Baroness Ashton - congratulations Ma'am

[bridge too far]

Hamster I generally divide our Nation up by;

 

.......

 

Others; public sector workers who retire at 60 when we are told we are now going to retire at 70, include sick leave as part of their holiday, have statutory 6 weeks holiday and gold plated pensions.

 

.....

 

Every so often we get this myth about public sector workers and their pensions, don't we :smt102

 

Perhaps we should examine the truth instead. Public sector workers contribute towards their pensions in the same way as private sector workers contribute towards theirs. Often, in the private sector, the employer makes a contribution as is the case with the public sector.

 

A public sector worker generally cannot retire at 60 unless s/he is a doctor or nurse or female - that is the state retirement age. The pension is calculated on number of years' service x final salary, although this is now changing, certainly in the NHS.

 

An average public sector wage is about £16K. After 20 years' service, a public sector worker earning the average public sector wage will receive about £2K a year pension. But of course most public sector workers are female and, if they've had children, will not have accrued 20 years' service. And, as the pension scheme is voluntary, they often cannot afford pension contributions on such low wages.

 

So most will work until the state retirement age, and beyond if they can.

 

I hope that the myth is finally put to bed - once and for all.

 

FFS!

 

Oh and they don't get 6 weeks' leave either, unless they've been working in the sector for a good number of years.

[teamsaint]

The queeen may be a perfectly decent head of state. And no doubt she is preferable to many of the other heads of state aroun d the world.

 

But the real problem is that she is the pin that holds together a whole system of unelected and inherited wealth and power.All the other areas of power and privilage have the justification for their existence through the royal family. replacing her as head of state might not change much, but until we do , we will never get rid of the appalling inequalities in wealth and income(inequalities which are rising fast by any measure,)and the entrenched power of the old boy network in politics, business and the city..

 

We put up with far too much unearned privilege and power in the UK, and we are constantly led to believe that it is for our own good.

Well that is all rubbish. Look at the awful quality of too many state schools, the quality of NHS care compared to the level of Doctors pay, the cost of housing compared to real average earnings. And is anybody round here sitting on a decent pension unless they are in the public sector?

[Johnny Bognor]

Every so often we get this myth about private sector workers and their pensions, don't we :smt102

 

Perhaps we should examine the truth instead. Public sector workers contribute towards their pensions in the same way as private sector workers contribute towards theirs. Often, in the private sector, the employer does not make a contribution unlike the public sector.

 

FFS!

 

I have had to edit your post slightly as in the private sector, company contributions are not as often as you think. Maybe with large corporates, but the vast majority of businesses are SME's who don't contribute. That is precisely why the Stakeholder Pension legislation was introduced because too many people in the private sector had no pension at all. Even though the stakeholder pensions are offered, many companies still do not contribute as they are only required to have a scheme in place which employees can choose to take up. Even if the employee does take up a stakeholder pension, employers do not need to and many choose not to contribute. Life is not as cushy outside the public sector as one would think, especially in these current economic times.

Edited 22 November, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[bridge too far]

I have had to edit your post slightly as in the private sector, company contributions are not as often as you think. Maybe with large corporates, but the vast majority of businesses are SME's who don't contribute. That is precisely why the Stakeholder Pension legislation was introduced because too many people in the private sector had no pension at all. Even though the stakeholder pensions are offered, many companies still do not contribute as they are only required to have a scheme in place which employees can choose to take up. Even if the employee does take up a stakeholder pension, employers do not need to and many choose not to contribute. Life is not as cushy outside the public sector as one would think, especially in these current economic times.

 

Unless, of course, the employee is an executive (e.g. a top of the tree banker like dear old Sir Fred Goodwin). I bet the cost to the employers in such cases far outweighs the cost of any public sector scheme. I wonder who pays for that? The 'customer' do you suppose?

 

In any event, we all pick up the tab in the end. If employees, whether private or public sector, cannot afford to pay in to a pension scheme, they invariably get pension credits when they do eventually retire.

 

Who pays for that I wonder.

[Johnny Bognor]

Unless, of course, the employee is an executive (e.g. a top of the tree banker like dear old Sir Fred Goodwin).

 

I said that apart from the large Corporates.

 

I bet the cost to the employers in such cases far outweighs the cost of any public sector scheme.

 

RBS is now government owned so it is a Public Sector scheme. (I would put a smilie, except for the fact it is not very funny)

[bridge too far]

I said that apart from the large Corporates.

 

Not just the large corporates. And also you have to factor in the fact that top rate tax payers get top rate tax relief on their pension contributions too.

 

 

RBS is now government owned so it is a Public Sector scheme. (I would put a smilie, except for the fact it is not very funny)

 

I'm sorry you haven't addressed the fact that many employees, both public and private sector cannot afford to contribute to pension schemes.

 

It would be an interesting exercise to work out if it's more cost efficient to pay a decent state pension by clawing back the tax reliefs on contributory pension schemes.

 

To return to my salient point - public sector workers can only retire early on health grounds (this is why nurses can retire early as their backs are often buggered). And they cannot draw any contributory pensions until they are of pensionable age. It is simply not true that they can draw their contributory (or indeed state) pensions early. I know this because I work in the public sector.

[hamster]

Hamster I generally divide our Nation up by;

 

Wealth creaters - pay for everyone. Without us we are screwed.

 

Neccesary Public Sector workers;soldiers, teachers, police, firefighters, Docters, Nurses possibly even parking wardens

 

Others; public sector workers who retire at 60 when we are told we are now going to retire at 70, include sick leave as part of their holiday, have statutory 6 weeks holiday and gold plated pensions.

 

The Queen is a wealth creator so I support this institution.

 

I despise politicians and bureaucracy because it is an indusry that creates red tape that means that us wealth creators have to work longer hours and spend less time with our families. Th EU is a master at this.

 

 

Ah but Serge, I never said I like politicians either comrade. In fact I actually decided only this year to never vote again in an election. I don't mind if anyone wants to give me flak for this, as I have attacked people in the past for the exact same thing.

 

Re 'gold plated pensions' although I think you know deep down that you are talking about a tiny minority (still too many, I grant you) that do 'look after' each other with their super (dooper) annuities, they pale into insignificance when compared to those born with gold plated spoons in their mouths, furthermore I doubt very much that our dear old Nan's and Grandads will ever have to sit next to a retired Queen suffering with dementia and stinking of her own **** because the state doesn't view themn as 'wealth creators'. Pardon the pun but it stinks. Why is ANYONE in this country more deserving of a dignified autonomous retirement than any one else? Serious question from one human being to another.

 

Just re-read that and sorry it is not meant to sound as vitriolic as it might do., I am quite a meek chap really, honest.

 

xx

Edited 22 November, 2009 by hamster

[Wade Garrett]

It is not largely based on financial services, FS makes up about 30%.

I thought Blair was all about education, education, education. Did this not apply to the socialist brethren?

Here, let me try and help:

UK manufacturing fell from 31% of GDP to 25% of GDP between 1970 and 1979 (before Thatcher was elected). During her term it fell from 25% to 23% and then after she left office, it fell from 23% to 19% between 1989 and 2000. In fact, manufacturing fell LESS as a proportion of GDP during her premiership than at any other time since 1970.

 

We can also consider that this trend has even affected Germany (Europe's industrial powerhouse) where manufacturing has fallen from 36% of GDP to 24% of GDP since the early 1970's. Even in France (where the state owns significant parts of the manufacturing base) manufacturing has fallen by more than 13% of its share of GDP.

 

Having said this, it is far easier to blame Thatcher for all industrial decline - even though it goes back to before she was born and has continued since she left (over 19 years ago) and conveniently ignore that every major Western economy has had declines in their industries.

 

But one shouldn't let facts get in the way of pantomime politics and as Christmas is approaching and pantomime season starts, altogether now......

 

Booooooooooo

Hisssssssss

She's behind you

 

So 30% isn't a lot then?

 

The shipbuilding industry was allowed to whither and die by a government that did nothing to help big employers win contracts that went to Italy and West Germany. Thatcher decimated the mining industry, we now have to import it, and she decided against storing any of our gas when we produced our own and left us at the peril of the Russians for our supplies. She thought it was a better idea to settle scores with Unions that left hundreds of thousands of workers unemployed, and skills and training lost for generations.

 

By the way, I'm not exactly Phoney Tony's biggest fan either.

[Wade Garrett]

Hamster I generally divide our Nation up by;

 

Wealth creaters - pay for everyone. Without us we are screwed.

 

Neccesary Public Sector workers;soldiers, teachers, police, firefighters, Docters, Nurses possibly even parking wardens

 

Others; public sector workers who retire at 60 when we are told we are now going to retire at 70, include sick leave as part of their holiday, have statutory 6 weeks holiday and gold plated pensions.

 

The Queen is a wealth creator so I support this institution.

 

I despise politicians and bureaucracy because it is an indusry that creates red tape that means that us wealth creators have to work longer hours and spend less time with our families. Th EU is a master at this.

 

Wealth creators are vital for the country but you are a little up your own arse.

 

I have the EU to thank for the 48 hour week, which means I get time to spend with my family. I don't work in the public sector either.

[Johnny Bognor]

So 30% isn't a lot then?

 

I didn't say it wasn't a lot. You said that our economy was "largely based" on the financial services industry. As 70% of our economy is not based on financial services, I would have said that our economy is largely based on anything but the financial services industry. Yes, it is the single biggest sector, but after recent events, I would suggest that their share of GDP has fallen significantly over the last few years - we won't know this for sure until sometime next year when the GDP analysis is available for 2009.

 

Financial Services has doubled in size under new labour, whilst manufacturing has declined at a faster rate than under thatcher, but let's carry on blaming her because she makes for a good pantomime villain.

 

 

The shipbuilding industry was allowed to whither and die by a government that did nothing to help big employers win contracts that went to Italy and West Germany. Thatcher decimated the mining industry, we now have to import it, and she decided against storing any of our gas when we produced our own and left us at the peril of the Russians for our supplies. She thought it was a better idea to settle scores with Unions that left hundreds of thousands of workers unemployed, and skills and training lost for generations.

 

It wasn't about settling scores, it was about a fundamental problem with our entire economy. Unions had too much power and brought the country to its knees in the 70's. People used to feel sorry for "us" being the sick man of Europe. Unions had brought down previous governments and clearly this could not continue. She had to break the unions for the good of the country and as a result UK plc is better off for it. The nation on the whole agreed as she won three elections and the nation also agreed to the extent where the Labour Party had to drop its socialist principles and adopt a social democratic position to get elected. I don't doubt that people suffered, but China's fantastic growth isn't just down to the de-industrialisation in Britain, it is down to the de-industrialisation of the West. All European countries and the USA have been going through de-industrialisation for the last 40 years, so to blame it all on Thatcher is ridiculous. Granted that her presentation wasn't of Blair proportions, but Blair & Clown managed to de-industrialise to a greater extent, whilst cosying up to their buddies in the City.

Edited 23 November, 2009 by Johnny Bognor