Street Lights May Be Turned Off To Help Fund Elderly Care, Councils Warn

[StainlessSteelCat]

I'd be happy if they turned off the street lights. I'd rather see stars.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Maybe, just maybe there was a case for that 20 years ago.

These days public sector pay is significantly higher than the private sector.

At the top end yes. Everyone's opinions have been slanted because of the Managers and their children they employ in non-jobs.

The majority of council staff are still low-level grunts earning crappy wages.

These are also the first to go or be outsourced to a company that will replace them with cheaper staff at the first chance it gets.

Edited June 17, 2013 by RufflesTheGuineaPig

[Goat]

The majority of council staff are still low-level grunts earning crappy wages.

I doubt they'd find life any easier in the private sector.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Damit!

Edited June 17, 2013 by RufflesTheGuineaPig

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

I doubt they'd find life any easier in the private sector.

The point is, if you offer someone £X wages plus £Y pension you can't then just change your mind when it comes to their retirement and you've not bothered putting money away to cover the pension.

It's not the employees fault that their employer failed to budget for their pension.

And it should be the future tax-payers fault either, the people that ran up the debt should be forced to pay it.

[Bloo Loo]

At the top end yes. Everyone's opinions have been slanted because of the Managers and their children they employ in non-jobs.

The majority of council staff are still low-level grunts earning crappy wages.

These are also the first to go or be outsourced to a company that will replace them with cheaper staff at the first chance it gets.

whilst this is true, the workers certainly dont exchange low wages for fabulous pensions, they get equally crap pensions.

Thats why I suggest a cull on LA pensions above say £7000 per annum.

This in no way excuses the ridiculous wages that many hundreds, if not thousands of staff are being paid.

Every worker that takes £100K is taking 50 houses rates...just for wages.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

whilst this is true, the workers certainly dont exchange low wages for fabulous pensions, they get equally crap pensions.

Thats why I suggest a cull on LA pensions above say £7000 per annum.

This in no way excuses the ridiculous wages that many hundreds, if not thousands of staff are being paid.

Every worker that takes £100K is taking 50 houses rates...just for wages.

Agreed, council wages at the top end are ridiculous.

£7k pension cap is a bit low though. Barely more than someone gets on the basic state pension... unless you are saying they should get the basic state pension as well, which would take it up to £13k, equivalent to £15k if it's tax free?

[Bloo Loo]

Agreed, council wages at the top end are ridiculous.

£7k pension cap is a bit low though. Barely more than someone gets on the basic state pension... unless you are saying they should get the basic state pension as well, which would take it up to £13k, equivalent to £15k if it's tax free?

by cap, I mean all pensions above that amount should at least be halved.

I gather you lose quite a bit of state pension by virtue of having another of your own, whether private or public sector.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

by cap, I mean all pensions above that amount should at least be halved.

I gather you lose quite a bit of state pension by virtue of having another of your own, whether private or public sector.

£66 basic topped up to £114 if you don't have another pension. So £3500 state pension plus your £7k employee pension.

Liveability would all depend on if you owned your own house. But then again, if you rent you get LHA on top, probably adding another £8k a year.

Ultimately, I suspect if you rent, then if you add up LHA and State pension top-ups, you probably aren't much better off with a "standard" full-term council pension than someone who has never worked a day in their life and gets all the benefits.

Edited June 17, 2013 by RufflesTheGuineaPig

[Bloo Loo]

£66 basic topped up to £114 if you don't have another pension. So £3500 state pension plus your £7k employee pension.

Liveability would all depend on if you owned your own house. But then again, if you rent you get LHA on top, probably adding another £8k a year.

Ultimately, I suspect if you rent, then if you add up LHA and State pension top-ups, you probably aren't much better off with a "standard" full-term council pension than someone who has never worked a day in their life and gets all the benefits.

on my left, an ex BT employee...very large 3L car, retired since 50, cruises twice a year ( at least) just come back from Canada fortnight..spends fortunes on the hanging gardens all the time...

boy is he happy.

[wherebee]

I remind you all YET AGAIN that public sector pension are in the majority of cases not a "gift" to the wealthy but deferred pay for workers who often have provided 40 years of public service.

They agreed to work for lower wages in exchange for a good pension, rather than demanding higher wages so they could make their own pension provisions. In almost all cases pension contributions were deducted from their wages as well.

Without these "deferred waqes" the boomers would have had income tax level probably at least a third higher in order to fund the services they received.

And ultimately, these retired folk, no matter how unfair you think their pensions are, need roofs over their heads, cloths on their back and food in their belly. Unless of course you propose to euthanise them. The pensions they will get have been quietly inflated away though fiddled RPI/CPI calculation and what little they are reluctantly given will in most cases NOT allow them to retire in luxury.

Balls. I did ten years and more public sector. The pension wasn't even part of my thinking at the time. It was a job that paid enough to live on, wasn't long hours, and I got 35 days holiday a year AND time off in Lieu.

I never expect to collect my civil service pension, by the way - even at 30 I knew the numbers didnt add up.

[billybong]

Maybe, just maybe there was a case for that 20 years ago.

These days public sector pay is significantly higher than the private sector.

+1

Pensions as well being wage and inflation linked.

It's even worse than that as the public sector/council chiefs and their empires have been using new workers/ workers out of the private sector to subsidise their pension funds by using their very own public sector double whammy system of employment exploitation.

Employing new workers/private sector workers for less time than they qualify for a full pension, just stringing them along. It's not only the private sector gaming peoples pensions.

Typically they only get full pension rights after say 2 years employment but the employees contract is terminated before the 2 years qualification date is up. Typically employee contributions might be returned but employer contributions stay in the fund for eventual distribution amongst council chiefs and their empires when they get early retirement with a huge lump sum - and of course on top of that the public sector doesn't have to pay out a full pension for the exploited short term past employee.

If they stay in the fund after leaving it's an annuity based on employee contributions at current interest rates - raw deal.

“Social care is one of the things that you lie awake at night worrying about,” said Sir Merrick Cockell, the Conservative leader of Kensington and Chelsea council in London, who is chairman of the LGA.

Don't laugh.

Edited June 17, 2013 by billybong

[Bloo Loo]

+1

Pensions as well being wage and inflation linked.

It's even worse than that as the public sector/council chiefs and their empires have been using new workers/ workers out of the private sector to subsidise their pension funds by using their very own public sector double whammy system of employment exploitation.

Employing new workers/private sector workers for less time than they qualify for a full pension, just stringing them along. It's not only the private sector gaming peoples pensions.

Typically they only get full pension rights after say 2 years employment but the employees contract is terminated before the 2 years qualification date is up. Typically employee contributions might be returned but employer contributions stay in the fund for eventual distribution amongst council chiefs and their empires when they get early retirement with a huge lump sum - and of course on top of that the public sector doesn't have to pay out a full pension for the exploited short term past employee.

If they stay in the fund after leaving it's an annuity based on employee contributions at current interest rates - raw deal.

Don't laugh.

funds dont need to be kept...shortfalls fall on the taxpayer.

[goldbug9999]

I remind you all YET AGAIN that public sector pension are in the majority of cases not a "gift" to the wealthy but deferred pay for workers who often have provided 40 years of public service.

There was no money "deferred" or "put aside", it was all spent on services they received during their working lives.

The pensions they will get have been quietly inflated away though fiddled RPI/CPI calculation and what little they are reluctantly given will in most cases NOT allow them to retire in luxury.

The problem being that such inflation destroys everyone else even more meager pensions ...

The fact is that we simply cant afford to keep spending £70 Billion on public sector pensions.

Edited June 17, 2013 by goldbug9999

[billybong]

funds dont need to be kept...shortfalls fall on the taxpayer.

Indeed but I guess they work on the basis of every bit helps. There might be departmental targets on overall pension commitments/funding as well. Possibly a lot of it is notional/fantasy accounting even though it still results in exploitation.

Here's a list of council pension schemes and their "black holes" which you are likely aware of - dated 2012.

https://

www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2012/04/research-54-billion-black-hole-council-pension-schemes-revealed.html

Edited June 17, 2013 by billybong

[winkie]

[billybong]

They've not only turned the street lights off - in some places they've removed them altogether. Council chiefs subsidising their wages through scrap metal seems a fair guess.

Not only that but they've taken to cutting down and removing mature trees which can be worth getting on for £1000 a go. Like Tesco every little helps must be their motto.

Other Tesco sayings that seem apt to council chiefs.

"I can get what I want!"

"The prices are good!"

"I don't queue!"

Edited June 17, 2013 by billybong

[pjw]

I remind you all YET AGAIN that public sector pension are in the majority of cases not a "gift" to the wealthy but deferred pay for workers who often have provided 40 years of public service.

They agreed to work for lower wages in exchange for a good pension, rather than demanding higher wages so they could make their own pension provisions. In almost all cases pension contributions were deducted from their wages as well.

Without these "deferred waqes" the boomers would have had income tax level probably at least a third higher in order to fund the services they received.

And ultimately, these retired folk, no matter how unfair you think their pensions are, need roofs over their heads, cloths on their back and food in their belly. Unless of course you propose to euthanise them. The pensions they will get have been quietly inflated away though fiddled RPI/CPI calculation and what little they are reluctantly given will in most cases NOT allow them to retire in luxury.

No, they're not.

First of all, even when pension contributions were deducted from salary, THEY ARE DEFINED BENEFIT PENSIONS - and so the pension is guaranteed at a certain rate, however badly the pension investments perform - all topped up by the taxpayer.

The public sector doesn't do defined contribution pensions - ie, where you get what you paid in for yourself - as that would not involve conning the public, and so would not be accepted by the public-sector fraudsters/workers.

Look. Can I make it simple? People who have NO PENSION provision other than the state retirement pension are being conned into paying council tax, a quarter of which goes to fund council pensions. This is money taken directly from people who don't have pensions and given to public-sector workers.

I would, if in power, cancel all public-sector pensions, including those already being paid out! Let them survive on the state retirement pension!

They are not deferred wages at all - the council workers have higher wages than us!

Time to halt the gravy train. And publicly shame all public-sector workers.

[pjw]

The point is, if you offer someone £X wages plus £Y pension you can't then just change your mind when it comes to their retirement and you've not bothered putting money away to cover the pension.

It's not the employees fault that their employer failed to budget for their pension.

And it should be the future tax-payers fault either, the people that ran up the debt should be forced to pay it.

Why should employers budget for their pensions? Take responsibility for yourselves and get your own pensions. I am absolutely opposed to the council scroungers expecting us to pay for them forever. Look public-sector pensions were a con all along - and we can't afford it.

[pjw]

Agreed, council wages at the top end are ridiculous.

£7k pension cap is a bit low though. Barely more than someone gets on the basic state pension... unless you are saying they should get the basic state pension as well, which would take it up to £13k, equivalent to £15k if it's tax free?

Ruffles - they DO get the basic state pension as well - everyone does.

[SarahBell]

Agreed, council wages at the top end are ridiculous.

£7k pension cap is a bit low though. Barely more than someone gets on the basic state pension... unless you are saying they should get the basic state pension as well, which would take it up to £13k, equivalent to £15k if it's tax free?

You shouldn't get more in council pension than minimum wage.

Slash the top salaries too until no one earns buckets fulls of cash anymore.

[cashinmattress]

@ruffles

Nobody before or after gets the same jammy arrangement.

They didn't agree to 'lower' wages either. Nor did they 'agree' to decades of socialised housing development, with subsidised rents....

Average boomer on average wage could house, cloth, and feed the family on one income. Hardly 'lower'.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

You're attempting to rationalise what is an anomaly for the BOOmers.

And nobody cares about how the retired folk sitting in paid off properties are suffering on their index linked, final salary pensions.

Edited June 17, 2013 by cashinmattress

[cashinmattress]

delete

Edited June 17, 2013 by cashinmattress

[MrPin]

I'd be happy if they turned off the street lights. I'd rather see stars.

The biggest source of light pollution near me is the council offices! It's always ON!

[moneyfornothing]

I remind you all YET AGAIN that public sector pension are in the majority of cases not a "gift" to the wealthy but deferred pay for workers who often have provided 40 years of public service.

They agreed to work for lower wages in exchange for a good pension, rather than demanding higher wages so they could make their own pension provisions. In almost all cases pension contributions were deducted from their wages as well.

Without these "deferred waqes" the boomers would have had income tax level probably at least a third higher in order to fund the services they received.

And ultimately, these retired folk, no matter how unfair you think their pensions are, need roofs over their heads, cloths on their back and food in their belly. Unless of course you propose to euthanise them. The pensions they will get have been quietly inflated away though fiddled RPI/CPI calculation and what little they are reluctantly given will in most cases NOT allow them to retire in luxury.

the pension entitlements were calculated at a time when yields on investments were several times what they are today.. Those same entitlements will bring the house down now .. And no, those yields are not coming back again... SSecondly the Brown years were a gravy train for the public sector where they attractted talent from the private sector and don't kid youself that those publuc sector employees who fattened their own wallets will get a similar wage today in the private sector...ie the lower pay story is a myth..