+1
30/11 Strikes.
- Thread starter wordy
- Start date
+1
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Politics based on envy.
Person A: Ooh look, person B has Y, I'd like that. However I cannot be bothered fighting or organising to get it so wouldn't it be just simpler to take Y off person B?
Equality by racing to the bottom.
Looking forward to spending a nice relaxing day with the wife and kids on Wednesday and maybe the odd march or two.
No, there is no money, it's like you telling me to buy you a TV on my credit card and expecting me to be gratefull.
If they ring fence the pension pot (employee contributions) then fair enough, but you'll find the benefits cost you a lot more.
So everyone should fight to have a great pension rather than those with a great pension fight not to lose it?
Sounds great in theory, but where exactly is this money coming from?
Love how the public sector think they are under attack. No you are just being realigned, something the private sector did years ago.
The pot of money has run out, things have to change and not just in one area, we have to take a new look at everything.
It's our kids and grand kids that will be paying for it and that's the issue, it should be us. Despite paying in and being able to retire at 60, if I even make it that far I fully expect it to change. Medical advances are coming along so fast, that we simply can't retire so young.
The pot of money has run out, things have to change and not just in one area, we have to take a new look at everything.
It's our kids and grand kids that will be paying for it and that's the issue, it should be us. Despite paying in and being able to retire at 60, if I even make it that far I fully expect it to change. Medical advances are coming along so fast, that we simply can't retire so young.
Last edited:
Someone doesn't know basic economics.
Corporate incentives are there to help and encorpurage investment and growth, increasing the economy. It's a calculated risk that you gain more than you lose.
That is not the same for benefits, pensions and the like.
Someone doesn't know basic economics.
Corporate incentives are there to help and encorpurage investment and growth, increasing the economy.
Funnily enough, I actually do know basic economics! Likewise if you did, you'd know that corporate tax breaks are marginally effective over that such as workforce ability/education and proximity of customer base. Funnily enough the former is being cut and the latter will be shafted due to no poor bugger having a decent pension to spend in the long-term and paying increased contributions in the short-term!
Not all public pension schemes are short of money. Some are actually funding themselves quite well yet even these are being forced to change even if it's own country's government don't want to change it.
Which aren't short of money and will you still be saying that in 70 years time when average life expectancy is another 10or so years longer.
Someone doesn't know basic economics.
Corporate incentives are there to help and encorpurage investment and growth, increasing the economy. It's a calculated risk that you gain more than you lose.
That is not the same for benefits, pensions and the like.
Perhaps you'd like to expand on this basic economic theory you have, because it's certainly not one I recognise. Forcing millions of pensioners into poverty will not "increase the economy", on the contrary my understanding of basic economics is that increasing the income of those with the lowest incomes will stimulate more growth in the economy than giving tax breaks to those on the highest incomes, as people with lower incomes will spend more of their extra income.
Into poverypty?
Public sector pensions aren't poverty and you are confusing two different things.
This isn't a minimum paid job, these are pension pots that cost loads and cost more the longer people live and the longer they are out of work.
Since when was corporate tax, individual high earner tax.
When does someone have to agree with every policy a government makes.
Public sector pensions aren't poverty and you are confusing two different things.
This isn't a minimum paid job, these are pension pots that cost loads and cost more the longer people live and the longer they are out of work.
Since when was corporate tax, individual high earner tax.
When does someone have to agree with every policy a government makes.
I despair sometimes at how gullible many people are, simply regurgitating propaganda that is factually incorrect. The life expectancy in several parts of the country is in fact falling - due to poverty. I take it the Government will be all for improving public sector workers' pensions when poverty affects the whole country ?
Last edited:
Glad you can tell life extent will be decreasing in a few decades time, despite medical advances.
And there you go with poverty again. Please show me where public pensions are going to be in the poverty sector. Or do you mean simply less well off than current pension plans.
NHS pensions scheme was changed in 2008 and it was changed to an "affordable" scheme which took in to account increase in age of living etc. We had to increase our payments and retirement age by 5 years in that one.
Politicians are the biggest bunch of scum bags going, it amazes me how after all the recent decades of lies and BS people here still believe anything they say.
If you want to know the true facts there is plenty of "factual documentation" and not "political BS" on the net.
And you know that, I don't think anyone believes everything mps say.
There is still plenty oF of awesome pensions in the public sector that are not cost effective, these have to be changed. If HHS is fine, got any stats. Then that's fine, most other sectors still need changing.
2.7billion paid in by members
8.4billion total contribution, who pays this nhs?
6.4 paid out yearly. This is now, let alone in 50 years time. Not much of a leeway.
Last edited:
This may be helpful:
If indeed there is 'no money left' then its rather strange how we can afford corporate tax breaks and not decent pensions isnt it?
Isn't that the graph that the writer of the report had made crystal clear is after the reforms have been implemented and asked the unions to stop deliberately misrepresenting?