Public Service Pensions

[Phil D. Rolls]

A friend of mine works in the Civil Service. He was talking about the possibility that he would never see the final salary pension he has been promised all these years.

He said, that the reason he had continued to work for the government was that despite poor pay, he realised that some of this would be offset by retirement benefits.

He had a point, but I wonder how much sympathy civil servants would get if the government did decide to move the goal posts. Personally, I think you can't go back on promises you have made - but I am aware that isn't how this government seems to think.

What's everyone else's views on the State paying final salary pensions to the likes of civil servants and nurses?

[Jack]

Having completed more than 35 years I'd be bloody livid if they moved the goal posts now and I was worse off. Nothing short of theft what is being proposed.
.
My salary is currently around £5k short of comparable jobs elsewhere, its been short over all these 35 years. That has been accepted as the price we had to pay for this benefit.

[Toaods]

I don't think there's a great deal of sympathy outside the public sector.

Of course there are totally honest, hard working types who turn up for their work and fully deserve the benefits retirement brings, however that is offset by the long term sick / skyving, scam merchants who fake expenses, etc and the highly overpaid management who have rather dodgy salary increases to bump up the pension value.

[Hibbyradge]

Unlike many in private industry, civil servants don't get bonuses or share options.

It's an accepted fact that wages are lower in the CS because there is an element of stability and a pension at the end of it.

If the government renege on this, it would be tantamount to theft, imo.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Having completed more than 35 years I'd be bloody livid if they moved the goal posts now and I was worse off. Nothing short of theft what is being proposed.
.
My salary is currently around £5k short of comparable jobs elsewhere, its been short over all these 35 years. That has been accepted as the price we had to pay for this benefit.

Do you think that the general public will be sympathetic though? People who don't have final salary schemes themselves are unlikely to be upset by the proposals.

I think if they were to make retrospective changes to conditions it would be downright immoral. However, I'm sure politicians could spin it to seem like civil servants are draining resources that could be used to fund schools/nurses/social care/wars (some of these reasons are more likely than others).

[hibsdaft]

I don't think there's a great deal of sympathy outside the public sector.

Of course there are totally honest, hard working types who turn up for their work and fully deserve the benefits retirement brings, however that is offset by the long term sick / skyving, scam merchants who fake expenses, etc and the highly overpaid management who have rather dodgy salary increases to bump up the pension value.

and none of this happens in the private sector where all workers are working full tilt at all times and are 100% honest at all times too.

[Darth Hibbie]

Unlike many in private industry, civil servants don't get bonuses or share options.

It's an accepted fact that wages are lower in the CS because there is an element of stability and a pension at the end of it.

If the government renege on this, it would be tantamount to theft, imo.

Absolutely agree


Having completed more than 35 years I'd be bloody livid if they moved the goal posts now and I was worse off. Nothing short of theft what is being proposed.
.
My salary is currently around £5k short of comparable jobs elsewhere, its been short over all these 35 years. That has been accepted as the price we had to pay for this benefit.

Yep thats why I do my job for the security it brings for me and my family


Do you think that the general public will be sympathetic though? People who don't have final salary schemes themselves are unlikely to be upset by the proposals.

I think if they were to make retrospective changes to conditions it would be downright immoral. However, I'm sure politicians could spin it to seem like civil servants are draining resources that could be used to fund schools/nurses/social care/wars (some of these reasons are more likely than others).

At present I pay 11% of my wage to my pension and will receive a pension worth 2/3's of my final salary. We have been told to expect that our contributions to increase to 15% and our pension to be worth 1/2 final salary. Basically paying more to get less. Then on top of that there is talk of a 17% tax on the commutation. In all that to me seems like a pretty severe shafting.

In the years to come and the businesses are handing out bonuses when things get better what do you think the civil service and public sector will get.....................NOTHING is the answer.

[Green Mikey]

Unlike many in private industry, civil servants don't get bonuses or share options.

It's an accepted fact that wages are lower in the CS because there is an element of stability and a pension at the end of it.

If the government renege on this, it would be tantamount to theft, imo.

The primary issue with puclic sector pension schemes is that they can't afford to pay the benefits that were promised to members. The vast majority have large deficits and are struggling to get even remotely close to a level where they will be able to meet their liabilities. Keeping these schemes open to new members exacerbates this problem further.

The deficits in public sector schemes will have to be covered so that memebrs can receive the level of benefit that is currently offered and this will be done by the government. How would public sector workers feel about using money that could be used by the government in areas such as health to supplement their pensions? And how would private sector workers in DC schemes feel about tax revenues being used to provide DB schemes to other workers?

[Green Mikey]

and none of this happens in the private sector where all workers are working full tilt at all times and are 100% honest at all times too.

The does happen in the private sector but at a lower rate then the public sector.

[speedy_gonzales]

There's obviously a nice mix of PS/non-PS workers here so it'll make for a nice wee discussion, so
I always thought it was a myth that public sector workers get paid less than private sector workers? Does anyone have actual figures on like for like jobs? I only ask as I'm virtual public sector in that I work in the rail industry and am paid directly from the government pot, I couldn't get the same money out in the big bad world for a similar job/benefits. I too am in a contributary pension, somewhere like 11.8% but might be going to 15% due to deficits incurred with the financial collapse.
My mum works for NHS(office based) and she looked at getting out a wee while back but there was nothing comparable out there without either working longer or for less pay.
Just 2 examples that I know off.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It just seems to me that if you tell people that you are holding back part of their pay until they retire, and then you don't pay up it is a con, and probably even robbery.

Workers with accrued benefits in their company pension schemes could be treated exactly the same way. Namely, come retirement date their employer reneges on a legally binding promise.

Meanwhile we ignore the real reason why we can't fund pensions and services - we had to bail out he banks. Oh, and we seem to think we are wealthy enough to wage war around the planet.

So maybe there is another alternative to cheating people out of a life times commitment.

[Phil D. Rolls]

There's obviously a nice mix of PS/non-PS workers here so it'll make for a nice wee discussion, so
I always thought it was a myth that public sector workers get paid less than private sector workers? Does anyone have actual figures on like for like jobs? I only ask as I'm virtual public sector in that I work in the rail industry and am paid directly from the government pot, I couldn't get the same money out in the big bad world for a similar job/benefits. I too am in a contributary pension, somewhere like 11.8% but might be going to 15% due to deficits incurred with the financial collapse.
My mum works for NHS(office based) and she looked at getting out a wee while back but there was nothing comparable out there without either working longer or for less pay.
Just 2 examples that I know off.

I would say NHS employees are paid better than comparable jobs in the private sector, certainly when it comes to care assistants and nurses.

[Big Ed]

The primary issue with puclic sector pension schemes is that they can't afford to pay the benefits that were promised to members. The vast majority have large deficits and are struggling to get even remotely close to a level where they will be able to meet their liabilities. Keeping these schemes open to new members exacerbates this problem further.

The deficits in public sector schemes will have to be covered so that memebrs can receive the level of benefit that is currently offered and this will be done by the government. How would public sector workers feel about using money that could be used by the government in areas such as health to supplement their pensions? And how would private sector workers in DC schemes feel about tax revenues being used to provide DB schemes to other workers?

I may be wrong, but I'm sure I read that new Civil Servants no longer qualify for final payment.
I can honestly say that if I thought that money I was due, would go direct to help save lives by, say providing more state of the art equipment in our hospitals, then I'd be in favour; but billions of pounds will end up in the pockets of management consultants and outsourcing oppertunists.
Public Sector workers are workers, who are not well paid - Civil Servants in particular suffer from the stereotypical portrayal of being bowler hat wearing, tea drinking, skivers.
Do they deserve this reputation: No.
Will they get any public sympathy: Definetly Not!

[Phil D. Rolls]

I may be wrong, but I'm sure I read that new Civil Servants no longer qualify for final payment.
I can honestly say that if I thought that money I was due, would go direct to help save lives by, say providing more state of the art equipment in our hospitals, then I'd be in favour; but billions of pounds will end up in the pockets of management consultants and outsourcing oppertunists.
Public Sector workers are workers, who are not well paid - Civil Servants in particular suffer from the stereotypical portrayal of being bowler hat wearing, tea drinking, skivers.
Do they deserve this reputation: No.
Will they get any public sympathy: Definetly Not!

Say you had been paid £500 and someone came and took back £50 would you be happy? Pension is deferred pay, it's not a bonus for good behaviour.

I agree that it doesn't look like there will be much sympathy for civil servants. However, how much longer are people in this country going to stand back and let others steal what is rightfully theirs?

If we let them get away with it on the civil servants,we are accepting the principle that employers are not bound by law or morality.

[matty_f]

It just seems to me that if you tell people that you are holding back part of their pay until they retire, and then you don't pay up it is a con, and probably even robbery.

Workers with accrued benefits in their company pension schemes could be treated exactly the same way. Namely, come retirement date their employer reneges on a legally binding promise.

Meanwhile we ignore the real reason why we can't fund pensions and services - we had to bail out he banks. Oh, and we seem to think we are wealthy enough to wage war around the planet.

So maybe there is another alternative to cheating people out of a life times commitment.

That's fundamentally wrong. Final Salary pensions have been under scrutiny since long before the financial crisis happened. They are too expensive for companies (and Governments) to run, and while I accept that it's wrong to be removing it from people who are close to retirement age, there does come a point where the public sector's pensions should align with the private sector.

Perhaps protecting the final salary pensions of those past a specific working age in the private sector is the way to do this fairly.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's fundamentally wrong. Final Salary pensions have been under scrutiny since long before the financial crisis happened. They are too expensive for companies (and Governments) to run, and while I accept that it's wrong to be removing it from people who are close to retirement age, there does come a point where the public sector's pensions should align with the private sector.

Perhaps protecting the final salary pensions of those past a specific working age in the private sector is the way to do this fairly.

I thought they were protected already. :dunno: I thought they were part of the terms and conditions of employment, and that companies had to set aside money against this future liability.

Anyway, you make a good point about alignment. I think it is dangerous for private sector employees to distance themselves from what happens to the civil servants. If they let this go unchecked they are setting a precedent that can be used on them next.

Unfortunately too many people in this country have a chicken licken like faith in the government of the day. Take away their LCD tellies, or make them pay more for their weekend wine and you've got more chance of them organising theselves.

[ballengeich]

I thought they were protected already. :dunno: I thought they were part of the terms and conditions of employment, and that companies had to set aside money against this future liability.


One of the problems with some public service pensions is that money hasn't been put aside as would be required in a private company scheme. Money is found from the current budget. There's a huge future liability there.

When private companies have changed from defined benefits, they haven't normally removed entitlement earned up to the date of change. For example, if you have worked for 20 years and have 10 to go, you get a pension based on your salary at the time of the change and 20 years service plus whatever the future 10 years fund adds up to. Is that what's happening to your friend?

It is, as you say, a change to terms and conditions. The problem is that when a company is struggling it tends to get presented as a take it or leave it with redundancies as an alternative. In my own company the salary-based pension was only withdrawn from new employees.

[Green Mikey]

I may be wrong, but I'm sure I read that new Civil Servants no longer qualify for final payment.

I was talking about public sector pensions not the civil service in particular. Sorry if I wasn't clear about this.


I can honestly say that if I thought that money I was due, would go direct to help save lives by, say providing more state of the art equipment in our hospitals, then I'd be in favour; but billions of pounds will end up in the pockets of management consultants and outsourcing oppertunists.

What about education and other worthwhile activities the goverment provide. Do you just fliipantly reject their worthiness also? I think that funding pension deficits from the government purse is something that needs to be addressed as it is not a luxury afforded to the private sector.


Public Sector workers are workers, who are not well paid - Civil Servants in particular suffer from the stereotypical portrayal of being bowler hat wearing, tea drinking, skivers.
Do they deserve this reputation: No.
Will they get any public sympathy: Definetly Not!

You are against one version of the civil servant stereotype but support the stereotype that civil servants are not well paid. Median wage in the public sector is higher than in the private sector. The private sector has a greater distribution of wages including both higher and lower wages than the public sector.

[Beefster]

Public Sector workers are workers, who are not well paid - Civil Servants in particular suffer from the stereotypical portrayal of being bowler hat wearing, tea drinking, skivers.
Do they deserve this reputation: No.
Will they get any public sympathy: Definetly Not!

This doesn't bear scrutiny.

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Calls-to-curb-publicsector-pay.6372291.jp

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=500875&in_page_id=2

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287497/Public-sector-staff-spend-9-fewer-years-work-earn-30-private-employees.html

[Big Ed]

This doesn't bear scrutiny.

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Calls-to-curb-publicsector-pay.6372291.jp

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=500875&in_page_id=2

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287497/Public-sector-staff-spend-9-fewer-years-work-earn-30-private-employees.html

You have found statistics from a disputed set of results in a report by the centre-Right think tank Policy Exchange that has been reported in three seperate articles.

It may be that I am under a misapprehension, but I don't think that I'll be changing my mind based on a report by a group with a potential vested interest in seeing Public Sector wages slashed.

[Big Ed]

I was talking about public sector pensions not the civil service in particular. Sorry if I wasn't clear about this.

Fair enough.

What about education and other worthwhile activities the goverment provide. Do you just fliipantly reject their worthiness also? I think that funding pension deficits from the government purse is something that needs to be addressed as it is not a luxury afforded to the private sector.

The NHS and Education system are worthwhile activities provided; my point is that these institutions now have billions of pounds leaving them to pay for such outrages as PFI, Management Consultants etc. thus leaving the noble causes of making people better and educating our children hamstrung because the Government Department's budgets are being bled dry by these parasites.

You are against one version of the civil servant stereotype but support the stereotype that civil servants are not well paid. Median wage in the public sector is higher than in the private sector. The private sector has a greater distribution of wages including both higher and lower wages than the public sector.

See my reply to Beefster.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You have found statistics from a disputed set of results in a report by the centre-Right think tank Policy Exchange that has been reported in three seperate articles.

It may be that I am under a misapprehension, but I don't think that I'll be changing my mind based on a report by a group with a potential vested interest in seeing Public Sector wages slashed.

Fair's fair mate, a lot of people on here (myself included) have a vested interest in Public Sector remuneration staying at it's current levels.

[IWasThere2016]

I've worked in Private and Public Sectors - latterly and mostly in Public Services.

I would refute that Public Sector workers are poorer paid than Private Sector workers. That is not my personal experience. The Public Sector also tend to have shorter weeks (in the main), more holidays, better sickness/pay entitlements etc IMHO - and not all Private Sector workers see bonuses/shares either.

The problem is that final salary schemes within the Public Sector are no longer affordable - and IMHO something has to be done.

I think the coalition will make noises re stopping schemes - to gauge the response from Trade Unions/Public Sector staff. The solution, IMHO, is not to make changes which will affect people overnight - and particularly those retiring in the next 10-15 years - but to cease entry to these schemes to new members, and wind the schemes down.

Allied to this there have to be greater incentives to all to invest in their own pensions - eg the Government topping-up payments via tax breaks or lump sums on set-up etc.

Of course, it might be impossible to have workers doing the same job but on fundamentally different terms eg one enjoying pensions benefits and one working alongside them not!

[Green Mikey]

You have found statistics from a disputed set of results in a report by the centre-Right think tank Policy Exchange that has been reported in three seperate articles.

It may be that I am under a misapprehension, but I don't think that I'll be changing my mind based on a report by a group with a potential vested interest in seeing Public Sector wages slashed.

Did you read the articles? From the Scotsman...

Figures from the Office for National for Statistics for 2009 highlighted in the study showed that public-sector workers can expect an average pay of £22,417, while for someone in the private economy it is £19,932.

[Big Ed]

Fair's fair mate, a lot of people on here (myself included) have a vested interest in Public Sector remuneration staying at it's current levels.

All I meant was that that report on its own won't change my mind.

[Borders Hibby]

I don't think there's a great deal of sympathy outside the public sector.

Of course there are totally honest, hard working types who turn up for their work and fully deserve the benefits retirement brings, however that is offset by the long term sick / skyving, scam merchants who fake expenses, etc and the highly overpaid management who have rather dodgy salary increases to bump up the pension value.

Non of them in the private sector right enough.

[Borders Hibby]

The does happen in the private sector but at a lower rate then the public sector.

Thats a myth.

[Phil D. Rolls]

All I meant was that that report on its own won't change my mind.

Point taken, I picked you up wrong.

[Big Ed]

Did you read the articles? From the Scotsman...

Figures from the Office for National for Statistics for 2009 highlighted in the study showed that public-sector workers can expect an average pay of £22,417, while for someone in the private economy it is £19,932.

Yes I did read the article.
I read the bit that you quote, I read the bid that I mentioned earlier, I read the bit by the bit by Swinney, the Conservative MSP's take and the Taxpayers Alliance slant; however there is a dispute in these figures by the Labour Finance Minister and a Trade Unionist.
I don't think that you can say from the article that what I said is erroneous, just because the view I hold is at the end of the piece.

[speedy_gonzales]

Non of them in the private sector right enough.
Don't think anyone has said that, but when the public sector is financed by monies raised through taxes, it is only fair that every £ spent is honestly earned, personally if someone in the private sector is contracted to work 35 hours but only works 2 and is a paid a kings ransom, then that is only a concern to investors of that company.
As a tax payer, ergo an investor in sorts to the UK, I want value for money.
Back to the main point, can someone explain how public sector pensions seem to materialise out of a pot of cash(budget) rather than every individual pension not be invested in as time goes on, just as a private sector final salary scheme would? That way, the money is in the pot and would have been maturing for the 35 years(whatever) rather than spending todays money on yesterdays workforce? As you can probably tell I'm not an expert on these things, just struggle to understand above statements that there is not enough cash in the pot to fund the potential payouts?!?

[ballengeich]

Yes I did read the article.
I read the bit that you quote, I read the bid that I mentioned earlier, I read the bit by the bit by Swinney, the Conservative MSP's take and the Taxpayers Alliance slant; however there is a dispute in these figures by the Labour Finance Minister and a Trade Unionist.


The Labour Finance spokesman (they don't have ministers at present) and Trade Unionist did not dispute the figures by producing alternative figures to those in the official report. They merely showed that they do not understand what an average is.

When you hear Andy Kerr speaking on finance, the depressing possibility that Iain Gray may actually be the most talented Labour MSP becomes all too apparent.

[Green Mikey]

Yes I did read the article.
I read the bit that you quote, I read the bid that I mentioned earlier, I read the bit by the bit by Swinney, the Conservative MSP's take and the Taxpayers Alliance slant; however there is a dispute in these figures by the Labour Finance Minister and a Trade Unionist.
I don't think that you can say from the article that what I said is erroneous, just because the view I hold is at the end of the piece.

As it stands the evidence points towards a higher average and median wage in the public sectotr compared to the private sector.

Labour and the Trade Unions will oppose any evidence thats points to higher wages in the public relative to the private sector. Their supporters and memebers will always like more monety (as would all of us!). Continuing to peddle the myth that wages are lower in the public sectot keeps people voting and supporting them even thought this stance is contrary to current evidence.

[Green Mikey]

Thats a myth.

Is it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/19/nhs-staff-sickness-rates

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sick-leave-in-public-service-is-twice-the-rate-of-private-sector-1922474.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/7842331/Local-authority-staff-take-twice-as-many-sickies-as-private-sector-workers.html

[IWasThere2016]

Don't think anyone has said that, but when the public sector is financed by monies raised through taxes, it is only fair that every £ spent is honestly earned, personally if someone in the private sector is contracted to work 35 hours but only works 2 and is a paid a kings ransom, then that is only a concern to investors of that company.
As a tax payer, ergo an investor in sorts to the UK, I want value for money.
Back to the main point, can someone explain how public sector pensions seem to materialise out of a pot of cash(budget) rather than every individual pension not be invested in as time goes on, just as a private sector final salary scheme would? That way, the money is in the pot and would have been maturing for the 35 years(whatever) rather than spending todays money on yesterdays workforce? As you can probably tell I'm not an expert on these things, just struggle to understand above statements that there is not enough cash in the pot to fund the potential payouts?!?

The hole appears as the assets (eg investments in stocks and shares) in the fund cannot meet the liabilities - eg pensions to those retired and pensions and lump sums to those forecasted to retire or any benefits eg death in service etc.

Life expectancy continues to rise also - increase the cost eg liability.

The recent stock market falls also compound the problem.

Solutions lies in a mix of:

- less benefits/lower pensions
- taxng lump sums
- greater contributions from staff and employers (not affordable as we cut Public Expenditure)
- reducing/restricting membership etc

We cannot afford the current scenario - it needs change(s)

[IWasThere2016]

Is it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/19/nhs-staff-sickness-rates

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sick-leave-in-public-service-is-twice-the-rate-of-private-sector-1922474.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/7842331/Local-authority-staff-take-twice-as-many-sickies-as-private-sector-workers.html

There is no 'myth' about it ..

[Beefster]

You have found statistics from a disputed set of results in a report by the centre-Right think tank Policy Exchange that has been reported in three seperate articles.

It may be that I am under a misapprehension, but I don't think that I'll be changing my mind based on a report by a group with a potential vested interest in seeing Public Sector wages slashed.

So what are you basing your beliefs on?

[Big Ed]

So what are you basing your beliefs on?

I used to work for the Civil Service and I still keep in touch with a few people there. When I worked there, the wages were perceived to be worse than jobs of a similar nature in the private sector. I am not aware of too may inflation busting pay rises that they have had recently.
When I stated that my perception was that Public Sector pay was poor; I was presented with a link to the contrary, with some stats as proof that I was wrong.
Statistics can be misleading and my point was that simply showing newspaper articles based on these statistics, did not convince me that my perception was wrong.
I'm no fan of New Labour and I know that Trade Unionists have a vested interest in disagreeing with figures such as these but I was simply highlighting the fact that there was a contrary view to them in the article.

[Jack]

Civil Service salaries are calculated by setting them against a 'basket' of similar jobs outwith the public sector. Similar surveys and their results can be found on employment agency websites.
.
The results of this survey are presented to the negotiating teams. Obviously the unions go for higher than average and the employers less.
.
The last time this was done IIRC was 5 or 6 years ago. The award was at the upper end of the lower quartile. Now I dont profess to understand stats but to me thats less than average.
.
Since that last survey there have been two multi years deals. The first the unions were told there's no point in even discussing this and a below inflation award was made. The last award, two years ago, again below inflation, was imposed.
.
Its got to the point where the lowest grades are no longer above the minimum wage. If they were to even keep pace with the MW and the grades above were kept in par with that it would mean bigger increases all round. To avoid this the employer has done away with the lowest grade. Everyone in that grade is effectively promoted, even those who were not considered suitable for promotion!
.
The employer has pulled this trick in the last two 'settlements'. I've worked out that if this were to continue someone joining now could be on the equivalent head of the civil service or another way the head of the civil service will be on the minimum wage.

[IWasThere2016]

Its got to the point where the lowest grades are no longer above the minimum wage. If they were to even keep pace with the MW and the grades above were kept in par with that it would mean bigger increases all round. To avoid this the employer has done away with the lowest grade. Everyone in that grade is effectively promoted, even those who were not considered suitable for promotion!
.
The employer has pulled this trick in the last two 'settlements'. I've worked out that if this were to continue someone joining now could be on the equivalent head of the civil service or another way the head of the civil service will be on the minimum wage.

:confused: None of this makes any sense to me!

The bit in bold is illegal UNLESS it is the same

[Green Mikey]

Civil Service salaries are calculated by setting them against a 'basket' of similar jobs outwith the public sector. Similar surveys and their results can be found on employment agency websites.
.
The results of this survey are presented to the negotiating teams. Obviously the unions go for higher than average and the employers less.
.
The last time this was done IIRC was 5 or 6 years ago. The award was at the upper end of the lower quartile. Now I dont profess to understand stats but to me thats less than average.
.
Since that last survey there have been two multi years deals. The first the unions were told there's no point in even discussing this and a below inflation award was made. The last award, two years ago, again below inflation, was imposed.
.
Its got to the point where the lowest grades are no longer above the minimum wage. If they were to even keep pace with the MW and the grades above were kept in par with that it would mean bigger increases all round. To avoid this the employer has done away with the lowest grade. Everyone in that grade is effectively promoted, even those who were not considered suitable for promotion!
.
The employer has pulled this trick in the last two 'settlements'. I've worked out that if this were to continue someone joining now could be on the equivalent head of the civil service or another way the head of the civil service will be on the minimum wage.

The upper end of the lower quartile is not necessarily below average. Quartiles are used to show the distribution of wages not the average wage. Since private sector wages have a wider distribution than public sector wages it is highly conceivable that the public sector wage chosen will be above the average in the private sector.

There is a good amount of evidence to show that the average and median public sector wage is higher than in the private sector. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

[RyeSloan]

:confused: None of this makes any sense to me!

The bit in bold is illegal UNLESS it is the same

What I think he was saying is that when this happened those grades were scrapped. Thus anyone who was on a grade that paid less than minimum wage was automatically promoted to the next grade thus givign them a wage above the minimum wage.

I'm not quite sure what that gives to the argument on public v private wages but there you go.

[RyeSloan]

I used to work for the Civil Service and I still keep in touch with a few people there. When I worked there, the wages were perceived to be worse than jobs of a similar nature in the private sector. I am not aware of too may inflation busting pay rises that they have had recently.
When I stated that my perception was that Public Sector pay was poor; I was presented with a link to the contrary, with some stats as proof that I was wrong.
Statistics can be misleading and my point was that simply showing newspaper articles based on these statistics, did not convince me that my perception was wrong.
I'm no fan of New Labour and I know that Trade Unionists have a vested interest in disagreeing with figures such as these but I was simply highlighting the fact that there was a contrary view to them in the article.

OK so you base your belief that public sector workers are 'low paid' simply on your perception while disagreeing with the substantial amount of research that shows this is simply not the case...:confused:

There is no doubt there is 'low pay' in many public sector jobs, just as there is in millions of private sector jobs but that doesn't mean you can call all public servants 'low paid'.

It is now widely accepted that the public sector as a whole is paid a generally higher rate than the private sector. However public sector workes (again as a whole) tend to be better educated so this would be expected. Once this is factored in the gap is pretty small but still showing to the benefit of the public sector worker.

Considering all of the above I really don't think there is much difference in general although in specific jobs and industries the private sector has much bigger upside potential. However as already stated by some here the trade off has always been that public sector workers tend to have better terms and conditions with regards to working hours (along with substantially more sick days!!) and of course that final salary pension that the country can simply not afford but is too scared of the unions (which are now pretty much public sector only entities anyway) to try and fix.

Fact is that Public Sector Pension reform would substantially reduce future deficit forecasts and should be enacted immediately to save the country billions. If it was up to me I would suspend all final salary schemes barring those due to retire in less than 10 years and move everyone onto money purchase...in fell swoop you have significantly reduced future liabilities and moved the risk away from the state (which is of course meant to be for ALL citizens) and moved it to where it should be, the individual themselves.

I'm sure the uinions would fire out a broadside of sound bites and emotive comments but I am about just as sure that they could not provide one reasonable suggestion on how we can afford to retain the curent set up.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is it moral or even legal to change a persons pension scheme once they are in it? If it is, then it brings the whole issue of occupational pensions into question. If it is acceptable to make what is in effect a retrospective change to terms and conditions, then it would be acceptable to ask for wages that have been paid to be returned.

If someone has earned 39/40ths of their final salary, by working for the company for 39 years, how can anyone then turn round and say "actually the carrot we used to buy your loyalty was made of wood".

Sure, consider changing future pension benefits, but is just wrong to alter the terms of pension already earned.

[Jonnyboy]

Did you read the articles? From the Scotsman...

Figures from the Office for National for Statistics for 2009 highlighted in the study showed that public-sector workers can expect an average pay of £22,417, while for someone in the private economy it is £19,932.

Lies, damned lies and statistics eh :greengrin

I worked in the Public Sector for 32 years and took an early bath voluntarily. My pension is based on my final salary. I paid into that pension fund for 32 years so essentially I'm getting a lot of my own money back and it's taxed. Had I chosen to invest each month instead of paying into the pension fund I'd likely be better off now but when I joined up there was no choice regarding opting out.

FWIW I wholly understand that pension funds are struggling to meet the commitment of paying out final salary based pensions but I strongly believe they have a moral obligation to fulfil the promise made to these workers. I'd be in favour of any new employees being told that the rules have changed.

One last point - I detect in some posts that folk have a dim view of public sector pension rights because they've heard, as we all have, of some senior manager's getting wads of cash when they retire. Of course they are few in number in relation to the folk that clean our streets, collect our rubbish etc and it's those last two groups and the like who are going to be hardest hit if the rules are changes across the board.

[Green Mikey]

Lies, damned lies and statistics eh :greengrin

I worked in the Public Sector for 32 years and took an early bath voluntarily. My pension is based on my final salary. I paid into that pension fund for 32 years so essentially I'm getting a lot of my own money back and it's taxed. Had I chosen to invest each month instead of paying into the pension fund I'd likely be better off now but when I joined up there was no choice regarding opting out.

FWIW I wholly understand that pension funds are struggling to meet the commitment of paying out final salary based pensions but I strongly believe they have a moral obligation to fulfil the promise made to these workers. I'd be in favour of any new employees being told that the rules have changed.

One last point - I detect in some posts that folk have a dim view of public sector pension rights because they've heard, as we all have, of some senior manager's getting wads of cash when they retire. Of course they are few in number in relation to the folk that clean our streets, collect our rubbish etc and it's those last two groups and the like who are going to be hardest hit if the rules are changes across the board.

I don't take exception to public sector pensions because of large senior management pay outs, it is the long term inability to meet public sector pension liabilities that I am worried about.

Many posters here have pointed out that the current situation is unsustainable with regards to public secotor pensions and I wholeheartedly agree. Morality has been mentioned when it comes to pension promises however where is the morality in diverting money from elsewhere to supplement public sector pensions when the rest of the populace don't receive this benefit?

[The Mook]

I don't take exception to public sector pensions because of large senior management pay outs, it is the long term inability to meet public sector pension liabilities that I am worried about.

Many posters here have pointed out that the current situation is unsustainable with regards to public secotor pensions and I wholeheartedly agree. Morality has been mentioned when it comes to pension promises however where is the morality in diverting money from elsewhere to supplement public sector pensions when the rest of the populace don't receive this benefit?

Because the 'rest of the populace' dont (by and large) have a Final Salary Pension that they signed up to when they joined their employer and have contributed financially to all their lives.

This whole thing smacks of "well our Pensions are pumped so lets make sure everyones is".

Because pensions in the private sector have gone down the tubes you want to drag down Public Sector ones? In that case should bonuses paid in the Private Sector should be taken back and shared out among Public Sector Employees?

[Jack]

Just a small point here.

Most, I think there are only one or two very small public sector pension schemes left (wouldn’t surprise me though if the parliamentary ones were included in this) that have final salary arrangements open to new starts.

The problem here is that those public sector employees, in the main, have to increase their own contributions (and there's no problem with that) to maintain what they have. What the government now want to do is not just tinker but decimate what people have already ‘saved’ for. It like going to the supermarket and spending £100 on shopping, the cashier smiles but as you walk out the door someone ‘officially’ takes more than half the shopping back.

The_Quiet_Man, as suggested later these grades have been done away with i.e. there used to be grades 1 to 4, there are now only 3 and 4. And yes even with the % raise offered to the rest of us applied to these grades that wage would have been illegal.

The case for the defence (including the Ministry of ….)


The myth

Civil and public servants are well paid and have enjoyed better pay rises than the private sector.

The facts

Since 2007, basic pay in the civil service has increased by 6.5% and inflation by 10%, meaning a real terms cut in living standards.

Almost half (48%) of civil servants are in admin grades where the average (median) pay in 2009 was £17,120 for women and £17,600 for men.

Average civil service pay is £22,850 a year, compared to £24,970 in the private sector.

35,000 (7%) civil servants are paid less than £15,000 a year.

40.5% of civil servants - 210,000 people - are paid £20,000 or less. And 63% of civil servants - 330,000 staff - earn less than £25,000 a year.

When you compare civil service grades with comparable jobs in the private sector, admin officers, who deliver services such as getting people back into work, tax credits and passports, are paid 21% less.

Executive officers, who typically work as supervisors and in roles that require a vocational qualification, are paid 18% less than the private sector.

Myth 2: civil service pensions are ‘gold plated’

The myth

Private sector employers are paying for ‘gold-plated’ public sector pensions, which are expensive, unsustainable and unfair when compared to their own pensions.

The facts

Pensions in the civil service are far from generous and have been changed recently to a career average scheme.

The growing gap between public and private sector pensions is the fault of private sector employers retreating from decent pensions. The real divide is between executives in the boardroom securing for themselves large pensions with low retirement ages, and their workforces suffering repeated cuts.

It is counterproductive to degrade pensions because it will force more people into poverty and onto state benefits in their retirement – this is more costly and will have to be met by future taxpayers.

We all help to pay for private sector pensions through the price of goods and services. And we all help to contribute to public sector pensions through taxation.

Excluding the very highest earners, the average civil service pension is £4,200 a year.

More than 100,000 people receive a civil service pension of £2,000 or less a year: over 40,000 receive less than £1,000, and more than 60,000 get between £1,000 and £2,000.

Two and a half times as much public sector money is spent subsidising private sector pensions through tax relief than paying for public sector pensions – 60% of this goes to earners at the higher rate.

The Treasury’s estimate of the cost of public sector pensions as a proportion of the UK’s national output shows a modest increase from 1.5% to 2% by 2027/28. After this, projections show a slight decline.

The civil service is covered by a collection of several different pension schemes which have developed over the years. The most recent is called nuvos and is a defined benefit whole career base scheme for new entrants from 30 July 2007.

Myth 3: civil and public servants are secure in their jobs

The myth

The civil service is bloated, and civil and public servants all have safe and cushy jobs.

The facts

Since the Gershon review in 2004 tens of thousands of jobs have been cut from the civil service, resulting in a deterioration of services to the public.

Job cuts and office closure programmes are ongoing in many departments under the previous government’s ‘efficiency savings’. The new government’s plans to cut public spending further and quicker will inevitably lead to more job losses.

Revenue and Customs: Since 2006, HMRC has cut more than 20,000 staff towards its target of 25,000 by March 2011, and 200 offices have been closed, are in the process of closing or are under threat.

Cutting jobs in the department responsible for collecting tax makes no sense, especially when around £120 billion is lost to the economy every year through tax evasion and avoidance, and through revenue not being collected because of a lack of resources.

The department’s own figures also show that, after staff costs, tax inspectors bring an average of £600,000 a year each in tax revenue.

Cuts have led to increased errors, backlogs in post and half the calls from the public going answered last year.

Department for Work and Pensions: Between 2005 and 2008, 30,000 jobs were cut. A further 5% year on year job cuts were planned for 2008 onwards, but the department took on 15,000 staff on 18-month fixed term contracts to cope with rise in unemployment.

These contracts are coming to an end and, though some may be renewed for a limited time, the department has announced plans to cut another 4,000 from jobcentres on top of the 4,000 that have already gone this year. Cutting jobs in jobcentres is unprecedented at a time of rising unemployment.

As DWP increases automation of services, such as online claims to benefit, it is likely there will be further moves to cut jobs.

The government has also announced it will replace all existing back to work schemes with a single work programme provided by voluntary and private sectors.

Ministry of Defence: Since 2004, 25,000 jobs have been cut with a further 10,000 threatened for 2010 to 2013.

The coalition government has announced it intends to cut the department’s running costs by 25%, and more detail is expected in the next strategic defence review.

UK Border Agency: In June, the agency announced it is to cut 1,700 posts this year, but there are plans to cut almost a third of the UKBA’s 20,000 staff in the coming years, coupled with a massive increase in workloads for those that remain.

This will hit the agency’s casework particularly hard, and the advice and support staff provide to some of the most vulnerable members of society will inevitably suffer.

[IWasThere2016]

Its got to the point where the lowest grades are no longer above the minimum wage.


The_Quiet_Man, as suggested later these grades have been done away with i.e. there used to be grades 1 to 4, there are now only 3 and 4.

But there is no one getting paid less than the minimum wage :confused: It is like saying if I was on the salary I got in my first job I'd be earning less than the minimum wage - true - but it is irrelevant.

The rises in the minimum wage were above inflation - your example (I think) shows some got less of a rise and are therefore CLOSER to the minimum wage (than they might have been) but NOT below it.

[Jack]

But there is no one getting paid less than the minimum wage :confused: It is like saying if I was on the salary I got in my first job I'd be earning less than the minimum wage - true - but it is irrelevant.

The rises in the minimum wage were above inflation - your example (I think) shows some got less of a rise and are therefore CLOSER to the minimum wage (than they might have been) but NOT below it.

I’ll try an example, figures out of the air figures not real figures.

The minimum wage is say £5.00 an hour

Grade 1 is paid at £5.25 and hour and Grade 2 £6.00.

The minimum wage goes up to £5.50 and hour, 10%.

Rather than give anyone in the organisation 10%, or anything close to it, G2 goes up to £6.12 (+2%) and all the G1s, who with a 2% rise would have been below the minimum wage, become G2s - once again just above the minimum wage. When the minimum wage goes over the G2 rate they all become G3s and so on.

Employer then goes to the press saying they have done as much as they can giving the biggest increases to those less well off. Meanwhile it can say to the unions there will be nothing over 2% and satisfy the hawks by saying no grading point has been increased by more than 2%.

Thus giving the outward appearance of being a firm but caring organisation.

Now, there were those who were G1s who were quite happy there, maybe part-time – no pressure and had avoided the opportunity for promotion like the plague. They’ve now been promoted twice, without actually increasing their spending power terribly much but are now under pressure to produce the goods appropriate to the grade.


Don’t tell me it doesn’t make sense. :rolleyes:

[ballengeich]

The case for the defence (including the Ministry of ….)




Jack, where do the figures you quoted come from? The data on salaries conflicts with figures quoted earlier from the Office for National Statistics.

[Jack]

One of the Civil Service unions. I think the difference will be the ONS figures will relate to ALL wages while the unions will relate to like for like jobs.

[RyeSloan]

Jack

Where do you get your stats to state that vitually all public sector new starts are not offered final salary schemes? Are you including local authorities here?

Also your wage growth figures are misleading from the ONS:

"Average earnings growth including bonuses decreased in the year to May 2010, from the April rate of 4.1 per cent to 2.7 per cent in May 2010. Growth in average earnings excluding bonuses (regular pay) also decreased from the April 2010 rate of 1.9 per cent to 1.8 per cent in May 2010.
In the year to May pay growth (including bonuses) in the private sector stood at 2.8 per cent compared with 3.2 per cent in the public sector. Excluding bonus payments, growth in the private sector stood at 1.1 per cent compared with 3.5 per cent in the public sector."

It's also misleading in that it completely fails to recognise that private sector wage 'growth' was either negaive or flat for the whole of 2009 while the public sector figure stayed comfortably in the 3 per cent range...the Civil Service is not the only public sector employer I may add.

I read your 'myth busting' comments and really I think they are a bit bizzare...to bust a myth that public pensions are 'gold plated' (i think this means that the final value is guranteed) it starts with "The growing gap between public and private sector pensions is the fault of private sector employers retreating from decent pensions"....sorry but this is not a myth busting comment but evidence that the points are being presented from a biased perspective. By far and away the biggest and most pertinant reason private sector employers have changed pension policies is that the exsiting ones WERE NOT AFFORDABLE. And this is the crux of the matter....for the public sector as a whole to blame the private sector for actually acting to close the future liability hole as the reason why there is so much talk of the cost of public sector pensions is total misdirection.

The evidence is all around...look at the legacy issues with BT and BA pension schemes and the massive deficit that the Post Office has and it's clear that there has been a requirement to change pension provision for a long time...blaming private companies from doing so (to prevent the pension costs from bringing the whole company down) is very strange I would say.

[IWasThere2016]

I’ll try an example, figures out of the air figures not real figures.

The minimum wage is say £5.00 an hour

Grade 1 is paid at £5.25 and hour and Grade 2 £6.00.

The minimum wage goes up to £5.50 and hour, 10%.

Rather than give anyone in the organisation 10%, or anything close to it, G2 goes up to £6.12 (+2%) and all the G1s, who with a 2% rise would have been below the minimum wage, become G2s - once again just above the minimum wage. When the minimum wage goes over the G2 rate they all become G3s and so on.

Employer then goes to the press saying they have done as much as they can giving the biggest increases to those less well off. Meanwhile it can say to the unions there will be nothing over 2% and satisfy the hawks by saying no grading point has been increased by more than 2%.

Thus giving the outward appearance of being a firm but caring organisation.

Now, there were those who were G1s who were quite happy there, maybe part-time – no pressure and had avoided the opportunity for promotion like the plague. They’ve now been promoted twice, without actually increasing their spending power terribly much but are now under pressure to produce the goods appropriate to the grade.


Don’t tell me it doesn’t make sense. :rolleyes:

So the G1 doesn't get the 10% increase but goes from £5.25 to £6.12 9( as per G2) - a rise of .. wait for it .. > 16% :cool2:

I should imagine the G1s are delighted right enough :greengrin - they have gone from 5% ahead of the minimum wage (£5.25 to £5) to 11% above it (£6.12 to £5.50) - result! :thumbsup:

You got a degree in Yammathics, Jack?

[IWasThere2016]

Jack

Where do you get your stats to state that vitually all public sector new starts are not offered final salary schemes? Are you including local authorities here?

That statement is absolute nonsense IMHO

[greenlex]

Is it moral or even legal to change a persons pension scheme once they are in it? If it is, then it brings the whole issue of occupational pensions into question. If it is acceptable to make what is in effect a retrospective change to terms and conditions, then it would be acceptable to ask for wages that have been paid to be returned.

If someone has earned 39/40ths of their final salary, by working for the company for 39 years, how can anyone then turn round and say "actually the carrot we used to buy your loyalty was made of wood".

Sure, consider changing future pension benefits, but is just wrong to alter the terms of pension already earned.

Private sector workers are subject to their employers going bust. When they do in my experience their pensions go down the swanny with the employers. There is little chance that Public service employees employers going bust so at least some sort of pension will be payable final salary or otherwise. I personally think the exsisting final salary pension should be payed to anyone with over 30 years service and others adjusted. The final salary scheme should be closed for new emplyees.

My personal circumstances are that I am earning less now than I was 20 years ago for the same job in a different company and will have to work till I drop.Thata g=raft too and not sitting behind a computer screen. All my final salary pension and other pension when that one was close has gone. All the contributions both standard and voluntary amount to *****pence when I reach retirement age.
I accepted this five years ago.

[Green Mikey]

Because the 'rest of the populace' dont (by and large) have a Final Salary Pension that they signed up to when they joined their employer and have contributed financially to all their lives.

This whole thing smacks of "well our Pensions are pumped so lets make sure everyones is".

Because pensions in the private sector have gone down the tubes you want to drag down Public Sector ones? In that case should bonuses paid in the Private Sector should be taken back and shared out among Public Sector Employees?


Private sector pensions didn't 'go down the tubes', DB pensions were unaffordable to the private sector and they opted to move a lot of employees and any new starts to DC schemes. It was an affordability decision that had to be made or future liabilities would not have been met for a considerable amount of schemes.

If the government is willing to fund the funding gap for public sector pensions why did it not provide this for private sector? People on here are saying that they deserve a DB pension and it is their moral right...what about the private sector who have already lost their DB pension?


That statement is absolute nonsense IMHO

Too true, Local Authority DB schemes are still open to new members and this is causing a massive amount of problems. Increasing life expectancy and economic factors has seen many local authority schemes take on large amount of risk in the last few years. There is a growing movement towards emerging market equities/bonds and alternatives like private equity in an attempt to match future liabilities. In most cases this is not working and there is most likely to be a crisis looming for the LGPS in the near future unless final salary expectations are lowered.

[Jack]

Jack, where do the figures you quoted come from? The data on salaries conflicts with figures quoted earlier from the Office for National Statistics.


Jack

Where do you get your stats to state that vitually all public sector new starts are not offered final salary schemes? Are you including local authorities here?

Also your wage growth figures are misleading from the ONS:

"Average earnings growth including bonuses decreased in the year to May 2010, from the April rate of 4.1 per cent to 2.7 per cent in May 2010. Growth in average earnings excluding bonuses (regular pay) also decreased from the April 2010 rate of 1.9 per cent to 1.8 per cent in May 2010.
In the year to May pay growth (including bonuses) in the private sector stood at 2.8 per cent compared with 3.2 per cent in the public sector. Excluding bonus payments, growth in the private sector stood at 1.1 per cent compared with 3.5 per cent in the public sector."

It's also misleading in that it completely fails to recognise that private sector wage 'growth' was either negaive or flat for the whole of 2009 while the public sector figure stayed comfortably in the 3 per cent range...the Civil Service is not the only public sector employer I may add.

I read your 'myth busting' comments and really I think they are a bit bizzare...to bust a myth that public pensions are 'gold plated' (i think this means that the final value is guranteed) it starts with "The growing gap between public and private sector pensions is the fault of private sector employers retreating from decent pensions"....sorry but this is not a myth busting comment but evidence that the points are being presented from a biased perspective. By far and away the biggest and most pertinant reason private sector employers have changed pension policies is that the exsiting ones WERE NOT AFFORDABLE. And this is the crux of the matter....for the public sector as a whole to blame the private sector for actually acting to close the future liability hole as the reason why there is so much talk of the cost of public sector pensions is total misdirection.

The evidence is all around...look at the legacy issues with BT and BA pension schemes and the massive deficit that the Post Office has and it's clear that there has been a requirement to change pension provision for a long time...blaming private companies from doing so (to prevent the pension costs from bringing the whole company down) is very strange I would say.

Here, have it out with these guys :greengrin

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/facts-about-civil-and-public-services/index.cfm


So the G1 doesn't get the 10% increase but goes from £5.25 to £6.12 9( as per G2) - a rise of .. wait for it .. > 16% :cool2:

I should imagine the G1s are delighted right enough :greengrin - they have gone from 5% ahead of the minimum wage (£5.25 to £5) to 11% above it (£6.12 to £5.50) - result! :thumbsup:

You got a degree in Yammathics, Jack?

No me! I'm just a wee teamer:boo hoo:

However what I will say is the 16% of not very much is still not very much and 11% above the minimum wage only lasted for 2, or maybe 3 years, before they had to do it again.

As I said in an earlier post it won’t be long before the next grade falls and the next and so on until such time as the head of the civil service gets caught on the minimum wage. :greengrin


Having worked bloody hard over the last 35 years to get promoted a few times my best chance of promotion now is to keep on working until my grade is done away with. :faf: And sadly the way it’s going it looks as though the governments will expect me to do that!


As an example of how wages in the civil service have been depressed is that when I started 35 years ago there were two things that spring to mind.

1. My mates dad was the same grade as I am now, probably about the same age. He had a substantial stone built house in a very nice part of town. His daughter went to a private school and as soon as the kids were old enough they got nice cars, oh and his wife worked part-time. Now I could have made life changes but none would have put me in a similar situation now.

I would need a lottery win to get near that.

2. 35 years ago MPs in the House of Commons were keen to have their salaries linked to the grade I am at now. They saw that as a fair wage and higher than what they were ‘earning’ at the time. Now their basic is more than double what I earn.


Now they want to take away my pension too :grr:

[RyeSloan]

As an example of how wages in the civil service have been depressed is that when I started 35 years ago there were two things that spring to mind.

1. My mates dad was the same grade as I am now, probably about the same age. He had a substantial stone built house in a very nice part of town. His daughter went to a private school and as soon as the kids were old enough they got nice cars, oh and his wife worked part-time. Now I could have made life changes but none would have put me in a similar situation now.


That has to be the silliest thing to try and examplify how your wage inflation has fallen behind the general trend as it completely ignores (or maybe intentionally ignores) the fact that no-ones wages have kept pace or even within sight of house price inflation.

Oh and linking to the site you quoted earlier hardly does anything to validate the comments....even the opening paragraph is misleading, did they forget the massive increase in public sector employment as a whole under Labour or would that be an inconvenient 'fact' to start off with.

I'm all for a debate but that article is so full of half truths and selected 'facts' that's frankly it smells.

[IWasThere2016]

http://www.independentbudgetreview.org/

See the front of the papers eg the Scotsman today - it is slash and burn time for the Public Services...

[Betty Boop]

http://www.independentbudgetreview.org/

See the front of the papers eg the Scotsman today - it is slash and burn time for the Public Services...

Cheerio, to free personal care for the elderly, free tuition fees, educational maintenance allowance, one in ten jobs in the public sector to go, and that's just for starters. :grr:

[Beefster]

Cheerio, to free personal care for the elderly, free tuition fees, educational maintenance allowance, one in ten jobs in the public sector to go, and that's just for starters. :grr:

If these benefits (and more) exist, shouldn't they be means-tested?

Why should I, as someone with enough money to pay my own way and who will retire on a decent pension, receive taxpayer money to pay for free eye tests, free prescriptions, free bus passes, free care etc?

Why should a family with enough income not pay for their kids to attend university?

[Jack]

That has to be the silliest thing to try and examplify how your wage inflation has fallen behind the general trend as it completely ignores (or maybe intentionally ignores) the fact that no-ones wages have kept pace or even within sight of house price inflation.

Oh and linking to the site you quoted earlier hardly does anything to validate the comments....even the opening paragraph is misleading, did they forget the massive increase in public sector employment as a whole under Labour or would that be an inconvenient 'fact' to start off with.

I'm all for a debate but that article is so full of half truths and selected 'facts' that's frankly it smells.

I appreciate what your saying, its not a direct link saying I should have that too. What gets me, a bit, is how very far away I am from even being close to it.

The link to the union site is obviously going to be slanted to represent their story in the best possible light – just as the articles and reports quoted from the newspapers quoting the right hand think tank (cant look it up just now but you know who I mean) will represent theirs. One side has a mission to destroy public services the other a vested interest in maintaining, or improving, public services. I don’t think they'd ever meet up for a chat down the local or have a sociable round of golf at the club!

The truth, if indeed there is any truth portrayed by either side, will be somewhere nearer the middle I suspect, with smells coming from both sides.

I put the link up as a sort of the ‘official line’ rebuff so that both sides were represented.

[Betty Boop]

If these benefits (and more) exist, shouldn't they be means-tested?

Why should I, as someone with enough money to pay my own way and who will retire on a decent pension, receive taxpayer money to pay for free eye tests, free prescriptions, free bus passes, free care etc?

Why should a family with enough income not pay for their kids to attend university?

Free personal care, allows old people to remain in their homes, and helps retain a sense of independence and dignity. Before its introduction old folks were stuck in hospital wards for weeks on end, blocking beds at a great cost to the NHS. As for bus passes many old folk take the bus, because it is free. it also lets them get out and about and keeps them mobile. I can't see how scrappimg them is going to save significant sums of money. Do we really want to return to humiliating old people by means testing? Forcing old people to sell their homes to pay for care, is wrong IMO, old people should be treated with respect, and not seen as a burden on society.

[Beefster]

Free personal care, allows old people to remain in their homes, and helps retain a sense of independence and dignity. Before its introduction old folks were stuck in hospital wards for weeks on end, blocking beds at a great cost to the NHS. As for bus passes many old folk take the bus, because it is free. it also lets them get out and about and keeps them mobile. I can't see how scrappimg them is going to save significant sums of money. Do we really want to return to humiliating old people by means testing? Forcing old people to sell their homes to pay for care, is wrong IMO, old people should be treated with respect, and not seen as a burden on society.

Means-testing is humiliating? Seriously? Tax credits must have humiliated millions of UK citizens.

I'm not suggesting that old folk are a burden and trust me, I treat everyone with respect - not just old people. I'm suggesting that anyone with the wealth to pay for their own life/care/travel/food should do so.

Why should a young family with two working parents, potentially struggling to make ends meet, subsidise a person who already has more money and a better standard of living than they do?

It's not about respect or being a burden, it's about basic fairness.

Edit: Apologies for taking this thread slightly off-topic.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Means-testing is humiliating? Seriously? Tax credits must have humiliated millions of UK citizens.

I'm not suggesting that old folk are a burden and trust me, I treat everyone with respect - not just old people. I'm suggesting that anyone with the wealth to pay for their own life/care/travel/food should do so.

Why should a young family with two working parents, potentially struggling to make ends meet, subsidise a person who already has more money and a better standard of living than they do?

It's not about respect or being a burden, it's about basic fairness.

Edit: Apologies for taking this thread slightly off-topic.

And why should they subsidise someone who never had any money in the first place? For me, the question is why should a person's wealth have anything to do with the duty of care society has for them.

[The Mook]

Means-testing is humiliating? Seriously? Tax credits must have humiliated millions of UK citizens.

I'm not suggesting that old folk are a burden and trust me, I treat everyone with respect - not just old people. I'm suggesting that anyone with the wealth to pay for their own life/care/travel/food should do so.

Why should a young family with two working parents, potentially struggling to make ends meet, subsidise a person who already has more money and a better standard of living than they do?

It's not about respect or being a burden, it's about basic fairness.

Edit: Apologies for taking this thread slightly off-topic.

Yes but that issue of fairness works both ways.

Jimmy works hard all his life, puts money away, saves for a pension, buys a house and makes sacrifices to do these things.

Jack blows his cash every weekend, never puts any money aside, lives for the moment pretty much.

Both end up in the same care home, except Jimmy has to sell his house to pay for the care. Jack gets his paid by the state.

Wheres the fairness in that :confused:

[sKipper]

Is it moral or even legal to change a persons pension scheme once they are in it? If it is, then it brings the whole issue of occupational pensions into question. If it is acceptable to make what is in effect a retrospective change to terms and conditions, then it would be acceptable to ask for wages that have been paid to be returned.

If someone has earned 39/40ths of their final salary, by working for the company for 39 years, how can anyone then turn round and say "actually the carrot we used to buy your loyalty was made of wood".

Sure, consider changing future pension benefits, but is just wrong to alter the terms of pension already earned.

I would be very surprised if past payments were not protected.

The Royal Mail ceased its final salary scheme last year and everyone moved over to the new less beneficial system.

They have guaranteed though that every penny paid into the old scheme will be protected and will have the original full benefits.

Ihave 31 years of good pension locked up and will now payinto a relatively poor scheme until I retire.

Another difference is, I get my old pension at 60 but cannot touch the new one until 65.

There will be no final salary schemes left in one year from now.

[Beefster]

And why should they subsidise someone who never had any money in the first place? For me, the question is why should a person's wealth have anything to do with the duty of care society has for them.

You'd scrap all means-testing on benefits?

If folk can [afford to] care for themselves then society doesn't need to. Just like someone on £100,000pa doesn't get Tax Credits. They don't need them.


Yes but that issue of fairness works both ways.

Jimmy works hard all his life, puts money away, saves for a pension, buys a house and makes sacrifices to do these things.

Jack blows his cash every weekend, never puts any money aside, lives for the moment pretty much.

Both end up in the same care home, except Jimmy has to sell his house to pay for the care. Jack gets his paid by the state.

Wheres the fairness in that :confused:

That's a different situation and one I don't have a solution for. You can't pay out unaffordable universal benefits though, based on the fact that some folk in the same salary bracket save and others don't.

I honestly can't believe that I'm having to argue for the redistribution of wealth on here.