get that much, from my last pension analysis either...

    Are you saying that's not fair?
    Last edited by localzuk; 15th November 2012 at 03:14 PM.

  12. #42

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,176
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 773 Times in 583 Posts
    Rep Power
    335
    Interesting point on Question Time, most Starbucks stores are franchises, owned and run as local businesses which pay a franchise fee to Starbucks. The franchises pay their full taxes, including corporation tax, if you boycott local franchise stores you are directly affecting a local business who are doing nothing wrong. If you do plan to boycott Starbucks, it's worth checking if it's a franchise or Starbucks owned store before doing so.

  13. #43

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,655
    Thank Post
    849
    Thanked 890 Times in 737 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    Interesting point on Question Time, most Starbucks stores are franchises, owned and run as local businesses which pay a franchise fee to Starbucks.
    Interesting since he also said (paraphrasing) "after bills, wages, stock he has little profit left to tax". A curious business model to defend when you, as part of your franchise agreement, are (presumably) tied into to purchasing your beans from Switzerland at an hyper-inflated cost. A point he furiously shock his head to when it was pointed out by one of the panel - I'm guessing he doesn't check the price of coffee beans on the commodities exchange to see if the people he's licencing the franchise from his fleecing his profits?

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 16th May 2012, 10:19 PM
  2. The JAWS of death!
    By ajbritton in forum Educational Software
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25th August 2005, 02:28 PM
  3. How are the rest of your schools connected?
    By Dos_Box in forum General Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 8th August 2005, 10:42 AM
  4. Viewing all of a member's posts
    By eejit in forum Comments and Suggestions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 3rd July 2005, 12:26 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •