On 10/02/2018 00:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Why is it a "shame" that people are paid a pension they worked for and
contriibuted to, maybe for most of a lifetime? It would be much more
of a "shame" if the contract were broken. If the funding is difficult
now, all it suggests is the the council were negligent in maintaining
the fund in past years.

Odd the way pensions are always too generous or whatever. Until the person
saying that retires, of course.


And even worse are the ones that then decide to live permanently in the
sun, so that gold-plated pension then supports the local economy in
France, Greece, Portugal, *Reunion* or wherever, but is paid for by the
council tax-payers and general taxpayers in the UK.

On 10/02/2018 11:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
Are you sure this is true? I am aware of many diligent and competent
council workers. Often dealing with social issues that are not the
pleasantest to handle. Perhaps this is a myth that only Express and
Mail readers believe in?


Definately not a myth.

I spent 11 years with the NHS, 7 as a lab technician and four as
a computer programmer before leaving for the private sector.

There were a fair old number of clock (and pension) watchers who
were impossible to get rid of. The bright and motivated people
tended to leave (to other parts of the NHS, or out of it) because
promotion was based on 'dead mans shoes'. This allowed mostly the
'pension-watching' dross to float up the career ladder based on
'buggins turn'.

There were also some very clever and dedicated people, but I only
found these people working in a teaching hospital with access to
research and grant money. Staff in a district general hospital
were very definately in the clock-watching camp, with an air of
resignation, and a definate streak of 'Not my job', 'Nothing I
can do to change it'. In one district hospital the senior
thoracic surgeon was nicknamed 'chopper Harley'. He has been dead for
many years and I well remember the blood bank issuing 4, 8, 12 units
for operations carried out by him. After I moved to London, I soon
noticed that identical procedures in a teaching hospital, required
2 units to be x-matched for standby, but were only infrequently
collected and used. Everyone knew that Chopper Harley should have
been retired or sacked, but no-one dared speak out, and even if they
did (and committed professional suicide), there were no procedures
to remove him. All the consultants would just form a defensive
circle.

The public service is stuffed with baby-boomers because of this,
while in the private sector many would have been made redundant
in their 50's (some deservedly so).

The impact on the unfunded NHS pensions bill has yet to be seen.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:49:18 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

It's things like residential homes and going round to people's houses
and feeding and washing them. You may be furious that they can't just
die in their own squalour, but some of us are not.

I wouldn't put it quite as strongly as that, but it appears you get my
drift.





--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:08:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The state takes the responsibility and the money from the next
generation.

Ultimately unsustainable.

It's called socialism. It's all about being institutionally uncaring.

And it's the road to ruination.




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:45:53 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Good to know you are going to rely on your family to look after you when
it is needed. Do they know this?

This may be hard for you to grasp, Dave, but there are those of us who
just don't want to be a burden on anyone, whether that be family or
taxpayer.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:49:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No, I worked hard enough and had no kids, so I can pay for my care

But you still have to pay for other people's kids. And you have no say in
which children you support in this way. Most of our money is probably
being flushed down the toilet on farcical lost causes even as we write.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On 10/02/2018 11:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 09:08:45 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Looking at my council tax bill, the foollowing apply

Non adult social care £1376.87 Adult social care precept £69.63 Police &
crime commissioner £216.00 District council £174.02 Pa3ish Council
£56.65

TOTAL £1893.32

So 72% of my council tax is on 'non adult social care'

What exactly the **** is that?

I don't even know what plain old ordinary "social care" is! I suspect I'd
be pretty furious if I ever found out, so perhaps in this case, ignorance
is bliss.

It's things like residential homes and going round to people's houses
and feeding and washing them. You may be furious that they can't just
die in their own squalour, but some of us are not.


Why don't the relatives of these people do it for free ?.

My local parish council has now taken on two 'community wardens',
complete with a nice new cross-over car. Apparently they are to
help with all the 'vulnerable' people, but no-one in the village
knows who these people are or how they coped before. The WI
meeting was so critical, that one of the new 'wardens' just
walked out of the meeting.

The parish council wages bill has short up from £74K to £116K and
a neighbouring parish council has had similar increases to pay for
the same two women who basically drive around chatting to people,
and once in a blue moon, deal with a 'badly parked' car. Thats it.
Nice little gravy train and a council pension to boot.

It seems that the district council and the HA that was spun off from
it, have decided that our villages are to be used to dump all the
difficult tenants that they don't want in the main market town. This
is what the 'vulnerable' people are. Benefit spongers with feral kids
who need to be watched over. But not at night of course when they
are up to no good.

On 10/02/2018 13:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/02/18 13:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of course the tax regime means that the traditional thing of having your
family look after you is now unaffordable for most families.

The state takes the responsibility and the money from the next
generation.

Good to know you are going to rely on your family to look after you when
it is needed. Do they know this?

No, I worked hard enough and had no kids, so I can pay for my care



+1

And I paid 40+% tax and double NI (IR35) since 2001 until I
retired.

I am one of that select band (about 25% of the population) who
has actually paid in far more than I will cost.

The other 75%, many with their 'free' motability cars, multiple
kids, massive housing benefit and other handouts, are just
freeloading.

In message , at 15:21:11 on
Sat, 10 Feb 2018, Tim Streater remarked:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Why is it a "shame" that people are paid a pension they worked for and
contriibuted to, maybe for most of a lifetime? It would be much more
of a "shame" if the contract were broken. If the funding is difficult
now, all it suggests is the the council were negligent in maintaining
the fund in past years.

Partly because Mr Brown, AIUI, ordered everyone to take a pensions
holiday for a year or two.

Including in effect ordering the employed with private pensions to
"throttle back on their contributions". In both cases, because it
reduced the contributor's immediate tax liability, and he needed that
tax to prop up his short term spending plans.

--
Roland Perry

On 09/02/2018 13:19, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 09:43:02 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

So 72% of my council tax is on 'non adult social care'

What exactly the **** is that?
education?

Yes, although in this case some of those are not functions of the
county council. So a better breakdown would be:

County Council (other than Adult Social Care)
County Council (Adult Social Care)
Police and Crime Commissioner
District Council
Parish Council

In unitary authority areas, it would be different.

That is how ours are broken down too. Fire & rescue also gets a line.
Each showing a different percentage increase which looks suspiciously
like the max allowed in each line item. +2%, 3% and 3.2% are popular.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Why is it a "shame" that people are paid a pension they worked for and
contriibuted to, maybe for most of a lifetime? It would be much more
of a "shame" if the contract were broken. If the funding is difficult
now, all it suggests is the the council were negligent in maintaining
the fund in past years.

Partly because Mr Brown, AIUI, ordered everyone to take a pensions
holiday for a year or two.

and then stopped pension fuinds getting tax paid on dividends back.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:45:53 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Good to know you are going to rely on your family to look after you
when it is needed. Do they know this?

This may be hard for you to grasp, Dave, but there are those of us who
just don't want to be a burden on anyone, whether that be family or
taxpayer.

Hope you've got those pills standing by, then. ;-)

--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/02/2018 16:12, pamela wrote:
On 13:48 10 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
I'm sure there were many exceptions but my personal experience
was that public sector staff were always too busy to handle
matters and I would have to wait weeks, whereas a commercial
company would have asked staff to crack on through any backlog.
If you phoned local authority staff they would be out of the
office at the stroke of 4pm or tiem their end of day was.

Why would you phone them when you knew it was the end of their
day?

If Sainsbury close at 2200, do you expect to start shopping at
2205?

I thought I would find, like in any normal office, people staying on to
finish things off. But my expectation isn't the issue. The issue is
their extreme clock watching.

If actually went to the office you would get to see these folks all
preparing themselves some time in advance to fully ready to leave at
the strike of the clock. This wasn't a production line. Extra time
and extra effort are always expected in a job - except for the public
sector.

Of course, not everyone was like this but most were.

Some years ago, I came home from work at 16:30 on a Wednesday and found
that the bin hadn't been emptied because they hadn't bothered to look
behind the row of vans that had arrived to re-pipe the road's gas
supply. It somehow didn't occur to them that it was unlikely that a full
dozen houses in a row wouldn't put their bins out!

It mattered at the time, because it was mid-summer, the bin was
completely full and we had two children in nappies, so I immediately
phoned the council's waste management line, which rang and rang, with no
answer (they don't finish until 17:00).

Eventually, at 16:57 someone picked up the phone and immediately slammed
it down again.

I was unable to get through to anyone until Thursday morning. Whereupon
they informed me that it was a 48 hour service for missed bin
collections and as it was Thursday, that meant Saturday, which meant
Monday at the earliest and possibly Tuesday.

As you can imagine, I was not best pleased and I was very tempted to
take the stinking contents of the bin directly to the council offices -
but sanity prevailed.

SteveW

On 10/02/2018 16:20, pamela wrote:
On 15:25 10 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger
Hayter wrote:

If people are happy with the destruction of pension schemes,
starting with the private sector and then the public sector, so be
it.

There shouldn't be any "private sector" or "public sector" pension
schemes. They should all be personal. Then these "underfunded
pension schemes" issues wouldn't exist.

I may not agree with you on everything but I can certainly agree with
that.

Then what happens is that the pension firm has problems and the future
pensions become a fraction of what they should have been - as happened
to my father.

SteveW

On 10/02/2018 14:54, Andrew wrote:
On 10/02/2018 11:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 09:08:45 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Looking at my council tax bill, the foollowing apply

Non adult social care £1376.87 Adult social care precept £69.63
Police &
crime commissioner £216.00 District council £174.02 Pa3ish Council
£56.65

TOTAL £1893.32

So 72% of my council tax is on 'non adult social care'

What exactly the **** is that?

I don't even know what plain old ordinary "social care" is! I suspect
I'd
be pretty furious if I ever found out, so perhaps in this case,
ignorance
is bliss.

It's things like residential homes and going round to people's houses
and feeding and washing them.Â*Â* You may be furious that they can't just
die in their own squalour, but some of us are not.


Why don't the relatives of these people do it for free ?.

Maybe because they live a couple of hundred miles away, work full time,
have children to bring up and have no space for a relative to move in?

SteveW

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Partly because Mr Brown, AIUI, ordered everyone to take a pensions
holiday for a year or two.

Including in effect ordering the employed with private pensions to
"throttle back on their contributions". In both cases, because it
reduced the contributor's immediate tax liability, and he needed that
tax to prop up his short term spending plans.

But at that time, most were running a vast surplus. Making for problems
later on if nothing was done. Easy to be wise with hindsight.

--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 10/02/2018 16:20, pamela wrote:
On 15:25 10 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger
Hayter wrote:

If people are happy with the destruction of pension schemes,
starting with the private sector and then the public sector, so be
it.

There shouldn't be any "private sector" or "public sector" pension
schemes. They should all be personal. Then these "underfunded
pension schemes" issues wouldn't exist.

I may not agree with you on everything but I can certainly agree with
that.

Then what happens is that the pension firm has problems and the future
pensions become a fraction of what they should have been - as happened
to my father.

Quite a few of my ex workmates were persuaded to move their pensions from
the group scheme after my company sort of folded. And none got a better
deal than just leaving it be. Most, a considerably worse one. A few have
sued the advisor and won.

Never underestimate the power of big business to separate you and your
money. Someone has to pay for the fat cat lunches.

--
*Born free...Taxed to death.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/02/2018 17:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Someone has to pay for the fat cat lunches.

Most recipients of public service rpi-linked pensions
actually believe that the 6% (or 3% or nothing)
contribution that they made, not only funds it entirely, but also
miraculously covers the extra 15 or so years of lifetime that they
will enjoy, which wasn't considered when they started work.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:

On 10/02/2018 16:20, pamela wrote:
On 15:25 10 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger
Hayter wrote:

If people are happy with the destruction of pension schemes,
starting with the private sector and then the public sector, so be
it.

There shouldn't be any "private sector" or "public sector" pension
schemes. They should all be personal. Then these "underfunded
pension schemes" issues wouldn't exist.

I may not agree with you on everything but I can certainly agree with
that.

Then what happens is that the pension firm has problems and the future
pensions become a fraction of what they should have been - as happened
to my father.

I can only think, one one pensions firm that has had "problems"
(BICBW). OTOH, not a day goes by but we hear of yet another ordinary
company with a "pensions shortfall".

usually becaue the company is not paying the "employers contributions" or
because somebody has "borrowed" money from the fund.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Andrew wrote:

On 10/02/2018 17:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Someone has to pay for the fat cat lunches.

Most recipients of public service rpi-linked pensions
actually believe that the 6% (or 3% or nothing)
contribution that they made, not only funds it entirely, but also
miraculously covers the extra 15 or so years of lifetime that they
will enjoy, which wasn't considered when they started work.

And so they should expect because that is what the government, through
its executive organisations, contracted with them to do. No-one forced
the government to do this. And the terms (contributions and returns)
have been adjusted several times over the years, well after the changes
in life expectancy. No-one thinks there is a fund, because there never
was, just a contract with a party who should be trustable to keep their
side of the bargain. Which after all involved them spending everyone's
contributions when they receiived them.




--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 10/02/2018 17:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Someone has to pay for the fat cat lunches.

Most recipients of public service rpi-linked pensions
actually believe that the 6% (or 3% or nothing)
contribution that they made, not only funds it entirely, but also
miraculously covers the extra 15 or so years of lifetime that they
will enjoy, which wasn't considered when they started work.

Do they? Have you done a survey to be so sure?

Or just a gut feeling - like Brexit is going to turn out OK?

--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And of course some company pension pots get raided - precisely because
such pension activity is not that company's core business. So they are
looking to expand and stone the crows - look, there's a big pot of dosh
we can dip into to do it with.

Ah - right. So putting the whole thing in the hands of a financial
organisation is going to stop such thieving and or mismanagement?

Remind us all of how much it cost the state to bail out RBS, etc...

--
*It is wrong to ever split an infinitive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 21:53:25 on Sat, 10
Feb 2018, charles remarked:

not a day goes by but we hear of yet another ordinary
company with a "pensions shortfall".

usually becaue the company is not paying the "employers contributions" or
because somebody has "borrowed" money from the fund.

I think it's actually because, despite the routine contributions being
made and fully invested, the return on those investments means that
looking ahead there won't be enough in the pot to pay the defined
benefits to a longer-lived group of retirees.

That's why the way out is for firms to be persuaded to make *extra*
contributions, plus them no longer offering such lucrative terms to new
employees.
--
Roland Perry

Dave Plowman wrote:

Have you done a survey to be so sure?

Ironic, since you constantly presume 'all brexiteers think this',
'capitalists always want that', or 'most tory voters do the other'?

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Have you done a survey to be so sure?

Ironic, since you constantly presume 'all brexiteers think this',
'capitalists always want that', or 'most tory voters do the other'?

Based on what I read here. Not enough public service pensioners to form a
judgment.

--
*Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2018-02-11, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

Have you done a survey to be so sure?

Ironic, since you constantly presume 'all brexiteers think this',
'capitalists always want that', or 'most tory voters do the other'?

Standard Leftist "thinking".

Tee-Hee.

--
*Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 00:18 11 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 10/02/2018 17:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Someone has to pay for the fat cat lunches.

Most recipients of public service rpi-linked pensions
actually believe that the 6% (or 3% or nothing)
contribution that they made, not only funds it entirely, but also
miraculously covers the extra 15 or so years of lifetime that they
will enjoy, which wasn't considered when they started work.

Do they? Have you done a survey to be so sure?

Or just a gut feeling - like Brexit is going to turn out OK?


Perhaps, through gritted teeth, it's "Brexit MUST turn out OK".

'It is up to everyone to pull together and make it work'.

In other words, the majority have to make something work they didn't vote
for.

--
*The statement below is true.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 13:27:42 on Sun, 11 Feb
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Or just a gut feeling - like Brexit is going to turn out OK?

Perhaps, through gritted teeth, it's "Brexit MUST turn out OK".

'It is up to everyone to pull together and make it work'.

In other words, the majority have to make something work they didn't vote
for.

"The majority voted for a Unicorn, so we have to find one".
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:07:03 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Hope you've got those pills standing by, then. ;-)

Of course. 20X 500mg Nembutal and a 500 quid bottle of Scotch stashed
carefully away just in case. Always have a plan....




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 13:27:42 on Sun, 11 Feb
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Or just a gut feeling - like Brexit is going to turn out OK?

Perhaps, through gritted teeth, it's "Brexit MUST turn out OK".

'It is up to everyone to pull together and make it work'.

In other words, the majority have to make something work they didn't
vote for.

"The majority voted for a Unicorn, so we have to find one".

But they didn't vote for a unicorn. They voted for no SM, no CU, no ECJ,
no more EU laws, no dosh to Brussels. It's really very simple.

not a unicorn, but the crock of gold at the rainbow's end.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In message , at 16:09:12 on
Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Tim Streater remarked:

"The majority voted for a Unicorn, so we have to find one".

But they didn't vote for a unicorn. They voted for no SM, no CU, no
ECJ, no more EU laws, no dosh to Brussels. It's really very simple.

So the Unicorn seekers like David Davis (who wants all the benefits to
continue, and none of the obligations) are in fact misinterpreting their
brief?
--
Roland Perry

Steve Walker posted
On 10/02/2018 16:20, pamela wrote:
On 15:25 10 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger
Hayter wrote:

If people are happy with the destruction of pension schemes,
starting with the private sector and then the public sector, so be
it.

What we are unhappy with is that public sector employees typically get
far better pension arrangements than others, for no good reason than
that the people who run public sector organisations can force the
taxpayer to fund them.

There shouldn't be any "private sector" or "public sector" pension
schemes. They should all be personal. Then these "underfunded
pension schemes" issues wouldn't exist.
I may not agree with you on everything but I can certainly agree
with
that.

Then what happens is that the pension firm has problems and the future
pensions become a fraction of what they should have been - as happened
to my father.

That can happen under the traditional system (you're probably thinking
of Maxwell, or perhaps Equitable Life) but it doesn't have to be like
that. It was the highly restrictive rules of the traditional system that
produced these dangers - for example it used to be the case that you
could be forced to join your employer's pension scheme and resign your
membership of any others.

A system under which people invest their own pension contributions in
whatever they wish (as in a SIPP) would largely protect them against
over-charging monopolists, crooks and incompetents. Movement towards
such a system has now been going on for decades, the latest liberation
being the abolition of the annuity requirement.

--
Jack

Roger Hayter posted
Andrew wrote:

On 10/02/2018 17:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Someone has to pay for the fat cat lunches.

Most recipients of public service rpi-linked pensions
actually believe that the 6% (or 3% or nothing)
contribution that they made, not only funds it entirely, but also
miraculously covers the extra 15 or so years of lifetime that they
will enjoy, which wasn't considered when they started work.

And so they should expect because that is what the government, through
its executive organisations, contracted with them to do. No-one forced
the government to do this.

There is some truth in this argument, but its flaw is that the
government was being generous with other people's money. They had no
moral right to do that, forcing lots of people to fund public sector
workers' generous pensions through taxation, while ending up with really
crap pensions themselves. Which is not fair.

Perhaps we can accept that public sector employers should keep the
pension promises they made to their employees in the past; but the
unfairness that that system created for the rest of the working
population must now end.

--
Jack

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
What we are unhappy with is that public sector employees typically get
far better pension arrangements than others, for no good reason than
that the people who run public sector organisations can force the
taxpayer to fund them.

Who is the 'we' you talk about? Who do you represent?

In general, like for like,public service employees have poorer pay than
the private sector. In part made up by a pension.

--
*Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 17:21:40 on Sun, 11
Feb 2018, Handsome Jack remarked:

A system under which people invest their own pension contributions in
whatever they wish (as in a SIPP) would largely protect them against
over-charging monopolists, crooks and incompetents.

Only if they are sufficiently skilled at spotting the arrival of
over-charging monopolists, crooks and incompetents wishing to divest the
SIPP owner of their funds.
--
Roland Perry

On 11/02/2018 19:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
What we are unhappy with is that public sector employees typically get
far better pension arrangements than others, for no good reason than
that the people who run public sector organisations can force the
taxpayer to fund them.

Who is the 'we' you talk about? Who do you represent?

In general, like for like,public service employees have poorer pay than
the private sector. In part made up by a pension.

That was true long ago, but for many years public sector pay outstripped
private sector and there was no corresponding decrease in pensions
entitlement.

SteveW

On 10/02/2018 23:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
And so they should expect because that is what the government, through
its executive organisations, contracted with them to do.

ROFL. The age-old 'contract' excuse.

When these people started work their lifespan was assumed to
be as much as 15 years LESS than we now know that it will be.
when these people started work (in the 70's) the concept of
'retiring abroad' was not considered (apart from the Windrush
folk going home). Now we have an army of baby-boomers
retiring to other EU countries (and even Reuinion) with
pensions that were originally factored into the whole GDP
equation.

QED, all these people have RENEGED on their side of the
contract, so why should the *taxpayer* be forced to make
up the difference ?.

The increase in longevity that the ONS famously missed,
has made people buying annuities take the hit on the chin,
100%. But no such correction has been made to public service
pensions. Even the 2011 so-called reforms to public service
pensions *excused* the baby-boomers because they were
within 10 years of retirement. The next gen will have to
retire at 65 and probably without the eye-watering lump
sum, but probably with a better accrual rate than 40/80th's.

Free Lunches don't exist.

On 11/02/2018 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Do they? Have you done a survey to be so sure?

It's all there in the official mortality stats.

There are now 567,000 people aged 90+.

There are 14,500 people aged 100+.

These totals are relentlessly increasing.

On 11/02/2018 19:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In general, like for like,public service employees have poorer pay than
the private sector. In part made up by a pension.

RUBBISH !.

The OECD totally disproved this. The days when NHS professional
staff were 'underpaid' and the pension was a compensation
vanished during 13 years of Nulabia when the NHS budget went
up from £37 Billion to £115 Billion, and a massive chunk of that
went towards pay rises.

On 11/02/2018 19:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
What we are unhappy with is that public sector employees typically get
far better pension arrangements than others, for no good reason than
that the people who run public sector organisations can force the
taxpayer to fund them.

Who is the 'we' you talk about? Who do you represent?

In general, like for like,public service employees have poorer pay than
the private sector. In part made up by a pension.


Its not in part, the estimate is the pension takes them 10%-20% above
the pay in the private sector.

That is probably increasing too.