| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
 Posted -
28/04/2011
:
07:37
|
Political comment is a high risk activity on the site these days so I thought I'd try again to give those who are interested in politics a safe haven!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
Tardis
|
Posted - 30/06/2011 : 11:51
Pension rises are not pay cuts. They are all part of the benefit packages enjoyed through employment. They are supposed to be that bit that keeps the wolf from the door when you decide to no longer work (no official retirement date now)
 |
Tardis
|
Posted - 30/06/2011 : 12:11
Had to buy the 99p one as the other had gone
quote:
Stanley wrote:
Michael. try this LINK. A copy for £2.68 inc P&P.
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 01:30
"Pension rises are not pay cuts." Never said they were Michael, read what I wrote again. It's the 3% rise in contributions that's effectively a pay cut. Some contributors will be paying 10% of their wages according to Dave Prentis, I don't think he will be careless about his figures.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Bruff
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 08:53
As someone who will be affected by the mooted changes to public sector pensions, there are a few things I'd like to note. First, I do not mind working longer to draw the 'full' pension, whatever age that may be. Second, I have no problem in principle with contributing a little more, simply noting that we can negotiate on what that 'more' is. But I do object to some things. I object to paying more for less in principle, and would welcome negotiation on the balance of the 'more' and the 'less'. I also object to an arrogant employer (the Government), essentially telling me what will happen as negotiations are taking place giving opportunity to the more instransigent TUs to withdraw labour, similarly while negotiations are taking place.
I also object to a lot of the misinformation put about. For example, it is true that we are living longer, but the real pressures on public sector pensions over the next 20/30 years are due to a cohort and not the population. This cohort are the baby-boomers. The notion that the current system is unsustainable due to an ever increasing population living longer sine dei is simply false, unless a policy decision is taken to no longer fund provision to the same degree. So be honest this is a policy decision and don't conflate a temporary cohort with a global population.
At the end of the day, making arrangements for any reasonable pension is very expensive. I think in Sweden, all employees have to put aside over 18% of their salary as provision, with help for the low-paid etc and all employers doing their bit. It took the best part of 30 years to design, agree and implement this system. I think I can safely predict that if we tried to design, agree etc a similar system in this country, there would be no chance. No chance at all.
Richard Broughton
|
Tardis
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 11:16
With figures in mind, I refer the honourable gentleman to the relevant discussion on R4's "More or Less"
quote:
Stanley wrote:
"Pension rises are not pay cuts." Never said they were Michael, read what I wrote again. It's the 3% rise in contributions that's effectively a pay cut. Some contributors will be paying 10% of their wages according to Dave Prentis, I don't think he will be careless about his figures.
|
Tardis
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 11:33
I am sorry to say this Richard, but I totally disagree.
It is not just the contributions, it is the defined benefits
Whilst there may be an issue with the babyboomers per se, and the fact that the NHS now seems to have to do some jobs for which it was never invented, all these things must be paid for. Only yesterday news was on the airwaves of another "bulge" coming through the system who will need new maternity cover, and schools before they have a chance to become tax payers and contribute back to the system.
It is a well known anecdote, that the private pensions raid carried out by Mr Brown, nor the reversal of stamp duty and tax relief on share dividends, did not help the poorly run schemes.
It is all about unlimited liability, and I for one do not believe that the state should have that imposed upon it because it means that the "cycle" would invariably mean that other factors within the role of government would suffer much more greatly, and frankly I would hate to be the person who had the job of saying "well the previous generation spent it all and left nothing for you".
I for one would gladly see the the public sector scheme restructured to be a fully contibuted and enclosed scheme. I would legislate that the majority of the money collected be invested in low risk government debt, and it would also mean that all public sector workers had a fully induced mechanism to ensure that best practice was always adopted, no government was allowed to overspend, and much of the inefficiency within the hegemeny of bureaurcracy would be done away with at a stroke.
I believe that the country needs public services, but not at any price. I think that they provide the necessary response to ensure that our society leaves something for the next generation in a better state than we were given it whilst under our stewardship
If it all comes down to pounds and pence, and my need is greater than yours, then history teaches us that the situation produced will not be harmonious
The situation is apparently terrible, unless you listen to Mr Balls who's polices may have contributed to today's position, but I also think that simply whingeing about the situation is not an option. People have to start being adult enough about this identified problem and come up with a constructive alternative option. At the moment I just hear static
|
tripps
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 11:49
" population living longer sine dei "
That would be the cohort of atheists then?
|
belle
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 12:48
Is it just because I am a women i don' get it.... or is there some other factor that leads all these people to be arguing on the tv, in the papers, on here, about whether or not the Govt should cut pension funds..when no one seems to bat an eyelid that they spend thousands (conservative est) on suddenly deciding to bomb some unfortunates hundreds of miles away in a county that has nothing to do with us. One thing I do know, on a country scale as well as a family scale..when times is hard you look after your own first. I am not taking sides on the pension debacle but I am saying the present gov is mishandling our money far more by waging uneccessary war.
Edited by - belle on 01/07/2011 12:49:37 PM
Life is what you make it |
thomo
Barlick Born Old Salt
2021 Posts
|
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 14:05
There is truth in amongst what both Bruff and Tardis have written. The "baby boom", and its amazing what lengths the media will go to in a bid to explain this whilst at the same time diplomatically skirting around certain facts. Having children was at one time almost an obligation, and at that time having large families was to a degree offset by the high infant mortality rate. Today, for most people, having children is an option and common sense should determine how many is practical in line with the ability to care for them financially. There are those who have never made any input into the system and yet still produce children at a rate that this country cannot afford, for some of these it is still an obligation rather than a choice. I have mentioned this before in another topic, but I believe it to be a valid point. The first child is given all entitlements, the second, a percentage, reduced again for a third child, and then that's it, no more. Or make two the absolute limit for assistance. It is also true that many complain about what they see as a personal injustice without making any sensible proposals as to an alternative. Any debate about whether we should try to prevent people from killing each other by intervention is going to be "Thorny", people being killed by those in control for protesting are at risk, we could just sit back and let them get on with it, that is a matter for individual conscience. Aid to overseas is another thorny matter, and yet money is given in large amounts, sadly in some cases it may just as well be dumped into the Ocean, we give, they expect, a never ending cycle.
thomo |
belle
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 17:02
Thomo, I was not asking people to debate "whether we should try to prevent people from killing each other by intervention"
I was merely pointing out the discrepancy in the attitude of people who don't question the enormous sums of money spent without any debate, on unneeded war, and yet spend hours arguing over the pennies spent on ensuring someone keeps the pension they were promised..
Life is what you make it |
thomo
Barlick Born Old Salt
2021 Posts
|
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 17:49
And I was trying to make what I consider to be valid points without inflaming anyone, including you Belle.
thomo |
belle
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 18:19
I am not inflamed..is it the big font that makes you think that? it's your font. Since I copied a bit of it, it wouldn't resort to my normal one.
I do not quite understand the tone you have taken with me Thomo, unless it's because you thought what I said was some sort of dig at you? when i post on a forum of adults discussing, however heatedly, their political opinions, I expect to have an answer to what i post, or to be ignored..what you did was to totally change the meaning of what I was trying to debate.. and as it was my post and it was what I wanted to debate, i would say if you have no reply to it, just ignore it..
Life is what you make it |
thomo
Barlick Born Old Salt
2021 Posts
|
|
Posted - 01/07/2011 : 23:13
Belle, I do not know what you have done with your font, or mine, as that is beyond my control, nor am I taking a "Tone" with you, but I was rather surprised by what I see on my screen, large bold script that has had me accused of shouting in the past. Whatever has happened there is not my fault, and I did not think that you were having a "dig" at me. I was expressing my own thoughts on certain matters, and I am sorry if you think that I am taking issue with you on your concerns, it is not so. I cannot say more, so Good Night.
thomo |
Bradders
|
Posted - 02/07/2011 : 01:25
Maybe Pluggy could offer some advice (?) ...Some contibuter's posts always seem to show up as "bold"....I've got used to it ,now !
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 02/07/2011 : 04:58
Richard makes a good point about the way the negotiations are being conducted. For instance, the government refuses to address the NAO report that public service pension cost is on a downward trend without raising contributions. I get the impression that they don't see concessions as an option after the recent round of U-turns.
I note yesterday that the government attitude was that the strike action had been a 'failure' because it didn't bring services to a standstill. I don't think this was the intention. The strike was more about demonstrating solidarity and the fact that protest could be made effectively through concerted action. I think they made their point. As I said before it happened, I wasn't too sure about the unions' financial case but was quite sure about their right to make a protest.
The National Fire and Rescue Centres came under scrutiny again yesterday. One of the major problems is that it was done under PFI and the leases and maintenance charges are watertight. Not mentioned.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
POLITICS CORNER
