Strikes take 2

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well i did say educators to Rusty . Common sense is learnt behaviour as is any study of anatomy . There are many ailments that appear to be benign to begin with but cause deterioration quickly with out basic knowledge to get treatment and vis versa . How many of us can honestly hold up our hands and say we know even the basic's of our own bodies ?

You don't know the basic's (sic) of elementary grammar, that's for sure. Stop whining and get a ****ing job.

 

[Napster]

Yep, and you left to set up on your own, presumably to better yourself doesn't sound like you were that enamoured with the 10% pay cut

Only after 6 months of taking the 10% pay cut, after which 5% was reinstated, and I was offered another job setting up a new division at a different company. After 9 months there, then I set up on my own...

 

[Firestorm]

Yawn. One teacher picketing outside our school, her class is off the day, rest of school open as per.

I would have more sympathy if the country wasn't in dire straits economically.

More people are working than on the day of the Royal wedding, and we were in dire economic straits then !!

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

Can we drop the personal insults please chaps,I am bored having to delete them.

ok you knobjockey.

 

[Napster]

More people are working than on the day of the Royal wedding, and we were in dire economic straits then !!

I took the day off on the royal wedding. It was great. Makes you proud to be part of a royal kingdom.

 

[osymandus]

I don't need to be 'educated' by the state, or a private corporation. I just want a good quality of care (which I've paid for) when I hoover too much chop. You're such that you can't see the inherent contradictions in the illiterate bilge that you type. Independence and self regulation means you don't rely on the Ministry of Truth to 'educate' you about anything.

Oh you don;t require any education , wow that's amazing you were never schooled then ? You believe you were born with all the knowledge you would ever need (because all your facts are indisputable ). So if that's the case what do you do when you encounter new situations ?

You have a Ministry of truth in your world ? Is it staffed by imaginary public sector or private sector ? Are they striking today ?

 

[Neil_F]

The problem with this of course is they would require wage rises to match the contributions that private sector people can afford to put in .

This is one of the key points: public sector wages are higher now than private sector wages. See post #47 on this thread. I'll repeat the key findings:

The Pensions Policy Institute puts the median public sector salary at £25,600 and the median private sector salary at £25,300. In April 2010 the ONS found that public sector workers were paid 7.8% more than private sector workers on average.

Traditionally there was a wage gap between the public and private sectors and the generous pension provision was used to bridge it. Now that the wage gap has been reversed, why should the generous pension remain?

The market that gives value to pensions is of course the stock market... which is buggered . And again private pensions (not sure about public ) can't have the moneys removed for reinvestment else where ..

And this is the second key point. Your statement above confirms that public sector pensions are more generous (because the individual does not bear any of the investment risk) and also more secure because the pension is underwritten by the taxpayer.

So I repeat my question that I made in post #47, how is it fair that a private sector worker with lower wages underwrites and partially funds a public sector worker's more generous pension scheme?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

So if that's the case what do you do when you encounter new situations ?

Shoot people. Preferably with a large calibre semi-automatic pistol. Israeli manufactured if given the choice.

 

[osymandus]

This is one of the key points: public sector wages are higher now than private sector wages. See post #47 on this thread. I'll repeat the key findings:

The Pensions Policy Institute puts the median public sector salary at £25,600 and the median private sector salary at £25,300. In April 2010 the ONS found that public sector workers were paid 7.8% more than private sector workers on average.

Traditionally there was a wage gap between the public and private sectors and the generous pension provision was used to bridge it. Now that the wage gap has been reversed, why should the generous pension remain?



And this is the second key point. Your statement above confirms that public sector pensions are more generous (because the individual does not bear any of the investment risk) and also more secure because the pension is underwritten by the taxpayer.

So I repeat my question that I made in post #47, how is it fair that a private sector worker with lower wages underwrites and partially funds a public sector worker's more generous pension scheme?

Ill stop you there as its statistics which can (especially a mean ) , not any absolute fact . The only way you would know if they really are higher is to look at everyone's wages , which of course only HMRC can do (if they had the manpower) It's someone's interpretation of a grouping of figures statistics aid in making a point their are not a point in themselves.

Again very odd as not all the pension pots are made up of tax's rather the wages of the people being paid (you know the money they earn to do the job ) . In fact the teachers pension is paid in that way . Your generalising on all the public sector pension being paid in they way you state . Their not .

How fair is playing in a casino in comparison to putting your money in a low interest savings account ? Your choice I believe . Repeat all you like what figure do you regard as low wage ? What tax bracket are they in ?

Also private pensions can be underwritten by... oh the government ... if their Lloyd's bank.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

You can bring facts. You can bring opinions. But you'll always be wrong. The man who has enough time on his hands to dispute everything will always be right.

 

[Eastblack]

Well said Neil F

 

[osymandus]

You can bring facts. You can bring opinions. But you'll always be wrong. The man who has enough time on his hands to dispute everything will always be right.

For someone who never really brings anything to debate you don't have talk a alot.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

For someone who never really brings anything to debate you don't have talk a alot.

I'm sorry, but I don't speak gibberish. Use the edit button so we might have a ****ing clue what you're trying to say.

 

[Neil_F]

Ill stop you there as its statistics which can (especially a mean ) , not any absolute fact . The only way you would know if they really are higher is to look at everyone's wages , which of course only HMRC can do (if they had the manpower) It's someone's interpretation of a grouping of figures statistics aid in making a point their are not a point in themselves.

You stated that, "they would require wage rises to match the contributions that private sector people can afford to put in," by which you are stating that there is a pay gap in favour of the private sector. I've quoted two studies to the contrary and now you claim it is impossible to do. Why did you make the statement in the first place then???

Statistics are always illustrative, but in their absence, what do we have? Supposition. Study after study shows there is a pay gap in favour of the public sector. The ONS is a reputable, independent body who have access to all data. What more do you want?

Again very odd as not all the pension pots are made up of tax's rather the wages of the people being paid (you know the money they earn to do the job ) . In fact the teachers pension is paid in that way . Your generalising on all the public sector pension being paid in they way you state . Their not .

Thanks for clarifying what a wage is. I'm happy to be corrected on this, but the public sector are generally members of contributory defined benefit pension plans, specifically final salary schemes. That means that their pension benefit is calculated by reference to their final salary (usually averaged over the last 36 months of their career) and their length of service. They contribute a fixed amount of their salary each month which ends up in the general taxation pool. There are a couple of exceptions whereby there is a formal trust that the contributions go to and are invested to meet future liabilities on an actuarial basis. Future benefits (ignoring the couple of exceptions) are paid out of general taxation. The employees will receive the defined benefit regardless of the stock market etc etc.

A private sector worker joining a company today will be in a defined contribution scheme i.e. they get a benefit dependent on how much they have saved and the investment performance of that saving. Private sector workers in a defined benefit scheme (which are few and far between theese days) will be contributory, with a trust collecting employee contributions and the employer having to fund the trust based on the actuarially valued liabilities. Hence, if the stock market tanks and the value of the fund goes down, the employer will have to make up the difference. There are very strict rules on this. What happens if the employer goes bust? Then the employee (and all former employees) lose their pension rights and receive a much reduced amount from the PPF.

So what is the difference? Public sector workers don't bear any of the investment risk. What the get out is already defined and not dependent on stock market performance. The future pension benefits for public sector workers are also 100% secure because they are funded out of general taxation (minus the couple of exceptions).

A private sector worker bears the investment risk in a DC scheme and all private sector workers have less secure pensions because they risk their (former) employer going bust.

It is indisputable that public sector pensions are better than private sector pensions. I repeat, is that fair, especially given the studies that show the pay gap has been reversed?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

[video=youtube;2c3Y2i-1mD0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c3Y2i-1mD0[/video]

 

[Beefy]

Yes , however you are an intelligent educated man who knows his rights and the likely hood of the outcome of this . Can we say the same for everyone ? And do they have access to said information ?

You seem to have an extremely low opinion of the intelligence and abilities of a large portion of the British public. You make the same arguments regularly.

People aren't as stupid as you make them out to be.

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

You seem to have an extremely low opinion of the intelligence and abilities of a large portion of the British public. You make the same arguments regularly.

People aren't as stupid as you make them out to be.

I am........

 

[Clinton Baptiste]

Bart or Daryll?

 

[steveo]

Osy, why not just quit while you are behind?
Even your lefty mates have given up on you.

 

[osymandus]

Neil_f basiccly yes. its all speculation we provide suppersitions but we l cannot know. your providing these stats as as atelling argument. But its no more then anyone here. Yes a study presents a theory.However Unions and public sector have shown counter evidence they dont earn this averagee so the study is a hypothetical one at best.

Your repeating the idea that all public sector are tax contributed. Again i ask for a specific detail on which specific industry in the public sector. Fireman and teachers have different contributions.