It's credit mostly, certainly for paying people. It's on tick, the never never.
Given the deficit, and Government accounting you can't actually say what component of liquidity pays for what.
30/11 Strikes.
- Thread starter wordy
- Start date
It's credit mostly, certainly for paying people. It's on tick, the never never.
Given the deficit, and Government accounting you can't actually say what component of liquidity pays for what.
Public sector pensions are not an investment, there is more often than not no fund to invest but a liability to service.
Which is what really needs to change but I doubt any government soon will have the guts or the liquidity to do it.
Lack of private sector provision will dwarf this public sector pension liability by a massive margin. Instead of continuing to enjoy good pension provision themself and attacking their staff, MP's Ministers and Government should instead tackle this ticking time bomb which the impact of will more than likely be catastrophic on the UK within half a century.
Instead of being fixated with the public sector those barking from the private sector should sort out their own mess first before jumping on the all too convenient bandwaggon, ending the perverse subsidy from those who can manage assets to those who cannot in the protection scheme would be a good start..
Crikey......Vonhelmet has a Nanny.......Swedish by any chance?
Is that the government's problem?
O
Haha, nope. English, friend of a friend from church, nearly breaking the bank, and brilliant.
Haha, nope. English, friend of a friend from church, nearly breaking the bank, and brilliant.
Yes.
This is a false dichotomy, it doesn't make sense to ignore one problem in favour of another, when both could be addressed.
Of course, the 1.5% of GDP currently going to a select few could be shared around
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
The best way to sort it out would be for the government say:-
"Right, we're all agreed that pensions are deferred salary so as it currently stands your pension is worth say £6000 per year. As we don't want to take the risk of meeting our obligations we're going to add £6k to your salary for you to do with as you please and freeze your already accrued pension. Your future pension from here on in is now your responsibility - go and invest it as you see fit".
Surely they should only be adding the contributions, not the final value, given the two don't match.
Although the other solution would be to add it on then fully reassess the total remuneration for the role to ensure it provides value for money for the taxpayer...
This is a false dichotomy, it doesn't make sense to ignore one problem in favour of another, when both could be addressed.
Of course, the 1.5% of GDP currently going to a select few could be shared around
You have to look at the potential impact from both. One pales significantly in comparison to the other. I'm not saying do not reform public sector pensions, but they are not going to cause such impact like private provision if we continue as we are.
You pick the more serious problem and throw your effort at that, but Government's don't think long term in Westminster so a disproportionate spotlight fallacy is thrown over the public sector.
I'm not entertaining a discussion on wealth distribution with you to be honest, I've moved beyond the undeserving poor and 'taxation is theft' thanks.
Public Borrowing would be many times what it is without Private Sector Tax Revenues....
Government Spending is around £700bn, the deficit is around £140bn, who makes up much of that short fall....The Private Sector, Sovereign Wealth Funds, publicly owned corporations and Seigniorage.
The worrying thing about the Government projected budget for 2012 is that the largest component of that budget is Public Sector Pensions....£129bn rising to £143bn by 2015....which outstrips the spending on Health, as well as Education. Education being £40bn less than the Pension spending.
Something has to be done, that is for sure.
They're at fault for not costing the obligation.
Why would that be any different to now?
They're at fault for not costing the obligation.
The current government are not, nor are current taxpayers.
National pay bargaining for one?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Hmm, I need to explain the concept of deferred salary to you at some point.
was a tory government that brought in most of the current pension schemes in the civil service during the 80s
Yes, who were "not the current government".
You can't have your cake and eat it. Nations do not exist without business, and business cannot exist or trade without a nation state.
If there were no Private Sector revenues there would be no country, likewise if there was no tax to pay for the country there would be nothing for those entities to operate within.
It's not the Private Sector but private wealth, you can't say exactly where it all comes from because people will buy bonds and guilts on a personal capacity. In any event the credit that Government relies on is interest bearing, so that would indicate a service and little more.
Social security, not pensions. Pensions are a fraction of that amount. £32bn by 2015 according to Hutton.
These reforms are not the answer.