Cogs Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 According to the BNAC report, 96% of public pensions underfunding relates to the unfunded schemes (NHS, Civil Service, Police etc). I think this means that your local gov scheme is an exception. Regarding your second paragraph, it may be true that your local gov scheme is funded through contributions. Conversely, other public schemes have contributions too, but they are not funded. There is no investment fund (at least, not commensurate with the value of pensions they will expect to have to pay out). Contributions are being used to pay retirees (or buy annuities for them). That is a very different thing. "An exception"? He is in the largest pension scheme in the country. USS is the second largest for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biffo the Bear Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 According to the BNAC report, 96% of public pensions underfunding relates to the unfunded schemes (NHS, Civil Service, Police etc). I think this means that your local gov scheme is an exception. Regarding your second paragraph, it may be true that your local gov scheme is funded through contributions. Conversely, other public schemes have contributions too, but they are not funded. There is no investment fund (at least, not commensurate with the value of pensions they will expect to have to pay out). Contributions are being used to pay retirees (or buy annuities for them). That is a very different thing. Well, I don't think that that's right at all (the 96% bit). I don't see why anyone in the public sector should have access to a non-contributory system, unless of course, it's non-contributory in the sense that entry is compulsory, and if you weren't part of it, then you'd receive the appropriate remuneration in your wages. Regardless, this is what gets my hackles up. People go on about public-sector pensions and how they're all 'gold-plated' and non-contributory. A message to all: not all of us are in non-contributroy schemes that have direct access to the public coffers, and we see that as being a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toilet-Currency Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 "An exception"? He is in the largest pension scheme in the country. USS is the second largest for that matter. Maybe careless wording. But my point remains: large parts of the public sector pension system are not funded. You can't draw conclusions about the system as a whole just by referring to the local government scheme, because it is not the same as other schemes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Maybe careless wording. But my point remains: large parts of the public sector pension system are not funded. You can't draw conclusions about the system as a whole just by referring to the local government scheme, because it is not the same as other schemes. None of it's funded. All been spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 This whole argument is stll down to envy/jealousy that public sector workers have a decentish deal while the private sector have a crappy deal because of greedy fund managers and bosses that raid the pension funds or spend it in some other way or somehow behave in a dishonest manner. When private sector pensions were fine, nobody moaned. Now the private ones have gone down the Swannee the private sector think that everyone one else should suffer too. Why? Envy. It's exactly the same with house prices. We come on here whinging about them being expensive. Why? Because we don't have one and other people do. If we'd have bought a house when they were cheaper we'd not be here now moaning about it. I'm quite happy to admit that. I'm happy I don't have the massive debt round my neck but I must admit, I would like my own house. People claim you can't compare pensions with GDP. It wouldn't matter what I tried to do, it would not be good enough and you'd find some spurious flaw or reason to argue. The long and the short of it is that public sector pensions are affordable. Why the disagreement? Because of jealousy and the need for a demon figure on here. Someone put a list up earlier and they're right. The public sector (regardless of how worthwhile a job the person does) is inherently evil. So are chavs, landlords, anyone on benefit, asylum seekers, foreigners and obviously everyone in the public sector. It's just like 1984. "Four legs good, two legs bad." All black and white with no shades of grey. Why? The politics of envy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 This whole argument is stll down to envy/jealousy that public sector workers have a decentish deal while the private sector have a crappy deal because of greedy fund managers and bosses that raid the pension funds or spend it in some other way or somehow behave in a dishonest manner.When private sector pensions were fine, nobody moaned. Now the private ones have gone down the Swannee the private sector think that everyone one else should suffer too. Why? Envy. It's exactly the same with house prices. We come on here whinging about them being expensive. Why? Because we don't have one and other people do. If we'd have bought a house when they were cheaper we'd not be here now moaning about it. I'm quite happy to admit that. I'm happy I don't have the massive debt round my neck but I must admit, I would like my own house. People claim you can't compare pensions with GDP. It wouldn't matter what I tried to do, it would not be good enough and you'd find some spurious flaw or reason to argue. The long and the short of it is that public sector pensions are affordable. Why the disagreement? Because of jealousy and the need for a demon figure on here. Someone put a list up earlier and they're right. The public sector (regardless of how worthwhile a job the person does) is inherently evil. So are chavs, landlords, anyone on benefit, asylum seekers, foreigners and obviously everyone in the public sector. It's just like 1984. "Four legs good, two legs bad." All black and white with no shades of grey. Why? The politics of envy. No, it's because you are stealing from us to provide yourself with incoem you are not entitled to and do not deserve. Not only that but it won't even work, you'll wind up potless anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Isn't it fair that everyone should share the pain ? The reality is that the public sector needs to be seen to be doing its bit. Otherwise the gross social stress that is induced will ensure that you will get even less of a percentage of what you think you're going to get. Animal farm I think btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toilet-Currency Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Regardless, this is what gets my hackles up. People go on about public-sector pensions and how they're all 'gold-plated' and non-contributory. A message to all: not all of us are in non-contributroy schemes that have direct access to the public coffers, and we see that as being a good thing. Fair enough. I am not saying they are non-contributory. I am just making the distinction between 1) a contributory scheme in which current contributions are invested to match the future pensions payable at a later time and 2) a contributory scheme in which current contributions are used now to pay retirees. According to BNAC, there is a small scheme deficit in (1). But 96% of the UK's pension deficits relate to type (2). By deficit, we mean the difference between future pensions payable and the value of investments set aside to pay for them. (1) You have a pool of assets set aside to pay for retirees (unless the state appropriates the scheme assets like happened in Argentina). When you retire, you should be ok (though the purchasing power of those £s is anyone's guess). (2) is certainly dodgy. As Injin says, the money has already been spent. Your contributions are being spent on retirees and on general government expenditure NOW. On retirement in, say, 25 years, members of (2) may receive some freshly printed banknotes, or perhaps the government will renege on its promises. The likelihood of the government converting type (2) into type (1) by progressively funding the deficit is slim IMO. As for envy, I don't really mind. From what I have said above, I dont believe people will get what they feel they are owed, so I don't envy them. Edited August 1, 2009 by Toilet-Currency Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Isn't it fair that everyone should share the pain ? The reality is that the public sector needs to be seen to be doing its bit. Otherwise the gross social stress that is induced will ensure that you will get even less of a percentage of what you think you're going to get. Animal farm I think btw. The public sector will take its share. Several hundred thousand (hopefully pen pushers rather than useful members) will get the chop. And yes. It was Animal Farm. My mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 No, it's because you are stealing from us to provide yourself with incoem you are not entitled to and do not deserve.Not only that but it won't even work, you'll wind up potless anyway. Gold is useless. State failure. Tax is theft. Countries don't exist. Any others you want to throw in to complete the set in one thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Gold is useless.State failure. Tax is theft. Countries don't exist. Any others you want to throw in to complete the set in one thread? Good man. Now all you have to do is accpet the truth of those things and you'll be all set for what's coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Good man.Now all you have to do is accpet the truth of those things and you'll be all set for what's coming. And what, exactly, is coming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 And what, exactly, is coming? The financial collapse of the state. It's already happened, actually, now we have to have the shouting and the arguments. You might not have a job in the near future, never mind a pension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 This whole argument is stll down to envy/jealousy that public sector workers have a decentish deal while the private sector have a crappy deal because of greedy fund managers and bosses that raid the pension funds or spend it in some other way or somehow behave in a dishonest manner.When private sector pensions were fine, nobody moaned. Now the private ones have gone down the Swannee the private sector think that everyone one else should suffer too. Why? Envy. The reason that the private schemes went down the swanee is that they were TOO DAMNED EXPENSIVE! For example the market value of BT is less than £10bn but it has a £40bn deficit on its pension scheme. British Airways is practically a pension fund with an airline attached and Royal Mail is effectively bankrupt, save for the governments guarantee of its pension liabilities. These aren't small companies; if they can't afford the liabilities how are non FTSE companies going to cope? There are a number of reasons why the pensions became too expensive; taking £5bn p/a (in 1997) out of the funds by tax changes was a major one but there were others. Ultimately businesses simply can't support former workers for over 20 years with pensions that might be close to national average wages. The reason the private sector schemes have gone is that the boards recognised the economic reality and took steps to control costs. The reason the public sector schemes are here is that the government ignored economic reality and didn't control costs. They did this because it was politically too expensive, and becuase the labour party relies on donations from trade unions gathered from the very people who benefit from these schemes. They are not affordable in the private sector nor are they affordable in the public sector, unless the government reduces the number of public sector employees enormously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimble Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 This whole argument is stll down to envy/jealousy that public sector workers have a decentish deal while the private sector have a crappy deal because of greedy fund managers and bosses that raid the pension funds or spend it in some other way or somehow behave in a dishonest manner.When private sector pensions were fine, nobody moaned. Now the private ones have gone down the Swannee the private sector think that everyone one else should suffer too. Why? Envy. It's exactly the same with house prices. We come on here whinging about them being expensive. Why? Because we don't have one and other people do. If we'd have bought a house when they were cheaper we'd not be here now moaning about it. I'm quite happy to admit that. I'm happy I don't have the massive debt round my neck but I must admit, I would like my own house. People claim you can't compare pensions with GDP. It wouldn't matter what I tried to do, it would not be good enough and you'd find some spurious flaw or reason to argue. The long and the short of it is that public sector pensions are affordable. Why the disagreement? Because of jealousy and the need for a demon figure on here. Someone put a list up earlier and they're right. The public sector (regardless of how worthwhile a job the person does) is inherently evil. So are chavs, landlords, anyone on benefit, asylum seekers, foreigners and obviously everyone in the public sector. It's just like 1984. "Four legs good, two legs bad." All black and white with no shades of grey. Why? The politics of envy. If I'm forced by law to wipe your bum for the last 20 years of your life I would probably be very angry about it. It wouldn't be because I'm "envious". It would be because it was fundamentally unjust state of affairs. That you accuse anyone arguing that the remuneration scheme of state employees is unjust, opaque, dangerous and distorts the labour market as merely 'jealous' then I think you're losing the argument. If my mum gives my brother a bigger piece of cake than I get, and I complain, would my brother be rightous to accuse me of jealousy and tell me to shut up!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 The financial collapse of the state. It's already happened, actually, now we have to have the shouting and the arguments.You might not have a job in the near future, never mind a pension. Oh well. Never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 If I'm forced by law to wipe your bum for the last 20 years of your life I would probably be very angry about it. It wouldn't be because I'm "envious". It would be because it was fundamentally unjust state of affairs.That you accuse anyone arguing that the remuneration scheme of state employees is unjust, opaque, dangerous and distorts the labour market as merely 'jealous' then I think you're losing the argument. If my mum gives my brother a bigger piece of cake than I get, and I complain, would my brother be rightous to accuse me of jealousy and tell me to shut up!? So you do agree it boils down to jealousy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 They are not affordable in the private sector nor are they affordable in the public sector, unless the government reduces the number of public sector employees enormously. And therein lies the crux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimble Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 So you do agree it boils down to jealousy. don't get your point there, mate. well done anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Oh well. Never mind. This is why I'll be ignoring beggars when they start popping up in large quantities and avoiding any payment to anything that even smells like aboomer handout. Very hard to have sympathy with those who have been told and ignore without checking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 So you do agree it boils down to jealousy. Don't underestimate jealously and hate as a force for change. When the sh*t hits the fan emotion trumps reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimble Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Don't underestimate jealously and hate as a force for change.When the sh*t hits the fan emotion trumps reason. My point is it's not to do with jealousy anyway. If I see a guy more charming and successful than me with a beautiful wife and it bothers me then that's jealousy, it's not righteous indignation and it's my problem, not his. However, if someone steals 50 quid off me and it bothers me it's not jealousy is it? Could the thief turn around and say to me, "you're just jealous cos I got one over on you by nicking your money"? Jealousy has f*kc all to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 My point is it's not to do with jealousy anyway. If I see a guy more charming and successful than me with a beautiful wife and it bothers me then that's jealousy, it's not righteous indignation and it's my problem, not his. However, if someone steals 50 quid off me and it bothers me it's not jealousy is it? Could the thief turn around and say to me, "you're just jealous cos I got one over on you by nicking your money"? Jealousy has f*kc all to do with it. If he'd got that wife,ferrari and posh house heading up some worthless quango and getting paid 300000 pa on the back of your taxes, would you feel "jealous" then ? Or would you feel you've been robbed ? Guy on here had in his sig, In order to prevent men with guns taking 50% on your money, you have to pay 50% of your money to men with guns ... Jealousy, righteous indignation, net result is same thing IMO, whatever you call it. Maybe one has some "moral highground" over the other, but moral highground doesn't hold too much value in the face of the mob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 don't get your point there, mate. well done anyway. You analogy with the cake smacks of jealousy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) My point is it's not to do with jealousy anyway. If I see a guy more charming and successful than me with a beautiful wife and it bothers me then that's jealousy, it's not righteous indignation and it's my problem, not his. However, if someone steals 50 quid off me and it bothers me it's not jealousy is it? Could the thief turn around and say to me, "you're just jealous cos I got one over on you by nicking your money"? Jealousy has f*kc all to do with it. Except it isn't stealing. You pay your taxes to the Government and they then do what they like with it. One thing they do is fund public sector pensions. I don't like the fact they used my taxes to drop bombs on Iraqi children's heads, but that's the way it is. It's the price you pay for living in this country. If you don't like it, move to Zimbabwe or Cuba or anywhere else you like. Therefore it is not theft. Edited August 1, 2009 by absolutezero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.