30/11 Strikes.

[Ahleckz]

Re email and copy to your Uni’s vice chancellor.

Feel free to type up a message for me and I'll adapt it to my style and send it on. I'm a bit busy at the minute to do it.

My initial one was just a quick query:

"Hey Charandeep,


I quote "Public March | 30th November

Millions of workers will be taking strike action against cuts and austerity tomorrow. Make sure you show your support and attend the public rally and march tomorrow at 12 noon, Shuttle Street (off Albion Street). If you would like to attend, please get in touch with me for more information.".

Why is the Student Union, and thus by association the student population, supporting the strike action and what actions were taken to ensure that such support was what the student body wanted?

Cheers,

Alex."

 

[platypus]

At this rate I'm never going to retire, I would expect my pension to at least equal what I earn when I worked lol. Good thing I'm paying into a private pension aswell

Quite, like private sector workers, you are having to make other arrangements as well. I find it somewhat disappointing that [striking] people don't seem to realise this.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I don't have a pension I have to pay in over £100 a month towards my pension and my employer would match my contribution. I just can't afford it. Especially when i am already paying for the national insurance at £250 a month.

I was not too keen on joining a ponzi scheme.

 

[Dolph]

I disagree that it's a ponzi scheme, you could design a similar setup with a flat membership, all you need is that people continue to join as others leave.

A ponzi scheme is any scheme where the money invested is used to pay previous investors rather than invested. Unfunded pension schemes fit exactly with this definition.

Regardless of that, none of what you suggest is being proposed. The current proposals are for increased contributions with decreased payout and can't even be justified with being in the long term interests of the pension schemes involved.

Actually, the middle one is pretty close. The unions previously agreed cap and share, where the employer contribution is capped, and additional shortfall costs are met by the employee. If there is objection to the 3% average increase (with lower earners protected in a progressive manner), how much objection do you think there would be to the employees meeting the full shortfall of the current system with no change in age or final provision. And that's without recognising the increased fairness of career average pensions compared to final salary for women and those who don't make large career progressions, or those who want to work part time in the last few years before retirement.

 

[wildman]

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.

whilst I might not be the biggest fan of unions and the way the public sector conduct themselves at times, I think you have got the last bit technically wrong.

1. Public Sector workers do pay for their pensions as they have to make contributions
2. Tax payers are technically their employers so the employers contributions comes from tax, don't forget public sector workers pay tax also

Those to points above I think we can agree on are facts ?

So I don't have any problems with this as its pretty much the same set up as private sector with the only difference being private sector pension funds are exposed to market volatility as most of them are FTSE linked and they are not underwrriten and guaranteed by the employer, i.e if you lose 50% of the value due to market crash then you are out of luck v public sector where the end value is guaranteed.

I think that's the biggest problem private sector has iswith the administration of public sector pensions not the fact that they are in part funded by the tax payer.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I was going to get a pension with scottish widows had the meeting with the guy and when i asked him about inflation he said that his spreadsheets can take that in to account. But i was not convinced that they did. He used a 3% inflation rate and said i would get X amount in return. I could chose the risk i wanted to take. I can even spread the risk. I was not interested in joining a ponzi scheme that had any risk.

Pensions are a fools game imo.

 

[Dolph]

whilst I might not be the biggest fan of unions and the way the public sector conduct themselves at times, I think you have got the last bit technically wrong.

1. Public Sector workers do pay for their pensions as they have to make contributions
2. Tax payers are technically their employers so the employers contributions comes from tax, don't forget public sector workers pay tax also

Those to points above I think we can agree on are facts ?

So I don't have any problems with this as its pretty much the same set up as private sector with the only difference being private sector pension funds are exposed to market volatility as most of them are FTSE linked and they are not underwrriten and guaranteed by the employer, i.e if you lose 50% of the value due to market crash then you are out of luck v public sector where the end value is guaranteed.

I think that's the biggest problem private sector has iswith the administration of public sector pensions not the fact that they are in part funded by the tax payer.

The issue is the level of employer contributions (high compared to market) is then increased again as the taxpayer makes up the shortfall between the level paid in and level paid out.

In many cases, equivalent taxpayer contribution exceeds 30% of salary, against 6-8% in the private sector.

 

[bam0]

And that's without recognising the increased fairness of career average pensions compared to final salary for women and those who don't make large career progressions, or those who want to work part time in the last few years before retirement.

Actually on that last point the current pension scheme is based on either the salary of the last 12 months or the highest average of 3 consecutive years in the last 10, whichever is higher. So moving down to part time work in the last few years is already covered.

 

[dirtydog]

I was going to get a pension with scottish widows had the meeting with the guy and when i asked him about inflation he said that his spreadsheets can take that in to account. But i was not convinced that they did. He used a 3% inflation rate and said i would get X amount in return. I could chose the risk i wanted to take. I can even spread the risk. I was not interested in joining a ponzi scheme that had any risk.

Pensions are a fools game imo.

Yes I think so. In the history of mankind they are a relatively recent invention and there is no proof that they are going to prove sustainable. They are increasingly looking like an unsustainable ponzi scheme which won't be able to keep the promises they have made to contributors when they come to retirement.

 

[The Dread Pirate]

I liken the reason be hind the strikes to a unruley slave on a old roman galley.

You're shackled to an oar yet expect not to go down with the ship when it does go down.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Pensions are a fools game imo.

The fact the government will top up your pension contributions (or if you're a higher rate tax payer, will top it up and give you income tax relief), not having some form of pension makes you a fool.

Also, anyone who think that a pension has to be a Scottish Widows (etc) package is also misunderstanding things. A pension is just wrapper or a vehicle, essentially.

 

[platypus]

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.

And how do you propose pensions are funded, if no one contributes to a pre-defined scheme?

Also, anyone who think that a pension has to be a Scottish Widows (etc) package is also misunderstanding things. A pension is just wrapper or a vehicle, essentially.

Exactly. Legal tax avoidance and relief in order to entice people into helping fund the governments pyramid scheme. Take advantage of it whilst you can .

 

[wildman]

The issue is the level of employer contributions (high compared to market) is then increased again as the taxpayer makes up the shortfall between the level paid in and level paid out.

In many cases, equivalent taxpayer contribution exceeds 30% of salary, against 6-8% in the private sector.

yes, which is why I am saying that the issue is with the so called administration of the public sector pensions, not the fact that revenue collected through taxation is used as the employers contribution, which in this case is the correct thing. The problem as you say is the numbers are not adding up to effectively give tax payers what could be deemed good value for money.

 

[dirtydog]

The fact the government will top up your pension contributions (or if you're a higher rate tax payer, will top it up and give you income tax relief), not having some form of pension makes you a fool.

Not remotely true. There are many good reasons not to have a pension, depending on the individual's circumstances.

For example, low paid workers would arguably be foolish to fund their own pension, because all that will happen upon retirement is that they receive less means tested benefits than they would otherwise do. So all they are doing is depriving themselves of money during their working life in order to fund their own benefits later on.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Not remotely true. There are many good reasons not to have a pension, depending on the individual's circumstances.

Yes, obviously. I wasn't going to go and document every if and but for pension advice, like you didn't. I simply met his blanket statement with another.

 

[leicrao1]

For example, low paid workers would arguably be foolish to fund their own pension, because all that will happen upon retirement is that they receive less means tested benefits than they would otherwise do. So all they are doing is depriving themselves of money during their working life in order to fund their own benefits later on.

But that is assuming means-tested benefits will be there when they retire.

 

[dirtydog]

But that is assuming means-tested benefits will be there when they retire.

I would assume that if they aren't, your private pension won't be worth anything either. And then we'll all have bigger problems to worry about.

Yes, it is possible that our currency could have collapsed 40 years from now, with maybe 9 billion people in the world by then, maybe 75 million in the UK, and oil demand perhaps 10mb/d above production etc. What sort of world will that look like?

Can anyone assume their pension will pay out anything in 40 years, or that it will have much purchasing power?

This trend has already begun. People retiring now are getting annuities a fraction of what pensioners 10 or 20 years ago got.

All pensions are predicated on the idea of infinite growth. Where is this growth going to come from? Do you believe we will keep growing in real terms for the next 40 years? If so, invest in a pension. I have grave doubts.

 

[wildman]

I liken the reason be hind the strikes to a unruley slave on a old roman galley.

You're shackled to an oar yet expect not to go down with the ship when it does go down.

Thats a poor analogy though because if the public sector went 'down with the ship' the rest of us are ****ed.

What do you think would be end up being better value for taxpayers in the future, supporting a massive group of now unemployed or poverty stricken public sector workers through lots of top up payments via benefits, or a better managed public sector pension funding scheme ?

There is responsibility to be had on both sides, 1. Unions need to understand the current position this country is in financially and why some belt tightening is needed. 2. Government needs to understand that pulling the rug completely from under the public sector is not the answer and should work on a mutually agreed position that involves not completed shafting everyone.

The questions are will the unions see further than there own noses ? and will the government be open to mutual negotiation. If the answer is no to either of those then the prediction is pain and I would seriously wager some good money on this government steam rolling the unions in a similar fashion to Thatchers war on the NUN and thats not a good result for anyone

 

[leicrao1]

I would assume that if they aren't, your private pension won't be worth anything either. And then we'll all have bigger problems to worry about

It is not inconceivable that governments eventually say we cannot afford the minimum level of income that the means-tested system provides. Or at least we cannot afford it in its current form. Look at the USA; benefits linked strongly to individual contributions and sod all for the underclass who have never worked. If we go down that route (god forbid), then what you have managed to put by for yourself will increasingly be what you have to live on.

 

[dirtydog]

It is not inconceivable that governments eventually say we cannot afford the minimum level of income that the means-tested system provides. Or at least we cannot afford it in its current form. Look at the USA; benefits linked strongly to individual contributions and sod all for the underclass who have never worked. If we go down that route (god forbid), then what you have managed to put by for yourself will increasingly be what you have to live on.

In 40 years I doubt any of the current major currencies will still be in existence. They will have collapsed under the sheer weight of unsustainable debts and impossible to fund promises. So any pension you have which is denominated in those failed currencies won't be worth the paper it's printed on.