Public sector pensions strike?

[Samdy Gray]

So paying longer isn't paying more?

Not really when life expectancy is longer.

[Arriba]

Not really when life expectancy is longer.

Those on low incomes won't see their life expectancy rising much. If anything their health will suffer i would expect.
The government are already starting to put the squeeze on the nhs with cuts.

[Samdy Gray]

So they'll die earlier because they had to pay more into their pension? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Arriba]

So they'll die earlier because they had to pay more into their pension? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Did i say that?
In some cases i think that will happen though.
 Those already struggling on low incomes,then feeling the squeeze further will go without things. Heating,quality food etc,etc.

[Samdy Gray]

Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?

[donkey]

edit: didn't refresh before above post was made. I think that's largely spot on.

On the flip side the good old days of the private sector were over a number of years ago. You used to get decent pensions - at least contributions matched at a %, good severance pay and the like as pretty much standard. Its very much changed now, wages are down and benefits aren't what they were.

So forgive for not being supportive of public sector strikers, because I don't find the governments plans too outrageous.

I agree that when someone reforms your pension in 2007 you have every right to be pissed off that somebody is trying to do it again. And when you have something and somebody tries to take it away you there is bound to be anger. I'd be fully supportive of work to rule and no overtime to put pressure on.But  I will never be supportive of disruption to key services.

Ultimately there will be some kind of reform, because eventually the pensions of public sector workers will become more and more tax payer funded if it doesn't. And that is not on.

As for Clarkson, if people are too thick to take it in the context it was said then the deserve to be offended.

The changes the teachers made in 2007 were a proven need, so we did it.  No strikes or industrial action, but negotiation.  This time, for example, the government have said the change from RPI to CPI is non-negotiable...hardly a good start to negotiations.

The government have not published the state of the teachers pension (it is two years overdue to be published)...without that how do we know the scheme needs the changes the governement are trying to dictate?  We don't.

As for Clarkson, surely he was having a go at the BBC's need for balance in everything?  Seemed pretty clear to me.  I shall watch a Christmas Top Gear (assuming there is one) and enjoy it as usual.

[Arriba]

Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?

What are you on about?
But no to your question.

[Samdy Gray]

Because you're basically saying people will die earlier because they're being asked to pay more into their pension for longer.

[Arriba]

Because you're basically saying people will die earlier because they're being asked to pay more into their pension for longer.

Which would be the complete opposite of the type of typical Daily mail article. More right wing than jpm

[Samdy Gray]

Still, your point is completely ludicrous though.

[Arriba]

Still, your point is completely ludicrous though.

 Life expectantcy is decreasing in areas of poverty already. Putting the squeeze on low earners will see more people falling into poverty which will see life expectancy decrease for more people.
Of course the rich and comfortable will balance that out with long lives so people like you will brush it off as ludicrous.

[Simon Pieman]

Forgive my ignorance, but can public sector employees effectively opt out of their pension schemes?

[Arriba]

Forgive my ignorance, but can public sector employees effectively opt out of their pension schemes?

Yes.

[Mister Lorenzo]

Here's the problem -
1. The Govt spends more than it earns; the last govt bridged that gap with borrowing, the current govt is doing the same but is trying to eliminate the deficit over time; if we try to bridge the gap by increasing taxes, it drives wealth-creators away and reduces growth; if we carry on borrowing we either have to let inflation rip to reduce the debt, or we pass on the burden of our own profligacy to our children and grand-children;
2. There are too many public-sector workers - Winky reduced structural unemployment by creating 1m public-sector jobs that weren't previously required - these all have a pension; yes these people pay tax, but for every £100 the govt pays them it only gets back £20 in tax - see the problem?
3. people are living longer, so current pension commitments are unaffordable;
4. we are in a major financial crisis which may get catastrophically worse in 2012 - there is an urgent need to reduce spending in areas which do not create economic growth;
5. Winky not only magicked up an extra 1m public-sector jobs, he also increased public sector pay so that the average public-sector wage is now £3k more than the private-sector one - the old bargain of "get paid less but get a better pension" has been ripped-up; in the private sector, you will get paid less and get no pension or a money-purchase scheme with an unknowable end result;
6. Everyone is suffering - people are getting laid-off, salaries frozen, overtime scrapped, bonuses disappearing - why should the public sector be an exception?

[Samdy Gray]

Life expectantcy is decreasing in areas of poverty already. Putting the squeeze on low earners will see more people falling into poverty which will see life expectancy decrease for more people.
Of course the rich and comfortable will balance that out with long lives so people like you will brush it off as ludicrous.

You're basically saying those on the £15k threshold are all struggling to make a living and put food on the table and that they're all going to die because they're being asked to pay another £450 a year into their pension.