Havent the government already agreed to treat the LGPS differently? There is still quite a large deficit in it though that needs to be addressed. Also the above isn't possible is it? If it is a fully funded pension scheme with an investment fund then any additional contributions would go into the fund and the government wouldn't see any of it. Obviously different for the unfunded schemes as they pay into and are paid out of by government money.
30/11 Strikes.
- Thread starter wordy
- Start date
Havent the government already agreed to treat the LGPS differently? There is still quite a large deficit in it though that needs to be addressed. Also the above isn't possible is it? If it is a fully funded pension scheme with an investment fund then any additional contributions would go into the fund and the government wouldn't see any of it. Obviously different for the unfunded schemes as they pay into and are paid out of by government money.
So in that case as a Tesco shopper does that make me the employer of the store staff?
Go back in the realms of history and my employer was a local corporation. That's effectively what we are - a local corporation wholly owned by the Government doing subcontracting work.
Of course, I was just trying to nail down which part DD has an issue with. IMO the employer contribution is just as much a part of the money they earn as their contribution is.
Yes, they are. The employer and employee contributions are inadequate to cover the final payout, so the taxpayer then makes up the short fall in addition to the employer contribution already made.
To provide the pension recieved, the combined employer/employee contribution needs to be around 30-35% of salary, and it's around half that.
how is it unfairly treated?
They are treating you fairly, its just you're been treated overly fairly by the last government for so long it seems unfair, the free ride is over the country can't afford to waste money any more, you already have a better deal than most, deal with it.
The issue of funding is a complete red herring. All the evidence shows that the cost of public sector pensions is actually going to fall, rather than rise. Personally I think the modest cost of these pensions is well worth ensuring that our nurses, teachers, lolipop ladies, etc. get looked after in old age.
As for the absurd public vs. private nonsense that the right wing is so fond of. The problem here is not that public sector pensions are too good, it's that pension provision in the private sector is terrible. Damaging public sector pensions will do nothing to address that - in fact, it'll probably make it worse - it will simply mean that more people are less well provided for in old age.
As for the absurd public vs. private nonsense that the right wing is so fond of. The problem here is not that public sector pensions are too good, it's that pension provision in the private sector is terrible. Damaging public sector pensions will do nothing to address that - in fact, it'll probably make it worse - it will simply mean that more people are less well provided for in old age.
Where do you suggest that deficit is made up from?
3%+ in additional contributions. That's a 50% increase.
They're not needed. The scheme is running a surplus and is well funded for the future.
I'm going to turn this around. How would you guys that work in the private sector like it if the Government created a "Pension Tax" which mandated a 50% increase in your pension contributions which was then used to pay back the deficit?
Is that not on an individual basis you would need contributions that high? Given the pensionable age and natural attrition of members there are always going to be more people paying into the scheme than drawing on it.
If it's the case that additional funding is needed to meet the obligations why is the increase in employee contributions not being ringfenced to that effect?
Have you been listening to the unions again?
Should the unions really be allowed to act as a communication conduit when they refuse to pass the correct information on to their members?
http://www.professionalpensions.com...s/2122169/lgps-allowed-amend-hutton-proposals
Or is the issue that the Unions don't want to actually try to resolve this, preferring political strikes as advocated by Len McClusky in the Guardian 2 days ago?
Vodafone's unpaid £6bn tax bill would be a start.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
They didn't have a tax bill for £6bn, nor has anything gone unpaid
This is correct, to paraphrase Lord Hutton, it should not be 'a race to the bottom'. Unfortunately, the government can't really force reform on private sector pensions, certainly not as easily as it can public sector.
Why? do they work harder than anyone else? No.
No people should pay for their pensions, this is happening more and more in private sector and the public sector has got too comfy being funded by the taxpayer.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility. Then again the Government started this fight. They've been engineering a fight against the Unions since the Election.
As amigafan has been constantly stating the Government are unwilling to make any specific offer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Nope to which bit? Pretty sure there was an announcement by Cameron and Alexander that it would be treated differently and talks were ongoing with the TUC. Also, if it is fully funded then surely contributions will go towards the fund and not towards the government?
They didn't have a tax bill for £6bn, nor has anything gone unpaid
Why let facts get in the way of a day off?