strike

[StraferJack]

do you even read my posts these days? I said exactly that

"And yes I'm aware his salary wouldn't pay for a pension fund"

And nowhere am I saying take all his money away. But if you can't materially reward employees in any meaningful way then taking a 50% increase yourself is a bit off

As for the changing demographics, I think everyone is in agreement about that. Even the striking unions have agreed to changes for new employees and will almost certainly agree to more changes in the future. But changing the rules for existing employees is both unnecessary and ill-judged

[Huguenot]

Of course I read your posts - I wasn't necessarily saying it to you, but to put some figures against it for the other 1,000+ who read this thread, no offence intended.

Just to clarify your above point, for anyone in their 50s - nothing changes under the current offer.

For everyone else, apart from the staged retirement age extension nothing changes in retrospect - ie. everything they've created in the past under the previous system stays the same.

I should say, I've had a hearty guffaw today about quotes from public service personnel who are said to be leaving the system before the retirement age change. Hah ha! Where the feck do they think they're going, the private sector!! :)) Welcome to 70!!

[Atticus]

I'm a private-sector worker and the strikers have my full support. The media is doing a fine job in convincing everyone I think otherwise.

[Huguenot]

I'm sure they do get support from the private sector for many reasons.

I think most people who do empathise with them do so for a variety of unrelated reasons: they think everyone should be able to retire earlier, they don't like 'cuts', they want to protest against the government in general, they hate bankers, they see it as class war and so on...

People might think differently in 4 years time when the cost of pensions doubles, and people are paying for it through increased taxation or yet more cuts in services.

[StraferJack]

Ooooooo. Four times more. Sounds scary

Want to spell out how much in your worst case scenario that is likely to mean out of an average private sector pay packet. In real terms.

[Huguenot]

In today's money the pensions currently cost ?40 billion a year and the difference between payments and expenditure is ?4.5 billion a year.

If the pension age was 66 instead of 60 with an average life expectancy of 80, the bill would be ?28 billion with no payment/expenditure differential.

This means the cost to the taxpayer of NOT introducing the new pension arrangement is ?16.5 billion a year.

There's around 25 million people in total in full time employment in the UK, with around 19 million in the private sector.

That means that allowing public sector workers to retire 6 years early costs every private sector worker ?900 per year.

I wonder how much their 'support' will be worth when people realise that a 60 year old retirement age for public sectors in going to cost each person ?36,000 across their working lives??

What would you do with ?36,000 SJ?

[taper]

That's a straw man. There will be a new deal on pensions. This dispute is about how good the deal is. At the moment, for most of us, it involves working longer, paying more and getting less. You would need to be madly philanthropic to not be a little bit miffed. And all this on top of pay freezes, job cuts and diminishing job security. It really is easy to understand why unions that have never come out on strike, or who haven't done so for decades, will be out on strike next Wednesday.

[Huguenot]

It most certainly isn't a straw man. It's the only issue. It's rather abusive to describe ?36,000 directly from the pocket of the average worker as 'a straw man'. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

It seems a rather illogical to address being broke by stopping work. It cannot possibly solve pay freezes, job cuts and job security.

There is only one way for public sector workers to be paid - and it's from the tax bill of private sector workers.

The question is exactly how much the public sector is willing to strip them of. At the moment the bill is ?36,000 per person over and above what Lord Hutton's independent enquiry described as a fair and equitable solution.

[StraferJack]

I love how Huguenot is making it sound as if they are waiting in the streets to mug us as we go buy.

Taxpayer pays public servant wages shocker. Who knew eh

I haven't got time to dissect the figures at the moment but the seem a little...emotively expressed.

[StraferJack]

I will say they aren't retiring 6 years early as you state

They are retiring as their contract stipulates.

[Huguenot]

Many worthwhile left leaning public sector workers would agree that we have had a system in place such that economically and environmentally our society has asset stripped our own children, forcing them to pay the costs for our folly.

It is highly ironic that these same people are now striking to force their children to guarantee amd pay for them to enjoy early retirement.

Don't they feel the slightest guilt for this hypocrisy?

There are currently 4 workers for every pensioner, in a few short years there will be only 2. If we don't provide for our own pensions who is going to pay for them?

Striking public sector workers either haven't considered this, or have disregarded it.

[ontheedge]

Eh hello I've paid into my pension consistently for the last 27 years, in the early ninties we were offered to come out of superannuation and invest in private pension funds, which for a period did out preform my current scheme, I shall continue to pay in until I retire & most definetly don't expect to live longer than the years I have paid into my pension! Working shifts for many years will take care of that as it cuts your life expectancy by I think 10% and also believe it or not public sector workers also pay tax.

[alice]

]If the figures for each year are revalued in line with GDP growth, then contributions paid into the TPS exceed pensions and other benefits paid out from the TPS by ?46.4bn.

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I will say they aren't retiring 6 years early as

> you state

>

> They are retiring as their contract stipulates.

Is it contractual? I can't find the answer to this anywhere.

[Marmora Man]

also believe it or not public sector workers also pay tax.

But the tax they is has no value - it's just wooden dollars. That is public sector salaries are paid from the public purse (ie from taxes paid by the private sector). Any tax paid by a public sector employee adds nothing to the public purse.

[StraferJack]

But the Public sector individual who pays tax pays just as much and is just as aware of how tax increases impact on their lives.

The tax deducted from their gross salary isn't moot to them

[taper]

This assumes public sector workers add no economic value through the work they do. You know that's not quite right, don't you?

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But the Public sector individual who pays tax pays

> just as much and is just as aware of how tax

> increases impact on their lives.

>

> The tax deducted from their gross salary isn't

> moot to them

Quite!

[david_carnell]

As others have noted already it is hardly a revolutionary point to state that private sector tax pays for the public sector.

And....? We're meant to be eternally grateful or something are we? Doffing caps and tugging at forelocks at the graciousness of others who have so kindly donated to us as if we were charity for Romanian orphans? Give me break.

[StraferJack]

The "half a billion" figure has been bandied about as a cost to the economy of Wednesday's strike, by the usual suspects (government, mail etc)

Let's call that what it is; an obvious made up lie, designed to scare people

But if it were true, then clearly the benefit of these people working far outweighs any perceived cost

[the-e-dealer]

Nah we dont need The Army, The Navy, The Air Force, Schools, Doctors, Police, Transport, Waste Collection, Social Workers, Firemen or the Royal Family (ahem who are paid by the ahem Public Sector) . The Private Sector would survive without all that waste.

[Marmora Man]

And....? We're meant to be eternally grateful or something are we? Doffing caps and tugging at forelocks at the graciousness of others who have so kindly donated to us as if we were charity for Romanian orphans? Give me break.

I'm not suggesting the public sector owe any debt of gratitude but I would like the public sector to recognise the economic illiteracy of expecting the private sector to fund, forever, more generous pension schemes and benefits for public sector workers than it can afford for its own employees.

And yes, I acknowledge the public good provided to society by the work of the public sector, but this of itself is not an argument to bankrupt the payor. Of course there is an alternative, agree the union demand for maintaining current public sector pensions and cut government spending elsewhere by approximately ?35Bn.

Perhaps D-C, SJ and others would like to propose where these balancing cuts should fall?

[StraferJack]

Trident. Boom.

[Marmora Man]

Trident costs somewhat less than ?150m a year - SJ you are referring to the total throughife costs over 15 - 20 years. You'll need to identify another ?34.85Bn annually from somewhere.

[StraferJack]

Oh I'm sorry. I need to find 35bn a year now? Why?