Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[drive4show]

First topic message reminder :

The old 606'ers know the score, discuss anything on here that doesn't fit in on any other current thread.

But be warned, usual rules apply. ANYTHING that goes 'on topic' will be deleted!!

[McLaren]

Super

Not supporting the economic policy of Osborne is not the same as being anti capitalism.

[super_realist]

Mac,
So what do you suggest as a solution through your Socialist Worker spectacles? (and please just don't say tax the bankers)
I'm no fan of Osborne, but sometimes needs must, not to mention the terrible mess he inherited from your political heroes. Overspending was unsustainable and cuts are inevitable.

[Diggers]

Id be making massive cuts in military spending personally. How much money has been wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention lives.

[Doon the Water]

What really winds up a public sector worker is when some nobody puffs out their chest and says the imortal ' Look I pay you wages'.
Particulary annoying when you know that they have not done a days work in their lives. Even more so when the public servant is single and Mr Nobody has a posse of childeren by various mothers.
This last election was a good one to lose, there has been a void on the left of politics for about 30 years and this needs to be filled to restore some balance.

[McLaren]

Super

Not sure how many times I have to explain where the seeds 2008 crisis were sewn but it would be rather simplistic to blame one countries government in the last 10 years.

[super_realist]

Mac, you haven't explained anything thus far.

Truth is that the problem lies with successive governments (although no doubt you'll try and blame Thatcher).

Can you really blame a government who is trying to do something about it, just because it might affect you? Political nimbyism.

[Doc]

Diggers 100% agree with you on everything, but just pointed out that it was the amatuer politician that allowed it to happen, knew it was happening for some time, and did nothing about it and then pretend the banks had killed the world ......

There are 2 sides to very argument; theres people like mac who are against capitalism or want a utopian world, and theres the capitalistic view that says we'll all be porpers without it. I always remember a conversation I had some time ago, with a very bright economist who like mac wanted utopia, but was also a realist. He said capitalism is someone who makes something and sells it for a profit, and then makes some more and sells them .... to make more money he employs someone to make some for him, so that he sells more and makes more profit and at the same time the person he's employed can now buy things that other people make and son on and so forth. Communism is where a body of people control everything, but are not qualified, so waste money employing people to do non productive things that waste money. Communism is the greatest idea man ever made, but unfortunatley was put into practice by idiots who couldn't run anything. If it was managed by qualified people the soviet union would have used the wealth and rescources they were sat on years ago, and made them the only super power in the world. They would have built schools, housing, hospitals, universities, infrastructure and still had huge cash balances spare. But because the Orwellian piggy type people put themselves in charge, it was bound to fail. The Chinese communists are now taking a 50/50 approach and pretending its communism .... but ammasing massing wealth for some and not the masses.

The capitalistic USA model is also not a big success as its really 50 different countries on one continent all doing it their own way, but tied together like the EU. If the USA was actually called America and each state controlled by the central government, the US would also be huge in terms of cash reserves

A businessman who lies will see his business fail. Yet a politician lies day in day out, because he has to take the party line even though there will be things he doesn't agree with. A politician is good at avoiding answering questions that will cause him to be seen as a liar, and therefore answers these questions as if answewring a question about something else. he gets his message over, even if it wasn't called for. he will obfiscate and squirm, but will stick to the party line, because his future promotion will be on the line. These people are not qualified to run anything, never mind UK PLC, so we will always flirt with going bust. If they had the balls they should announce that a complete restructure of public service is under review, and therefore all jobs are being made redundant. Everyone can apply for the jobs available after said review, and candidates will be offered jobs on a compatibility basis, and performance review. So no last in first out, just like a business. Those who are not succesfull, tough, retarain or get yourself sorted out. Ex servicemen who have left the forces through time served, or injury should be guaranteed jobs in the public sector. Imagine if an ex serviceman was in charge of organising your bin collections etc, and the workforce was motivated and capable...... No good politicians promising that our armed services will be looked after, when they are just thrown on the scrapheap, whilst billy jobsworth runs all our local services.

[Doon the Water]

Billy Jobsworth is doing an extremely good job at running my bin service.
In urban areas it is the public/buisness who are generally to blame for poorly kept streets
Have we all forgotten competitive tendering, the private sector were too expensive to win the contract to empty oor bins.
Competitive tendering works in some areas but has been a nightmare in areas such as hospital cleaning/portering.

[McLaren]

Super

I have explained my theory on the 2008 crisis and resulting recession many a time on here so have a look for it. It takes a while to type out and I have a private sector job to do.

[super_realist]

I'm not going to bother searching for it Mac, I might as well read Sir Thomas More

If I recall, it was all the bankers fault. Thank heavens it was just a theory and not fact based.

[kwinigolfer]

I'm pretty much with Doon on all this.

Very interesting dynamic here in those 50 (not really) United States, especially with Governors in Ohio and Wisconsin now in political scalding water for trying to eliminate the right for collective bargaining.
Our State is probably the most "democratic" of all 50; we're moving ahead on a hybrid healthcare system and spending per student more than anyone on education through the age of 18.
But our infrastructure is failing and the Hurricane Irene has torpedoed the State's finances, a rainy day too far.

I hope Cameron is not somehow taking back-handers from the far right here, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Slippery slope taking benefits from workers who have earned them in good faith (not to mention devastating to the economy), though American Airlines employees will be poster children for the ravages of Chapter 11 in the private sector.
It's benefits to those who haven't earned them, unearned entitlements if you like, that need to be modified.

[Davie]

Sky News is reporting that the London Ambulance Service is under extra pressure today as emergency 999 calls are 30% up on normal

Coincidence? Or some mischief making from the strikers and their supporters?

[Doc]

Kwini, forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't each state have its own laws, its own tax legislation and in truth operate as a seperate entity from the whole. Yes theres federal or national legislation, but in the main the states look after themselves. So for the outsider like me, it would seem to be along the lines of the EU, instead of one nation.

Doon, I'm not belittling all public sector workers, and have stated earlier in this thread, that there are plenty who do it because they want to serve. I only have admiration for these people who do a great job, and are poorly paid. Yet there are councils operatated/managed by people who take over £250k in salary, which is twice what the PM earns. The same can be said of NHS management doing the same and countless other public sector workers. Even the so-called fighters of justice for the working man (Union leaders) taking £200k per year, plus expenses, cars and housing. As for some councils, who complain that they don't have enough money to provide services for local people, yet can manage to stuff millions of pounds into offshore accounts. How can that happen, when this money is our money raised in council taxes, and cash they get from central government. Some then lose the money through bad investments, or failed banks. This cash was raised on the pretext of providing services, not for sticking in offshore banks.

[super_realist]

Not sure they'd be protesting so much if they knew how much their "comrades" working on their behalf in the Unions were earning.

[Diggers]

Diggers 100% agree with you on everything, but just pointed out that it was the amatuer politician that allowed it to happen, knew it was happening for some time, and did nothing about it and then pretend the banks had killed the world ......

There are 2 sides to very argument; theres people like mac who are against capitalism or want a utopian world, and theres the capitalistic view that says we'll all be porpers without it. I always remember a conversation I had some time ago, with a very bright economist who like mac wanted utopia, but was also a realist. He said capitalism is someone who makes something and sells it for a profit, and then makes some more and sells them .... to make more money he employs someone to make some for him, so that he sells more and makes more profit and at the same time the person he's employed can now buy things that other people make and son on and so forth. Communism is where a body of people control everything, but are not qualified, so waste money employing people to do non productive things that waste money. Communism is the greatest idea man ever made, but unfortunatley was put into practice by idiots who couldn't run anything. If it was managed by qualified people the soviet union would have used the wealth and rescources they were sat on years ago, and made them the only super power in the world. They would have built schools, housing, hospitals, universities, infrastructure and still had huge cash balances spare. But because the Orwellian piggy type people put themselves in charge, it was bound to fail. The Chinese communists are now taking a 50/50 approach and pretending its communism .... but ammasing massing wealth for some and not the masses.

The capitalistic USA model is also not a big success as its really 50 different countries on one continent all doing it their own way, but tied together like the EU. If the USA was actually called America and each state controlled by the central government, the US would also be huge in terms of cash reserves

A businessman who lies will see his business fail. Yet a politician lies day in day out, because he has to take the party line even though there will be things he doesn't agree with. A politician is good at avoiding answering questions that will cause him to be seen as a liar, and therefore answers these questions as if answewring a question about something else. he gets his message over, even if it wasn't called for. he will obfiscate and squirm, but will stick to the party line, because his future promotion will be on the line. These people are not qualified to run anything, never mind UK PLC, so we will always flirt with going bust. If they had the balls they should announce that a complete restructure of public service is under review, and therefore all jobs are being made redundant. Everyone can apply for the jobs available after said review, and candidates will be offered jobs on a compatibility basis, and performance review. So no last in first out, just like a business. Those who are not succesfull, tough, retarain or get yourself sorted out. Ex servicemen who have left the forces through time served, or injury should be guaranteed jobs in the public sector. Imagine if an ex serviceman was in charge of organising your bin collections etc, and the workforce was motivated and capable...... No good politicians promising that our armed services will be looked after, when they are just thrown on the scrapheap, whilst billy jobsworth runs all our local services.

Lots of good points in there Doc but I dont think getting businessmen to run the country is completely the answer. Govts have been using think tanks for decades to no good effect and they are full of businessmen, but running a country is far more complicated than running a business. Every decision causes a ripple effect.
Also economics is really just one part of being a politician and to be honest for most of the 650 people or so who sit in the House Of Commons not a very large part. There constituency elects them to look after the constituency though of course they may also have a role within parliament as well. And there are a lot of very good MP's who genuinely want to help people, make things better for want of another phrase. As I said before few of them do it for the money which in my view is actually pretty poor pay.
I dont want 650 businessmen sitting in the commons, I dont think in many ways they would be particularly rounded individuals.

[Doon the Water]

Sound points Diggers.
Like most things in life it is about balance.
'Yes Minister' was a very funny TV show, but beneath the humour there was some interesting stuff regarding the problems politicians face every day.

[kwinigolfer]

Doc,
You're right to a significant extent, but each State is also dependent upon Federal Funding for projects in the National interest, e.g. Interstate Highway projects, airports, community development and a whole lot more, usually in the form of matching financing.

So, although a State may devise it's own State (as opposed to the universal Federal) taxation structure, it has to work within Federal laws. New Hampshire and Florida are two of a small number of States, for instance, that don't apply a State Income Tax. Here in New England, duty on alcohol, petrol and tobacco run the gamut; tobacco taxes in the tobacco-growing States are somewhere between minimal and negligible!

Inequities arise when States get different Federal bang for their Federal buck, some States receiving as much as $2.00 for every dollar sent to Washington, whereas others may only receive $0.75 for each buck.

The States receiving the greatest largesse are usually in the South and inland West, part of an inexorable effort that never gets publicised to subsidise the transfer of wealth, jobs, population and, most important of all, Congressional Representation from the North-East and Midwest. As you can see from the shifting political landscape, it's working!

[Doc]

Sound points Diggers.
Like most things in life it is about balance.
'Yes Minister' was a very funny TV show, but beneath the humour there was some interesting stuff regarding the problems politicians face every day.

Doon I was just going to mention that Because although I've been using generalisations and been over simplistic etc, theres a real other issue there. The reality is that the top echelon civil servants actually run the country, and the cabinet can only tinker with existing laws and legislation. Yes they can move public feeling and try and change a law etc. But the top tier civil service has been in place sice Elizabeth I and became what it is today when we had an empire. We need a government for the 21st century, not the 19th and dominated by Etonians and Oxbridge types. Its like peeling an onion looking at all the different strands of government, and we've seen recently what can happen when a minister falls out with a top civil servant and hangs him out to dry. He decided (By some reports) to do what he thought was best, instead of carrying out an agreed policy with his minister. Will obviously be a serious amount of cash handed to this guy as a settlement, because he really does have a case for unfair dismissal, because no way can it be proved that failed to carry out a legitimate instruction.

[Doc]

Kwini In some respects then, it can be seen as an EU type issue on the horizon. The Euro failed for only one reason, and thats because countries had different tax systems and economies, which is the main reason that we didn't join. Plenty of our people told them its bound to fail at some stage because each economy needs linking, and no way would we accept federal Europe dictating what we can do with our money. yes we were forced into accepting a lot of stupid EU legislation that's impacted many of our business sectors, and of course open borders, working time directive etc. But actually tying ourselves into financial linkage would mean losing soveringty. What would happen in the states if tax systems were linked federally?, how would it go down?

[kwinigolfer]

Doc,
Not completely sure I know what you mean; Federal Income Tax is usually the lion's share of the Income Tax burden, then other forms of locally determined taxation include property tax, State duties (to go with Federal duties), schools tax, sales tax, restaurant and lodging tax, the whole gamut. It sounds complicated but it isn't really.

Most States are required by State Law to produce a balanced budget every year, (ours is one of the few exceptions, but invariably does).

Where disparities in Federal largesse rear their ugly heads is patronage of major contractors (especially but not limited to defence), tax breaks for location-specific industries (Texas and oil for one), location decisions on Federal institutions from military bases to border security, Federal prisons and offices, Veterans Hospitals, etc, etc, etc. Plus seniority of Members of Congress - we benefit from the influence of long-serving Democrat Senator Leahy, for instance.

Anyway, I won't go on or Shotrock or Simba will start to shoot me down. But any federal linkage ain't gonna happen, though there will always be insidious ways to circumvent that; a big deal right now is Federal funding of "Planned Parenthood", about 2% of whose budget goes to perform abortions, but because of the influence of the religious right the Republicans want to deny 100% of existing federal funding. Same sex marriage is a similar target.

[Doc]

Kwini, yeeees a can of worms best left alone me thinks

Cheers

[navyblueshorts]

Did you also know Mac that there are many Public sector employees who pay NOTHING themselves into their fund? Surely you don't advocate that?
Their funds are paid by the taxpayer.

And who are these people? I don't know of any albeit I don't know all the people in the public sector.

In general, the bile towards the Unions (and I'm not necessarily a big fan of a lot of them) and Public Sector workers is fanned by the massively right wing, fascistic press in this Country.

Easy to forget that no one was complaining about the Banks when everything was rosy and 100% mortgages were available.

Everybody knows that the value of investments (pensions) can go down as well as up. At least they have pensions. Many people don't
I think the annoying thing about public sector workers is that many somehow think that the world owes them a living.

Actually, many were saying that the status quo pre-Crash was ridiculous and unsustainable but they weren't listened to. Even I could see that things like the property bubble were absurd. As for those that don't have pensions (I presume you mean in the private sector), perhaps it might help if they saved some money towards such things rather than blowing it on the Sky package, 72" plasma, designer clothes etc etc. As for your statement about the public sector thinking the World owes them a living....please stop regurgitating the Daily Mail's bilge. Just because they spout such nonsense doesn't make it true.

Interesting (maybe) comparison on the Beeb of the average private pension vs. the average public pension (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15925017). Complicated to compare I know but it is possible that the Daily Mail et al. are talking out of their nether regions.

Exactly Lairdy, The whole strike is without mandate anyway, only 30 % of Union members actually bothered to vote in the first place which means fewer actually voted to strike, so do they really feel that strongly about it?

Nonsense. Just because you think it daft that a strike can be legally called based on a ~30% return (as I do actually) in a Union doesn't make it any less mandated.

...Also why is it the responsibility of the tax payer to pay for IVF treatment? The NHS is for the sick, not the people who arn't sick but just want a baby...

Loads of good points Doc but re. the above, why is this an issue? Plenty of people have medical reasons for not being able to conceive (i.e. they're sick by definition) so why shouldn't they be entitled to, say, a single IVF cycle on the NHS?

...When I was growing up a schoolteacher, postmaster, bank manager, nurse, policeman were all revered by society, but not today

Interesting observation. Now we have a so-called Society where the faux-Celeb, city slicker, reality TV 'star' etc are revered. What a joke.

They certainly shouldn't be allowed to go down the Milliband route of University, Researcher, MP.

See. I can agree with you sometimes. Spot on with that one. Same applies across the political spectrum. My old man used to say we could do worse than go back to having a number of politicians from the landed/titled classes (bear with me) like Lord Salisbury, Duke of Devonshire etc which I didn't agree with before but now I'm not so sure he wasn't right. They didn't need to get paid for being a politician so could make harsh choices if they were the right thing to do and hang the electorate if they didn't like it. If they got voted out 4 years later, what did they care? At least they'd 'done the right thing' when it needed to be done. Even someone like Hesletine with his self-made millions would suit (unless he had a need to be loved by the proles). Too many of them now require re-election to stay on the gravy train and get paid.

[super_realist]

Navy, I have never ever read the Mail (or Express) so I don't really know about their politics in too much depth, although I gather like myself they are right of centre, nothing necessarily wrong with that, it just isn't seen as a trendy viewpoint and it's easy to use it as a Godwin like internet rebuke.
When ever I've seen their headline it is usually either property, Diana or immigrant orientated so I don't really know where they stand on Unions although its probably a safe assumption they aren't fans.

It's a bit silly to say those in the private sector are spending all the money they should be putting into a pension on fatuous luxuries. I'm sure that there are plenty public sector workers who have disposable income that is spent on "luxuries" that could be used to top up their pension.

As to whether the BBC or Mail are talking out of their backsides? Who knows. Both are likely to contradict one another because they both come from different political viewpoints.
You really can say anything you like with facts, figures and statistics depending upon how you interpret and present them. I never implicitly trust anything the media says without proof as every one of them has some sort of agenda.

[navyblueshorts]

S_R

You may never read the Mail but the overwhelming majority of the British press are right wing (often markedly so) and, as such, pile into the Public sector out of their twisted principles/beliefs (regardless of evidence/reality) and naturally pillory the Unions even if they might be making sense. It doesn't matter what the reality is as long as a given newspaper sells a lot of copy. They're pathetic (I give you what's coming out of Leveson at the moment). In that environment, I don't think this pension dispute is likely to get a fair airing do you?

[super_realist]

I wouldn't say the overwhelming majority were right wing.
The Guardian, Mirror, Daily Record (basically a Glasgow centric Scottish Mirror with loads about Rangers and Celtic ) and Observer are considered to be left wing.

Generally we get the media we deserve and judging by what's in papers these days a lot of people are interested in complete crap, so with fewer people bothering to vote for a strike than they do for a wretched dance or "talent" show then it's a pretty poor show.

[Doc]

Navy I too read the BBC link earlier, which stated there wasn't much difference .... But on tonight's main news Nick whasthisface interviewed a top economist, who stated that 12% of us in the private sector had pensions, and even these were nowhere near the levels of benefit that the 87% of public sector workers are due. So from this I can see conflict between a fresh from university geek, who's expressed his own views on-line for the BBC. I would believe what was broadcast rather than the on-line stuff. So you have to think that BBC editorial staff are not around for the geeks at their keyboards.

[navyblueshorts]

...Generally we get the media we deserve and judging by what's in papers these days a lot of people are interested in complete crap, so with fewer people bothering to vote for a strike than they do for a wretched dance or "talent" show then it's a pretty poor show.

You've got that right. How did the Jam put it? "The public want what the public get, I'm going underground....."

Navy I too read the BBC link earlier, which stated there wasn't much difference .... But on tonight's main news Nick whasthisface interviewed a top economist, who stated that 12% of us in the private sector had pensions, and even these were nowhere near the levels of benefit that the 87% of public sector workers are due. So from this I can see conflict between a fresh from university geek, who's expressed his own views on-line for the BBC. I would believe what was broadcast rather than the on-line stuff. So you have to think that BBC editorial staff are not around for the geeks at their keyboards.

I take your point Doc however why would I believe an 'economist', the like of whom couldn't convincingly tell me if the Sun was going to rise tomorrow or not? The 'experts' can't make up their minds what's going on, at any time what-so-ever. These are the same economists that helped to give us the crisis we're in now. Only 12% of private sector workers have any sort of pension? Sorry, I just don't believe that at all.

[Doc]

Navy I take your point, but as with all forms of media, written or broadcast, there's a 'slant' taken, but we're not supposed to see this with the BBC, which begs a big question surely. On-line and broadcast give conflicting evidence? or incorrect evidence which isn't too good.

I've also checked out the earlier quote: 87% of public sector workers have a good pension, 32% of the private sector, with only 12% of those nearing a comparison of the public sector

[Doon the Water]

Daily Record Poster headline today said ' Cameron Declares War on Workers'
Hardly right wing SR.

I love the press when they talk about 'workers' eg Are George Soros, Elton John and David Cameron NOT working.

[super_realist]

Doon,I said the Record was LEFT wing.

[Doon the Water]

Oops so you did! Sorry.

[Diggers]

Navy I take your point, but as with all forms of media, written or broadcast, there's a 'slant' taken, but we're not supposed to see this with the BBC, which begs a big question surely. On-line and broadcast give conflicting evidence? or incorrect evidence which isn't too good.

I've also checked out the earlier quote: 87% of public sector workers have a good pension, 32% of the private sector, with only 12% of those nearing a comparison of the public sector

Re pensions I think the figures can be a bit misleading. It may well be that people in the private sector decide they want to use there more fluid cash to invest in ISA's rather than a pension fund. I personally prefer the property route as a future "pension" option so although I do have a pension I dont contribute that much and prefer to put any extra cash I have into property.

[Doc]

Diggers, I got so frustrated with the whole pensions situation a few years ago. I had about 4 different company pensions that I had contributed into, until moving to another employer, which meant that the pension had to be frozen as you couldn't take it with you. So overtime I have pensions all over the place, and all frozen, but supposedly still increasing in value. 6-years ago I managed to get them organised into just one pension, which meant that a deal had to be done to sell those pensions and the cash value put into one. Obviously this meant that I lost out on those sales/consolidations. I then refused to put anything more into the new pension, as I was frustrated with the whole thing. Over the last 6-years my anual statement has shown a massive decrease in the value of this pension, which is due to the world economy, as its all based upon share prices. Even the % which is based upon safe shares has devalued. The only people making money out of these pensions, are the scheme holders. So jarred off with it all, which means I have no pension really, and like you will have to live off any cash that comes from my property, once the mortgage is paid off.

Ther'll be many people like me who have nothing, and it does get a bit annoying that the public sector workers get a nice pension, which is managed for them, and there are still plenty of them who signed up to the Superannuation scheme which entitles them to much riches when they retire. I heard one expert say lastnight, that of the 30 odd % of private sector pensions, a massive number have decided they are no longer able/willing to pay any more into it. The public sector need to decide if they want either low pay and a nice pension, or high pay and no pension - end of, because there's going to be millions of pauper pensioners over the next 10-years who will have to rely on the state.

[super_realist]

I think thats the whole point Doc, public sector are crying foul that the value of their pensions aren't guaranteed, well welcome to the real world, no one else in the private sector are either.

[Doc]

I think thats the whole point Doc, public sector are crying foul that the value of their pensions aren't guaranteed, well welcome to the real world, no one else in the private sector are either.

Exactly, we were all told years ago that we should get into pension schemes, as they were guaranteed safe havens for your money. Not true and plenty of schemes have folded leaving people with nothing. Banks as we've seen are not the safe havens we all believed neither, so for me i think why should I contribute my hard earned for many years, with the risk of losing the lot because some spotty kid decided to gamble with my future. I'll use the money now that i would have saved, and keep my fingers crossed that the value of my house can provide a bit of comfort later on. personal view I know, but I don't gamble, never have and don't see pension schemes as offering good odds.

[Doon the Water]

One of the future worries is that the 40 year olds without any pension plans seem to pin their hopes on inheriting their parents property to sort out their retirement.
If we all live to be 90 [my mum is 87 and fit as a flea] that is 25 years with no planned income other than the state pension.
I must confess to being one of the lucky ones, right place, right salary, right deal.
To not plan for your old age is a huge mistake, I can see many poverty stricken OAP's in 30 years time.

[navyblueshorts]

I think thats the whole point Doc, public sector are crying foul that the value of their pensions aren't guaranteed, well welcome to the real world, no one else in the private sector are either.

Sorry? So private pensions aren't a good deal but 'to make it fair' we'll trash the public sector as well? What a great 'race to the bottom'. Even Hutton said that was a daft idea. Pretty sure they signed on the doted line for a guaranteed return; hardly their fault if someone didn't do the sums right (or extrapolate far enough in to the future with all that that would mean) on the other side is it?

I'm not a pension expert (no!! I hear you cry) but am I right in thinking that the guaranteed final salary schemes are now all but extinct in the private sector? If this is the case that they're closed to new applicants, what has happened to those private sector workers who're already enrolled in such schemes?

[navyblueshorts]

Interesting article on public/private pension 'facts':

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/public-sector-strike

[Doon the Water]

NBS
It was interesting to see Alex Salmond say that nearly all of the Scottish scemes were sustainable at there present level. I am also lead to believe that many English ones are also well protected. If that is the case why are those councils staying quiet. After all there are very few Tory councils in Scotland.

[oldparwin]

How many Private Schemes has the Government been asked to bail out over the last 10 years??? as to public schemes

My opinion would be that the Government has to prove that the pension schemes for public employees is not sustainable, but as yet, they have failed to publish any figures, so is this, another form of taxation on public employees.

How many Private employees, have been, told you are having no pay rise for 2 years, and then only 1% for the next 2 years but we are increasing your contribution to the pension fund by 3%, and you will have to work 7 years longer before you get it.

We are supposed to have a democratic society, but the above smells like dictatorship to me.

[Davie]

am I right in thinking that the guaranteed final salary schemes are now all but extinct in the private sector? If this is the case that they're closed to new applicants, what has happened to those private sector workers who're already enrolled in such schemes?

I think you are correct in that statement. I was in a guaranteed final salary scheme for 20-odd years; it was closed to new applicants about 5 years ago. Two years ago it was closed to everyone. We received a small compensation package for it and moved to a different plan.

The benefits gained over those 20-off years weren't lost but the alternative was nowhere near as attractive. Sadly we had no choice but to accept the meagre compensation

[navyblueshorts]

I think you are correct in that statement. I was in a guaranteed final salary scheme for 20-odd years; it was closed to new applicants about 5 years ago. Two years ago it was closed to everyone. We received a small compensation package for it and moved to a different plan.

The benefits gained over those 20-off years weren't lost but the alternative was nowhere near as attractive. Sadly we had no choice but to accept the meagre compensation

I was curious to see whether those on such a scheme when it was closed to new applicants were still likely to receive the benefits as originally planned. Sounds like that's not the case if everyone got moved to a different scheme w/ paltry compensation.

[Davie]

Tis indeed correct NBS - probably explains why so many private sector workers feel such little sympathy with the strikers

[super_realist]

I think thats the whole point Doc, public sector are crying foul that the value of their pensions aren't guaranteed, well welcome to the real world, no one else in the private sector are either.

Sorry? So private pensions aren't a good deal but 'to make it fair' we'll trash the public sector as well? What a great 'race to the bottom'. Even Hutton said that was a daft idea. Pretty sure they signed on the doted line for a guaranteed return; hardly their fault if someone didn't do the sums right (or extrapolate far enough in to the future with all that that would mean) on the other side is it?

I'm not a pension expert (no!! I hear you cry) but am I right in thinking that the guaranteed final salary schemes are now all but extinct in the private sector? If this is the case that they're closed to new applicants, what has happened to those private sector workers who're already enrolled in such schemes?

No Navy, nobody is suggesting that at all, but it's a bit naive of Public Sector workers to think that there was ever such thing as a guaranteed return just because you signed on the dotted line hoping that there was. Pensions are basically a long term investment and everyone knows (or ought to know) that there is a risk with them.

It's quite convenient that traditional Labour supporting Public Sector workers are "forgetting" that one of Gordon Browns first moves was to raid the public sector pension fund, yet they bash the coalition as if it is them who are solely responsible.
Quite a few of the public sector pension funds are actually in surplus, e.g. Teaching. Councils are considered to be quite bad so perhaps there is a collective responsibility there?

As far as I'm aware most sectors of the private sector no longer run final salary pension schemes for new entrants, although I presume Banking might well do, and I know that a lot of oil companies do.

[Nay]

I can confirm Banking does not, well Bank of Scotland/lloyds dont anyway and have not for a good few years.

I presume most other banks are the same

[super_realist]

I was thinking more merchant banking.

I've seen a few jobs advertised in my sector with FPS benefits, although it's usually ones where the employee will be fairly high up.

No doubt the MP's, who up until relatively recently didn't even have to make a contribution are sitting rather well.

[navyblueshorts]

...Pensions are basically a long term investment and everyone knows (or ought to know) that there is a risk with them.

True. But that's generally assumed to be a "shares can go up as well as down" sort of risk. Not a "don't mind us, we're just moving the goalposts" kind of risk.

It's quite convenient that traditional Labour supporting Public Sector workers are "forgetting" that one of Gordon Browns first moves was to raid the public sector pension fund, yet they bash the coalition as if it is them who are solely responsible...

Also true but just because Gordo did it, doesn't mean people shouldn't rant about the ConDem's proposed actions. Interestingly, talking of Brown, thought I read somewhere today that Osborne's idiocy is going to mean that the ConDems will have to borrow more than Labour was expected to do at this point had they still been in office. You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so ridiculous.

[super_realist]

Well hopefully if they do Navy, they won't do the unsustainable spending that Labour did, perhaps meaning the borrowing won't be quite as bad.

In any case, "We're all doomed".

[JPX]

9 sticky threads morning, the sticky section is the graveyard of threads, don't know about anyone else but I just automatically skip past them to go to the new ones. I would take more notice if they kept rising to the top of the new post list.

[Doon the Water]

Agree JPX
We are really missing our old Mods.

[Sponsored content]