30/11 Strikes.

[MagicBoy]

Actually, you'll probably find it is under-funded because the asset valuations are out of date (which the government want revalued to expose the under-funding, the unions don't because... it would expose the underfunding).

Even if your regional scheme was funded, it would be wrong to say "I'm in the LGPS. It's self-funded."

Our LGPS was thoroughly checked and changes were made to ensure the scheme would continue to provide the correct benefits about 4/5 years ago. It cost me a little extra (0.7% IIRC), but that was OK.

The government increasing my contributions by 50% for nothing more than deficit reduction is morally wrong. They should go after Vodafone for their unpaid tax bill of £3bn instead.

 

[Glaucus]

Our LGPS was thoroughly checked and changes were made to ensure the scheme would continue to provide the correct benefits about 4/5 years ago. It cost me a little extra (0.7% IIRC), but that was OK.

The government increasing my contributions by 50% for nothing more than deficit reduction is morally wrong.

It's not defecit reduction and lgps has huge liability defects as does public sector in general.

 

[wildman]

The States is a bad example because it is a terrible system - all the negatives of competition and private competition with all the negatives of public funding.

Look at Germany for a good example of where private provided but publicly funded healthcare and patient choice works, as well as France since their latest reforms. Or Switzerland.

Health Service in Germany is still around 70% government funded so its not actually fully privatised. The German government put out tenders to large pharma companies for provision of certain drugs, this also happens in the UK albeit in a not so open manner.

France their health system is funded by National Health Insurance which the government is responsible for administering. The system is still a state based and operated system.

The key thing is that they are still run on a not for profit basis, payment of public health insurance is mandatory, I believe in germany if you earn over a certain amount you can opt to go fully private and pay private medical insurance.

So again these are not fully privatised enterprises and control is still retained by governments.

 

[Dolph]

Wrong.

I'm in the LGPS. It's self-funded.

Would that be the LGPS that is suffering a shortfall of about 25% currently in investment value compared to current liabilities?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Our LGPS was thoroughly checked and changes were made to ensure the scheme would continue to provide the correct benefits about 4/5 years ago. It cost me a little extra (0.7% IIRC), but that was OK.

Yep, it was 5 years ago and indeed makes any asset valuations taken then well out of date. Also, the fact you think the 'Fair Deal' from 5 years ago was in any way thorough is laughable

 

[Dolph]

Health Service in Germany is still around 70% government funded so its not actually fully privatised. The German government put out tenders to large pharma companies for provision of certain drugs, this also happens in the UK albeit in a not so open manner.

France their health system is funded by National Health Insurance which the government is responsible for administering. The system is still a state based and operated system.

The key thing is that they are still run on a not for profit basis, payment of public health insurance is mandatory, I believe in germany if you earn over a certain amount you can opt to go fully private and pay private medical insurance.

So again these are not fully privatised enterprises and control is still retained by governments.

You appear to completely miss the point. Access to healthcare is sorted by the government, provision (and choice of provision) is not.

 

[MagicBoy]

It's not defecit reduction and lgps has huge liability defects as does public sector in general.

The Guardian don't agree.

Verdict

The Treasury accepts that the contribution increase is designed to help reduce the deficit, rather than improve the longterm viability of the pensions system. It has said it will raise £2.8bn from the policy. The money will not go directly into reducing the future costs of public sector pensions, but paying down the deficit. In that sense this is a political decision to make public sector pensions contribute more in this way to the deficit reduction programme. It's fair to argue – as the unions are – that this is an additional tax on state employees. All governments make decisions to target savings or taxes that affect different groups for example smokers via tobacco taxes, parents via childcare cuts or commuters via rail fares.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I've spoken to quite a few people affected by this. None of them really close friends so to speak.

The problem they are all arguing is:
They have to work for longer
They have to pay more contributions in 13% iirc
They get about 36% less payout from their pensions

Most i've spoken to would be happy if the Government removed any one of these, and especially would sign on the dotted line tomorrow provided they don't lose the 36% of their pension.

Meanwhile i've had the counter argument that MP's (on over £66k) only pay 10% into their pensions. The Great Pensions Robbery (book) is as close as i can get at finding the injustice in the system.

For example:
Mrs A Jones works for 35years at The Council... is on £19,000 and thus over £1,500 is paid into her pension, plus a contribution that allows her on retirement to earn between £4,000 and £6,000...

Alaistair Darling paid £16,400 per year into his Pension from his ministerial role and can expect to retire earning £252,500 for the rest of his life. To put that into perspective: Mrs A Jones pays in £320 a year and is entitled to £14,000 or there abouts for the rest of her life... how can that be fair.

Needless to say i fall in the in support of category however as long as fair concessions are put forward they should be honoured.

One thing i haven't seen mentioned is that it is the richest in society who always earn the largest Pension payouts and more over, they pay proportionally the least into the system.

Politicians should start paying their fair share... as should the banks... the wealthy who while i wholeheartedly agree, do help generate revenue for the country are the most likely people to hoard their wealth. I have £150.00 spare each month and can only afford to save around £30 a month.

Its been said a million times by Mr Cameron... but the truth is: "Some of us are in this together"

Excellent post.

 

[Dolph]

No. I'm too busy getting the work I should have been doing on Wednesday re-arranged. Well I will be when I'm off my lunch.

Go look for yourself on the GMPF website.

Is this an acknowledgement that there is significant inefficiency in your workflow?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I have a moral objection to working for an employer that takes money rather than earns it, so I wouldn't work for the public sector.

I would comfortably bet that you would.

 

[Glaucus]

The Guardian don't agree.

To reduce the deficits.

 

[RDM]

Wrong.

I'm in the LGPS. It's self-funded.

Isn't it being treated seperately in negotiations and still facing a £28bn deficit?

 

[MagicBoy]

Is this an acknowledgement that there is significant inefficiency in your workflow?

I'm not going to bite. Carry on with the personal jibes.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I would comfortably bet that you would.

You're assuming he'd get past the rigorous interviews rampant in the public sector now.

 

[Glaucus]

Alaistair Darling paid £16,400 per year into his Pension from his ministerial role and can expect to retire earning £252,500 for the rest of his life. To put that into perspective: Mrs A Jones pays in £320 a year and is entitled to £14,000 or there abouts for the rest of her life... how can that be fair.

"

Where did you get figures from seeing as mos are on 1/40, 1/50 or 1/60 final salary pension. How is he getting several time what he makes a year.

Private sector has already reduced its defecit and is continuing to do so.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Health Service in Germany is still around 70% government funded so its not actually fully privatised.

You're assuming that introducing competition or private provision into the NHS means that it wouldn't be publicly funded. Healthcare should be publicly funded, but it doesn't mean it has to be publicly provided.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Is this an acknowledgement that there is significant inefficiency in your workflow?

I bet there is none in yours.

 

[RDM]

For example:
Alaistair Darling paid £16,400 per year into his Pension from his ministerial role and can expect to retire earning £252,500 for the rest of his life. To put that into perspective: Mrs A Jones pays in £320 a year and is entitled to £14,000 or there abouts for the rest of her life... how can that be fair.

Possibly my maths is dodgy here but isn't Mrs Jones getting more for her money than Mr Darling? Or is there another variable you aren't mentioning? Because just using those figures Mrs Jones is getting £43.75 per £1 whilst Mr Darling is getting £15.40 per £1.

 

[MagicBoy]

This is a discussion on pensions and the related strike action. My "workflow" has no relevance to that discussion.

 

[shoes]

How's this for a novel idea?

How about those that have rubbish pensions get off their back sides and fight for something better?

Or it it just easier to write into the Daily Mail and state how envious you are of all those that have already done just that?

lol public sector workers do make me laugh.

Get a job in a commercial industry where it's cut throat and see for yourself - you have no idea how cushy your inefficient untaxed existence is right now.