Cameron and Clegg face the audience

The rules of the game are always different in the public sector because the Governmet is the paymaster and uniquely, the Government can always print money to pay its bills, that is a feature of a fiat currency.

That is what they will ultimately do anyway, when the pain of cuts and tax rises becomes too much for the voters to bear.

Meanwhile - Eng-er-lund are back from the dead!

Cool heads required on public sector pensions. Easy to get it wrong.

Absolutely necessary as I have been saying all week

Due to actuarial factors, and longer life expectancy this is inevitable, and it is to the shame of the previous Labour government that they did nothing about this, and the previous Conservative government as well

31 years of nothing

So don't blame the man who IS sorting it out

Those on the left, with special calculators (you know, without the minus sign) will be upset, as they don't live in the real world

They think money is available on money trees

Ah, pay more get less!

There you have it more for less confirmed.

Nick,

i wish someone had asked them how they expect the economy to grow when there will be 20% cuts to government departments.

have the government got a secret stash of mothballed high technology factories prepped and ready to make and sell goods the whole world will want to plug the gap between what the government will be taking out?

Our economy was first built on consumer debt and when that crashed it is now supported on government debt. Cut that out and you are reliant on massive growth in exports and demand for our goods to generate the new money to promote growth.

it is not realistic, not that labours proposals are any better.

To achieve a final salary, index linked pension in the private sector of sixty to seventy thousand pounds a year would require a pension savings pot of over one point five million pounds. I'm afraid some people in public service are going to need to face some hard truths.

Good stuff...let's hit the gold plated public pensions....the current average of £5000 p.a. is far too generous.....and as so many need to top up their pensions anyway with benefits (since the State isn't yet comfortable about making people live below the poverty line) it won't effect the poorer pensioners anyway.

Does he include MPs' generous pension scheme in these cuts?

The pension pots schemes are just gambling - they critically depend on the day you buy your annuity just how much you get. It is patently unfair and pensions for identical contributions can vary by 25% or more.

Final - or cumulative - salary pensions are a much fairer way of paying for retirement but we have to take into account the long-overdue fact that people are living substantially longer now.

When the n/80ths schemes were started, leading to half pay on retirement and a nice tax-free lump sum, people expected to live for 10-15 years after paying in for 40 years and these sums add up. But if people live for 20-30 years there must be some change.

I suspect we will move to n/90ths eventually so we expect to work 45 years or retire on 44% of final salary. Whichever way, something has to be done but it would be invidious to change the pensions for those already retired.

9

Those who have already retired will obviously not be affected, neither will benefits accrued to date

So, no big deal

David Cameron and Nick Clegg also faced questions about the impact of VAT on the poor, why they hadn't raised more from the bankers, cuts to benefits and much besides.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Is this not the Nick Clegg who campaigned on worries about increases to VAT because it hits those on poorer incomes? I would ask you what he said in response to the VAT issue Nick but really I just have to listen to David to know what Nick Clegg really thinks!

JC,

"the Government can always print money to pay its bills"

Yes indeed. And I guess there's no point having this ability unless in extremis one uses it - rather like nuclear weapons, although in that case the answer is to not have them rather than use them. In fact we've already printed money, haven't we? - in the form of the Bank's QE programme. Perhaps going forward we can do this more frequently - not so much to pay for specifics like public sector pensions (which wouldn't be appropriate, they need to be funded via some sort of State Pensions Board - as we agreed the other day) but more to just plug the gap each year (if there is a gap) between the cost of the first class public services and high quality infrastructure and decent welfare benefits which we all want to see, and the tax we're collectively prepared to cough up to pay for them. Thus the more tax we pay, the less money we'll have to print. Maybe, just maybe, such an approach will lead to greater fiscal discipline (since printing money can create more problems than it solves).

I'm a public sector worker with a few more years to go until I retire. However I do think the public sector pensions are overdue for a review.

What must be taken into account is that the public sector workers have done no wrong in this situation, we have all simply applied on the open market for jobs which exist and somebody decided they needed doing.

I just hope that the pensions review, coupled with a pay freeze and a downsizing of government at all levels, does not leave the country with a legacy of poor quality public services. Anybody who works in the public sector is surely going to be looking for work elsewhere, and the private sector can afford to be quite choosy. This will mean public services being run by those who can't find jobs elsewhere. I'm not saying they will all be incompetent but almost by definition the skills and experience of those left are likely to be lower on average than they are now.

I haven't been in the public sector for many years, so I would draw a modest pension of around £10k if I retired now. I am contributing 6.7% of my salary into a local government pension scheme in the hope of achieving something like £20k a year when I retire at the age of 66.

We're not all fat cat mandarins by any stretch of the imagination

When will it sink in ... Final salary schemes cannot be afforded in the public sector - half a million pounds is the equivalent fund for a twenty thousand pension! ... and still unfunded ...why not close them, commute public sector future obligations into contributory standard private pensions and pay contributions as they arise. Its what the private sector have to do!

Over the last 5 years, I have sunk £200,000 into a business which employs 10 people in the South East - which I could have put this into a pension and got tax relief too! - now I find my Pension relief for future contributions is taxed, my tax relief has gone, I get taxed on new high-rate CGT and even though I am in a high-cost South-East, everyone outside London gets help through the new NI assistance - completely unfair - if this is Britain, I'll leave, and expand the company overseas and when I sell ensure I'm outside the CGT tax net.

(And as for Business Investor Relief - too restrictive and complex - what's wrong with a simple £5M relief for business investment in SME's without the complex rules?)

12

When will the penny drop that we need to live within our means?

I don't think it ever will, for you, you seem to think that money grows on trees

13

Don't underestimate what that £10K pension is worth!!

You would probably need a pension fund well in excess of £350K to provide this, based on current annuity rates

The change is overdue, and for 40 years various governments have BOTTLED IT

So Cameron has inherited the deficit and this mess as well

Many in the public sector will sadly start to abuse the generous sickness scheme, as many of your colleagues are unable to understand that mathematics, not politics makes this change necessary

Why are people surprised that public sector pensions are being brought into line with the private sector? Labour claim this is 'unfair' but why is it fair for private sector workers to have to take all the risk and then pay for public sector workers to take no risk? Harriet Harman summed up the madness of Labour when she criticised the budget saying the private sector could not 'magically' create jobs. Harriet - that's exactky what the private sector does so, and has done for years. It's because your level of understanding of the economy is so feeble that you think only the State can do it. I can;t remember who saiud that the best thing the State can do is 'get out of the way'. Fairness means equality for all, not public sector workers being elevated to a different level of compensation.

Does he think it was a great Disraeli moment for cameron when he refused to answer The Leader of the Opposition on tax credits.
Also he mentioned that cameron was giving up his pension that he is entitled to as prime minister on tonight's bbc news, thats brilliant, but surely wouldn't`t the great Disraeli have published his whole financial records, his wealth and his future earning to show how badly losing his pension will affect him, now I think the great Disraeli would of done that don`t you?
Otherwise it might seem an empty gesture, don`t you agree?

Saga 8

But no doubt they will try their best after all they now got history (albeit a short one) on the VAT increase.

VAT - Bad judgement which will return and haunt both parties. I can't believe the arrogance of GO who no doubt read our previous posts on this issue and then went ahead and acted against our better advice. I thought we had all agreed - Best leave alone!

I'm a public servant. I agree that this has to happen. The government should put all civil servants (+ Ministers & MPs) into, and reasonably quickly the Nuvos scheme. This provides defined benefit pensions - NOT a final salary pension. I believe the trade describe it as a Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE) scheme. Such a move would produce considerable administrative savings also, because currently MPs and civil servants have 5 pension schemes!

Immediately after the 2 year public sector pay freeze ends (April 2013) the government should progressively (but over no more than 3-5 years) increase employees contributions. In the current schemes the employee contributions are less 7% - 15% of the cost of the pension (dependent on which scheme) - the employer (government/taxpayer) meets 85% - 93% of the cost. In the future employer and employee should each pay 50% of the cost of the pension.

Finally, the government should bring the Civil Service retirement age into line with the state pension retirement age - 65, shortly to rise to 66. And stop all enhanced early retirement and enhanced voluntary severance packages.

As Mr Clegg says, there's no point giving public sector workers poor pensions. That only increases poverty among the elderly. What public servants need to do is to make a realistic contribution to their pension costs and retire at the same age as everyone else. The days of the police retiring with full pensions at 50 and other public sector workers retiring on full pensions at 60 (or even earlier) must end.

LG

6. At 6:05pm on 23 Jun 2010, Steve wrote:

To achieve a final salary, index linked pension in the private sector of sixty to seventy thousand pounds a year would require a pension savings pot of over one point five million pounds. I'm afraid some people in public service are going to need to face some hard truths.
------------------------------------------------------------------




Indeed, public pensions have been far too generous for far too long, allowing people to retire at ~50 years old in many cases with a serious incoming for life (the "life" bit being longer than they actually worked for).

Private pensions have been destroyed recently, but 1+1 will never equal 5 so they had to be (as public pensions will have to be).

Basically the post-war generation have lived life large and left a debt problem for the next 10 generations of their children.




Clearly no one likes to lose £££'s, but 1+1=2 that's just how it is, and to balance the UKs books things have to give.

13. At 6:46pm on 23 Jun 2010, HoggyatEastlands wrote:

I haven't been in the public sector for many years, so I would draw a modest pension of around £10k if I retired now. I am contributing 6.7% of my salary into a local government pension scheme in the hope of achieving something like £20k a year when I retire at the age of 66.

We're not all fat cat mandarins by any stretch of the imagination
------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is to end up with a £20k a year pension working in the private sector in the number of years you infer, you'd basically have to be a fat cat mandarin.

The difference between public and private is just now that great.

The only thing more insane than general public sector funds are MP pension, fortunately there's only ~700 to pay through the eyes for, not 6,000,000+ of them!

I was fascinated to note that the Government has made no mention of looking into the numerous subsidies paid to farmers. Could this be due to the fact that the wealthy farming community is made up of the biggest contributors to the Tory Party and are therefore "off limits" I wonder?

The other change needed, is that once you draw your public sector pension, you are then not allowed to work for the government again, especially as a consultant!!

21

wrote


Clearly no one likes to lose £££'s, but 1+1=2 that's just how it is, and to balance the UKs books things have to give.


Aaaah

But Big Brother said 1+1=3 Winston (Thanks to George Orwell)


Also

Gordon Brown thought 1+1=564327612662427821774678426487474882482

Would the public sector pension black hole be so large if the employers hand't enjoyed a contribution holiday for over 10 years?
They didn't put that money aside in case this would happen, they gleefully spent it!
Shame I'm not a banker who got us in this mess in the first place then I'd be able to claim the pension is part of my contract and nobody could touch it!

Why did the news not highlight the part where the lady said her colleagues public sector pension will be £5K pa and her lump sum is £1K - this is the gold plated public sector pension payable after 30 years service.
Yes the PM & DepPM were more honest in that they admitted the public sector are having a pay cut but they were in opposition when the private sector pensions were changed and they accused the then government of incompetence for not protecting the private sector employees who had their pensions forceably changed. Now they are proposing to do the same to public sector employees.

How is a rise in VAT good for private businesses? most people are having their income cut by 2.5% as a result and therefore have less cash available to spend in private businesses.

As for the rent restrictions - if you are going to have your housing benefit cut after 6 months on JSA you are going to accrue rent arrears as you obviously have the same income but higher bills. This means your landlord / council / housing association will then need to take legal action to recover the rent arrears - doing this costs money - more staff are needed in the housing offices to collect the rising rent arrears.

As for DLA medicals - if there are medicals that means a private firm like ATOS has to do the medical, this is then appealable by the claimant, so the DWP then has the costs involved in looking at the decision again and if they don't change the decision the claimant takes the decision to an appeal tribunal - again appeal tribunals cost money - The panel are often paid over £100 each for a half days work. The current backlog for ESA medicals is at 8 - 12 months before you get an appeal heard due to ATOS medicals. I really don't see how this reduces costs.

Another point was that people have to go out and get jobs - when the people who want to work are struggling to find positions, where are the employers for the long term unemployed who have no skills and no incentive to work. The minimum wage if your over 21 is £5.85, that will get you £93.60 for 16 hours, to get tax credits if you have no kids you need to do 30 hours but there aren't many 30 hour posts out there. Where are all these jobs that everyone is to apply for especially the disabled who struggle to get work in the private sector as small businesses can't provide all the aids and adaptations needed for disabled people?
Over to you Mr Cameron & your twin Mr Clegg

We have just watched the budget discussion - lets assume they achieve their goal on the "benefit scroungers" where are the jobs coming from to employ these people?

Where is the infrastructure investment in childcare to facilitate the seed change?

We have been advocates of lifelong learning O.U. etc and after being made redundant twice invested £10.000 in "HIPS" - this government have just reversed the policy and left us without any recourse.

How confident are the Government that they can "cut through" the "Humphrey" stranglehold to make sense of the public sector expenditure?

16. At 6:59pm on 23 Jun 2010, Kevinb wrote:


"Many in the public sector will sadly start to abuse the generous sickness scheme, as many of your colleagues are unable to understand that mathematics, not politics makes this change necessary".

Kevin, is that what you did whilst working in the public sector?

No, thought not!

23. At 7:39pm on 23 Jun 2010, Countrygirl wrote:
I was fascinated to note that the Government has made no mention of looking into the numerous subsidies paid to farmers. Could this be due to the fact that the wealthy farming community is made up of the biggest contributors to the Tory Party and are therefore "off limits" I wonder?

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Well said Number 20, Lingfieldgambler.

The private sector does not want to see public sector employees lose their jobs, nor do we wish to see pay cuts for those on less than average pay.

But we need a recognition, and that is a financial recognition, from those public sector employees on above average salaries that they must contribute significantly more for their pensions or face them being restricted.

As has been said many times, a private sector employee will get 3% of the value of his or her private pension pot, if they were to take out an index linked pension.

This a £10K pension would need a pension pot of around £300K - think how difficult it is to amass such a pot over the last 15 years when investment returns have been dreadful.

The same public sector employee faces absolutely no investment risk, they get their £10K pension irrespective of what the gilt and equity markets are doing.

So it is inordinately difficult for someone in the private sector to amass a pot that will pay "just" £10K a year.

The massive costs and massive inequities exist for those public sector employees and there are many (not the below average salaried, but many of the others) whose pensions are in a bracket of £25K- £40K. These would cost around £800K - £1.2M for a private sector pension pot to fund.

And then we get into the realms of middle to senior civil servants, higher graded teachers, NHS managers, doctors etc etc etc (and yes MPs) whose pensions can range from £40K - £70/£80K.

A private sector pension pot of £1.2M to £2.4M would be needed to fund these. These are preposterous amounts and either need to be capped immediately or need huge new contributions from the recipients.

Remember that on average a private sector employee would need to contribute 40% of salary for 40 years to get the same index linked pension as the public sector employee on the same wage.

So let's start by targeting all those public sector pensions above a certain level. They have either got away with it for years because MPs and civil servants benefit the most and they control the impetus for change or noone has hammered on about the huge benefits and cost of these guaranteed and risk free pensions.

26. At 7:48pm on 23 Jun 2010, TonyE1951 wrote:
Would the public sector pension black hole be so large if the employers hand't enjoyed a contribution holiday for over 10 years?
They didn't put that money aside in case this would happen, they gleefully spent it!
Shame I'm not a banker who got us in this mess in the first place then I'd be able to claim the pension is part of my contract and nobody could touch it!

Well, most of the public sector schemes are unfunded, so they can't take a contribution holiday, as there are no contributions made!

NEXT....

27. At 7:50pm on 23 Jun 2010, monic1511 wrote:
Why did the news not highlight the part where the lady said her colleagues public sector pension will be £5K pa and her lump sum is £1K - this is the gold plated public sector pension payable after 30 years service.

Those numbers are incorrect....after 30 years service, if the pension was £5k then the lump sum would be£7500

After that, I didn't bother reading the rest of your post

As nothing has been done to prevent the banks and investment firms from gambling away your retirement accounts....again, it really doesn't matter what system is devised. Mainly the thrust is to get as much money in the control of these firms so they can loan money at high interest to the governments that bailed them out after the banks robbed the people. The banks own this government and many more and not one of them has the courage to protect the interest of the people...what in now called "policy" was in the past called "corruption."
A start might be to set a repayment plan with the banks to payoff the bad loans that the government assumed. A punishment tax for the problems they have caused and a new law that states that boad of directors and CEO's and CFO's can have their personal wealth attached when this happens again. Accountability is the mother of caution. 1 in 5 of all future tax revenues will go to debt service. Only a corrupt government would accept the terms of these unethical bankers and tax their own people so that banks can invest in Asian economies. Politicians are simply hooligans working for the bankers. None of this is going to work because it is nothing more than what it was before. One day people will wake up but there may not be much left to wake up too. The Vikings had more class and did less damage...but I would suppose they were the ancesters of todays bankers.....the art of plunder lives on.

29. At 7:51pm on 23 Jun 2010, mrnaughty2 wrote:
16. At 6:59pm on 23 Jun 2010, Kevinb wrote:


"Many in the public sector will sadly start to abuse the generous sickness scheme, as many of your colleagues are unable to understand that mathematics, not politics makes this change necessary".

Kevin, is that what you did whilst working in the public sector?

No, thought not!

Certainly not, I would never do that

Watch for the news stories on higher sickness rates amongst public sector employees......it is so obvious that it will happen

21. At 7:25pm on 23 Jun 2010, D Dortman wrote:
6. At 6:05pm on 23 Jun 2010, Steve wrote:

To achieve a final salary, index linked pension in the private sector of sixty to seventy thousand pounds a year would require a pension savings pot of over one point five million pounds. I'm afraid some people in public service are going to need to face some hard truths.


(Reply)The figure of £60 to £70K would only be payable to Doctors and Trust CEO's who have worked for 40+years in the NHS.
------------------------------------------------------------------




Indeed, public pensions have been far too generous for far too long, allowing people to retire at ~50 years old in many cases with a serious incoming for life (the "life" bit being longer than they actually worked for).

'(Reply)I don't know of anyone in the NHS who can retire on FULL pension at 50...Those with Mental Health Officer status were allowed to retire at 55 but only those who started before 1996 all those who joined after this date must work until at least 60.

It will be interesting to see 60+ year ol;ds having to lift and move parients or in as in my old job deal with violent incidents the same goes for 60+ year old police officers chasing criminals!!!

I have just retired from the NHS at 55 my pension is £17K a year after 28 years, the last 10 as a ward manager.'

Private pensions have been destroyed recently, but 1+1 will never equal 5 so they had to be (as public pensions will have to be).


Basically the post-war generation have lived life large and left a debt problem for the next 10 generations of their children.




Clearly no one likes to lose £££'s, but 1+1=2 that's just how it is, and to balance the UKs books things have to give.

For the majority public servants, except the highest paid, there always has been a balance between relatively low wages and a more generous pension than in the private sector. The issues we face today are: longer and increasing life spans, too low retirement ages, too much legislation resulting in the need for too many civil servants. teachers and lecturers must be seen to be a distinctly different and more essential category of public servant, in that they carry out an irreplaceable service to society and to industry and commerce. a 25% reduction in this area of public service would be a major disservice to society at large and should be opposed. Our universities and schools must be protected in this time of financial difficulties. However, the teacher's and lecturer's unions should recognise the need for them to accept older retirement ages and higher payments into their pension funds.

"US President Barack Obama sacked General Stanley McChrystal after he made critical comments about his administration in a magazine interview."
Not relevant to this blog but:
(a) It's a sign of a weak President more interested in protecting his reputation than keeping a man who is capable and who they chose in the first place. McChrystal's mistake wasn't military whereas Obama's definitely is. Obama should have called in McChrystal, had a bloody good row with him and then told him to "Get out there and get it sorted."
(b) It puts some of our men directly at more risk as they're under US command.

Kevinb @ practically all the posts.

Kevin.

I have something to admit.I thought Cameron was very good today...I could'nt see his lips moving at all when Clegg was talking...how does he do it ?

Another thing...I notice you post every day,all day...how much does Conservative Central Office pay you...?

38

I was pleased when Obama was elected, yet this, on top of the way he has handled the BP affair, has meant that I have lost all faith in him

I think it was crigeworthy watching dumb and dumber today on
tv do they really think raising vat and cutting benefits is going to create
jobs anyone can see we are heading straight back to the 90s I can't beleive
what's going on and it's obvious they will keep blaming
labour for everything I know the country was in a mess financially
but I think labour had a better plan. Also people on dvla are constantly
being assessed on their ability to work this is not something new

Financing public sector pensions is not a serious problem because they are usually at least partially unfunded. Pensioners are paid using contributions from current employees and employers, or in the case of some non-contributory government schemes by the government, who is the employer anyway. Any increase in costs due to longer life expectancy can easily be dealt with by increasing contributions from current employers and/or employees, who are be those likely to enjoy their pensions for longer.

Because nowadays even the largest private firms cannot guarantee indefinite existence, their pensions have to be funded and funds can be lost, through employers granting themselves contribution holidays, taxes and collapsing stock markets. This is the problem - not public sector pensions. Instead of tackling this problem by, for example, setting up an adequate national scheme, the coalition government is seeking to bring public pensions down to the level of private ones.

The prospect of a decent pension is one of the few things that attract young people into vital, but difficult and underpaid public service jobs like teaching and social work. If this incentive were removed, better wages and salaries would be required to recruit the people needed and costs would go up not down.

35 Kevin

Try not to be to judgementalat 35.

Interesting though. Private Pensions fraud - companies started raiding pension funds.

This was followed by the financial services mis-selling of pensions.

Any financial advisor will take a large fee to make sure your O.K. in your old age.

I for one am pleased that the public sector have been saved from the misery caused by these so-called financial experts to many individuals in the private sector.

Yes I do have a small pensions but in the main have other securities (wouldn't trust a financial investor as far as I could throw them).

More importantly the idea of retirement is quite disturbing. I rather like the idea of meeting my maker still wearing my working boots.

As I will working till I drop, won't be needing to take my State Pension so I'm more than willing to give this up to someone than is in need of it more than I - Someone like Sir Fred Goodwin perhaps.

BTW = Good to see England progress and even better to know that we are still providing Wayne and Coleen with child benefit. It was obviously playing on his mind but now it's been cleared up, a much improved performance all round.

The level of hostility shown to public sector workers in some of these posts is truly shocking. Apparently we're not satisfied that most public sector workers are low paid we want to take away their modest pensions also.
Surely if we are unhappy about (a very few) people getting large pensions then the answer is to progressively tax them in the same way as we should for people who "earn" (note the quotes) large incomes. We could use the money released by this approach to increase the pensions paid at the lower end of the spectrum (private or public sector).
This approach treats people fairly no matter what sector they work or have worked in.

I'm one of the "lucky" public sector workers who it appears is being lined up to "feel the private sector's pain" so feel entitled and obliged to rant.

Every month for the last 19 years I have paid mandatory contributions of 11% (yes, eleven percent) of my gross salary towards my pension. How many in the private sector contribute at that level? Very few.

How many in the public sector? Very few. Some schemes are even non-contributory. Please, whether through ignorance or malice, don't make the mistake of thinking there is just one one 'public sector pension'. I also pay above average amounts of tax and national insurance. In effect 'I' pay my wages to at least the degree 'you' probably do!

At 25 I took a drop in salary when I started this career but I didn't complain, safe (ha ha) in the knowledge that at least I would have a reasonable retirement if I stuck at a job that we really really can't avoid having somebody do.

People call me "Lucky" because over the following 19 years I have been shot at (with real not television) bullets fired by real (not television) baddies. I have been petrol bombed. Had care in the community patients try to stab and hatchet me to death. I have given mouth to mouth and first aid to people shot, stabbed and otherwise horifically hurt as they breathed their last and died in my arms. Had cars driven at me and just plain old fashioned kicks, punches, headbutts, bites, spit and vomit inflicted on me. Up close and personal.

The 24/7 365 shifts mean while you celebrate birthdays, christmas and new year with family and friends some of us are out there facilitating you to do it in relative peace and safety. I am regularly 'on call' and last week worked 28 hours in a day and a half, because it had to be done. My family which includes two children under three don't know when (No lets be honest here....IF) they will see me again when I go out to work.

In a so called 'civilised' society human beings shouldn't experience what I have experienced in my 'lucky' public sector job with it's "gold plated pension". I am scarred for life. I am forced to retire at age 55/30 years service, and lets be honest again you really wouldn't want 65 year old wrecks doing what I do now, trust me on this. Believe it or not, and I don't care, but it's all true and not unique.

You won't hear it reported but my pension scheme has already been closed and replaced by a far worse one for NEW entrants. The only fair way to do it. We all know what we are signing up for financially and plan accordingly. I genuinely feel for the private sector (my friends & family don't forget) but everyone had the option to do what I have done. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic but haven't we forgotten that it was corrupt financial institutions and nicely rewarded politicians who got us into this mess? Not people who do what I do!

Consider all of the above and then tell me again I am not worthy of MY family's pension.

£60000 to £70000 pension Steve? Where did this come from? The idea of teaching for 40 years to get half your salary? With behaviour in schools as it is? You HAVE to retire around 60 to maintain your health. I take two different anti depressants, one of which I have taken for ten years. Yes things will have to change, and one reform was introduced some four years ago. More will come, but lets stop the baying wolves, the jealousy, the 'if I must suffer then I want to see you suffer' mentality. Let's have a calm and rational debate, not a hate campaign led by the Mail and Telegraph. we really are becoming quite a nasty little society arent we?

I am a lecturer in further education and already pay a fare amount every month into my pension I have 25 years industry experience 6 years of college and 3 years of UNI under my belt to be able to teach my pension is what I work for now my kids are frown I don't get any benefits what more does this government want from me blood they are a disgrace I feel I have earned what I hope to get in my pension now it is going to change

39 Craig

If I may same advise to you as to Kevin (43). Please try not to be judgemental he is trying not to be tribal but very difficult when England are playing.

And Kev at 40 I know exactly what you mean - Very pleased when the Coalition government formed but GO budget means I've lost all faith.

41

wrote

Also people on dvla are constantly
being assessed on their ability to work this is not something new

I think you meant dla, and NO, there is no continuous assessment, hence the introduction of medicals from 2013

If this was already happening, it couldn't be introduced...

None of this should measure much on the Richter Scale.

As David Cameron said there have been many examples of salary freezes and higher pension contributions from employees in the private sector. By adopting similar measures in the public sector the government is starting to develop a more level playing field in the employment market.

We can moan and groan but we're living in difficult economic times. Unless and until the Labour Party reveals a series of tax/spending measures that it would have taken to deal with the budgetary deficit there is not much to talk about.

45

Ignoring the emotive stuff, which is irrelevant in the context of the subject under discussion, which is your pension, then due to the contributions that you make, you have nothing to worry about

So why are you?

45 Lucky

Good try but sorry sir Fred still gets my state pension (mine 43) but all the best to you and your family and also a word that you wouldn't have heard very often in your line of duty - Thank you!

43

I am not being judgemental, I am just saying it will happen...in fact try this for size

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/10374850.stm

Financial advice is like all things in life, you have to make sure that you are getting it from the right person

You don't actually know that Wayne Rooney claims child benefit, so maybe that comment was best not said

43

Or this

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10253034.stm

Or this

https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/19/nhs-sick-leave

My comment was that it will get worse, from here on in

Hardly judgemental, just providing some facts, as usual

It will be "ok" for Clegg and Cameron - for when they are looking to retire there will be a place in the Lords, a few dozen directorships and private health care.

These public school boys know nothing of the public sector and the dedicated work provided by thousands of workers to serve the community - often in poor working conditions and with historical low pay. Why are they not striking at their mates in the Banks who caused the problems and who continue to enjoy the fruits of their ill-gotten gains? Let's see the size of their pensions, their salaries and their bonuses. Come on boys play the game - we know you won't - so beware - especially Clegg 'cause after the next election you will be rewarded for your treachery - to working people - you will be holding a meeting of your MP's in the back of a taxi -for that is the fate of Liberals who betray their convictions to side with Tories - I am sure they taught you history at public school

45, Delta 31.

I cant see any rational contributor denying you or your colleagues your pension. Indeed, I doubt most private sector contributors would argue with the pensions received by those in the police, army, firefighters, many in the front line of the NHS etc etc.

Teaching is a slightly argument. Do they not think those in the private sector have to worry about job security, stresses, long hours, health issues, significantly fewer holidays etc etc, the list is endless but that is not the point.

The real gripe is with those middle management and above civil servants, teachers, managers, local authority managers, etc etc (I know they have a different scheme, but the cost is massive) judges, doctors etc etc who often retire 5- 10 years earlier than a private sector person can and yet will receive a pension significantly in excess of the private sector one. These individuals (not army, police, fire, front line NHS etc) need to either contribute significantly more or have their pensions scaled back.

It is not the politics of envy or creating a public/private sector split, it is that everyone (including public and private sector employees) has to pay tax to pay their pensions which cost everyone too much.

22. At 7:33pm on 23 Jun 2010, D Dortman wrote:
13. At 6:46pm on 23 Jun 2010, HoggyatEastlands wrote:

I haven't been in the public sector for many years, so I would draw a modest pension of around £10k if I retired now. I am contributing 6.7% of my salary into a local government pension scheme in the hope of achieving something like £20k a year when I retire at the age of 66.
We're not all fat cat mandarins by any stretch of the imagination


Not sure how anybody could believe that a local government position is NOT in the public sector... How is a local government pension scheme NOT in the "public sector"?

Who do you think pays for a salary and contributes to your pension?

The local public? But with most "Local Government" spend distributed from a Central Government fund...
So you are in the "public sector" aren't you?

So what is your point?

55.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Don't be fooled into thinking this budget was just about the deficit (v serious though it is)...this is about the Tories sticking the boot into the public sector and shrinking the state on ideological grounds. The deficit has given them the cover they need.

Osbourne's cuts are way over the top. He keeps going on about Canada as an example...they consulted for about four years before making cuts, did them over a much longer time period of 14 years and had their main trading partner, the USA, in good health economically to provide private sector growth. Sweden, the other example, cut over 19 years.

Osbourne got about every call wrong during the banking crisis...he's just done it again.

No doubt someone will come back on this to correct details...but its the gist of what happened.

Why is International Development to be wholly protected from cuts?

£7.8 billion given to dictators and corrupt regimes is a lot of money....

Even if the overseas aid the UK gives has to be protected (I'm not convinced), DFID should be compelled to make a 25% cut in their internal running costs alongside other government departments. It's particularly disgraceful that while cuts will be made in education spending in the UK, DFID will be funding education programmes overseas.

LG

Kev 53

"Financial advice is like all things in life, you have to make sure that you are getting it from the right person"

And that's the mistake many in the private sector made - Unfortunately they took advice from the Government of the day - Erm! not her finest hour was it.

Come on, let’s think the unthinkable – no, not that (!) Osborne would never agree to that - go blue sky on pensions is what I mean. Perhaps neither final salary nor money purchase is the way to go. The FS schemes belong to the era of one career/job with steady salary progression up to retirement age. This is not the world of work we have now and we’re only going to move further from it. The MP schemes on the other hand are overly subject to the vagaries of investment returns and annuity rates etc. I’d like our brave and reforming Coalition to look at a model whereby you contribute while working (as heavily as you can afford, but flexibly, and also with some compulsion) and the money goes into a pot to be managed by a suitable government agency. Managed in steady, low risk, unspectacular fashion – this is ALL employee pensions, btw, not just public sector. You get a guarantee that your pension will equal your money back plus X% compound annual return – where X is set each year based on long term, low risk sterling yields (e.g. gilt linked). Your pension will be bigger (a) the more you put in, and (b) the longer it stays there, and (c) the higher is X. On retirement, you get exactly what you’ve been guaranteed (no more no less) ... convert to annuity at standard (= current X) rate ... and the state takes any profit or loss from the difference between the guarantee and the actual returns made. Then a safety net – a minimum below which no one can fall – to catch people who come up short. Safety net amount to be pitched nicely between too much and not enough. Such a model would create parity across the public and private sectors and (I hope) entail more a raising of the bar for the private sector than a lowering of it for the public sector.

Given that a percentage of so-called ex-service personnel are now claiming for all sorts of post conflict related illnesses. And given the fact that the British government spends billions of pounds yearly on the defence of their various illegal occupations. Does it not make sense for the British government to bring home the British army and keep its big nose out of other countries affairs.

This would undoubtedly ensure that the British government have the money to properly look after its citizens. After all it is the citizens money which the government is spending.

It is time the British government spent the peoples money on the people and not on the illegal invasion and occupation of other people's countries!!!

Dear Nick.
An interesting slant on all this budget stuff is figures released here in Scotland today which confirm what many here already know. That is the fact that Scotland's revenue contribution is actually 1.3£bn in surplus based on current spending levels and would be in even greater surplus should the current savings be made. In-fact Scotland has been in surplus over the last thirty years even despite the down turn. But as usual the Tories will be using money raised in Scotland to bail out the rest of the UK while telling everyone that Scotland scrounges of everyone. Its time that downright lie was put to bed forever. Nick you should go and find a copy of the G.E.R.S. report and vector it in to these budget discussions.

As the people of Scotland begin to discover that we are in-fact a rich country which has been helping out his debt ridden big brother for years, the momentum for demands for full fiscal autonomy or independence will become unstoppable.

I would recommend Mr Cameron to move towards FULL fiscal autonomy for Scotland as quickly as possible if he wants to maintain the Union.

58

We haven't got 4 years to sort this out.....until you accept that, you will be looking for things that aren't there

Just for you, I will clarify the banking shares

We own 41% of Lloyds....ave buy price 63.5p....(current share price 58.7p) currently worth £16.239bn (our share)

We own 84% of RBS........ave buy price 49.9p....(current share price 46.7p) currently worth £22.924bn(our share)

So, in actual fact we want the banks to do well

We can't sell the shares in one go, they will need to be sold in tranches, and we shouldn't really start selling until the price is 100p

To get to that point, we NEED them to do well

This means that we get our money back, as well as a profit, and also that in the meantime they will be paying the levy AND corporation tax

We want the bankers to earn a lot, then they will pay a lot of tax

I am as angry as anybody about HBOS and NR in particular, and I would have broken up the former, and allowed the latter to go bust

RBS were a disgrace

However, at some point, people need to stop and think about where we are, and what we need to happen to get out of this mess

IF we assume that eventually we get 100p net of sales costs for our shares, then that is going to be £76.75bn in revenue over maybe the next 10 years

So, be angry with the banks that were to blame, yet try and get past the anti-banks sentiment, as we need them to succeed big time

The Prime Minister 'misled' the public when he said it was pay restraint or job cuts. The chancellor by cutting 25% out of whitehall budgets guarantees job cuts. In the last three years the civil service has had below inflation pay rises - a pay cut by any other terms. now the freeze makes this worse and on top of that we could lose 300,000 tax generating jobs with no private sector replacements. how will this cut the benefit bill.

I have another question for the Prime Minister. How does cutting the budget of trading fund agencies help the deficit when the cuts will not be passed back to the treasury. Agencies such as Companies House and the Passport Office cover their costs by charging fees. they also have to make >3% efficiency saving each year and pay a dividend (£2 million in the case of companies house_ to their parent department. Any cuts in the running costs have to by law we matched by cuts in the fees. No extra money is generated to cut the deficit or the parent departments budgets. these are efficient organisations that are not funded by central taxation and cutting them will not help. So why is this idealogical axe being wielding on efficient parts of the public sector, risking their health?

Millions of us are self-employed or work through agencies. We have to save for our own retirement or make our own pension provision. There is no employer contributing to our savings or pensions.

It is time that public sector employees woke up and realised just how fortunate they are. Most can spend their monthly salary in full knowing that that will have substantial pension income to live off when they retire.

For true fairness, there should be no employer contibutions into public sector pension schemes.

60. At 9:56pm on 23 Jun 2010, mrnaughty2 wrote:

Kev 53

"Financial advice is like all things in life, you have to make sure that you are getting it from the right person"

And that's the mistake many in the private sector made - Unfortunately they took advice from the Government of the day - Erm! not her finest hour was it.

To what are you referring?

61 Saga

It's a terrific idea - Probably your best yet amd there's been a few. However to carry it through I fear you will need to find a much more progressive government than this and by progressive I mean not one that hijacks the word "progressive" for a budget that was anything but!

#58 Craigmarpool wrote:
"Osbourne's cuts are way over the top. He keeps going on about Canada as an example...they consulted for about four years before making cuts, did them over a much longer time period of 14 years and had their main trading partner, the USA, in good health economically to provide private sector growth. Sweden, the other example, cut over 19 years."

I don't agree with your first sentence at all, but the paragraph is interesting. Why do you think the cuts and tax rises are for 5 years only? By the end of the Parliament the coalition should have eliminated the structural deficit. However, by then the debt will not have been reduced at all and will have grown to nearly 1.4 trillion.

To reduce the debt to a sustainable level (40% of GDP, one of Gordon Brown's fiscal rules) we will probably need at least another 5 years of cuts and tax rises. So this is already a project for 2-3 Parliaments.

Sounds terrible, doesn't it? That's why Osborne is facing reality and his detractors are in denial as to the scale of the problem.

51 @Kevinb

The "emotive stuff" is what I and many others in the public sector can never consider irrelevant to the debate, unlike it appears so many from the chattering classes, rather it should be considered integral.

My example may be extreme but is by by no means unique, and the emotive stuff you refer to is oft cited in connection with our military being undervalued and under-rewarded. Society has certain s****y jobs that have to be performed by people willing to deal with things the rest of us aren't. The contract society makes with us is that we will be looked after for performing those tasks, and living with the consequences to our safety, health and sanity. I have worked in the private sector. I am sorry... there is no valid comparison between the risks and consequences with my current job.

Additionally, because I was conscious of sounding too martyred in post 45, I omitted the more mundane consequences of doing what I do. Restrictions are placed on my social, recreational and political life to the point of having to self-censor what I write here or being unable to display an election poster in the window of my own home. Indeed, the location and suitability of my home is also subject to the approval of my employer, as is my choice of partner, who I associate with and where, the right to strike, even what I have to drink with my evening meal at certain times.

I could go on but won't, because I went into it knowing the rules.....and the rewards that would compensate me for submitting to them. I am not greedy and accept that the balance is about right as it stands now. I'm not after more!

Suffice to say MY pension is a massive part of that contract society makes with me to do what I do on it's behalf. You would need to pay a damned sight more in salary otherwise I can assure you.

Oh, and we are worried because without a doubt we are an easy target about to be hammered and the consequences frighten me at least as much as the baddies I try to keep from your door!

52 @mrnaughty2

Wasn't 'venting' to garner praise but 'Thank you's' are indeed unusual and greatfully received.

This Government makes me quiver with rage. How can anyone takeaway money from firefighters, nurses or doctors? People who save lives and risk their own lives in the process. Sheffield will lose an unbelievable amount of business, and Clegg will lose his seat, hopefully, because of this. Time for Clegg to go and save the tax payer some money!!!

I have worked very hard for the civil service for 28 years and before you all start moaning, have found £100s million/savings for business and Government in recent years. Unlike the private sector, I didn't get a big bonus or cut of that, I did it because I enjoy doing a good job. We all recognise that pay is substantially worse than our equivalents in the private sector but job security and the pension (for which 9% of pay is hypothecated) supposedly balance that out.

Contrary to popular myth, I cannot remember a single pay deal in the last ten years where civil servants got a decent pay deal. The effect of two consecutive pay cuts of 5% AND a cut to pension terms AND massive reductions imminent in redundancy terms (which were so generous they were agreed by that legendary socialist Mrs Thatcher thirty years ago) just before the Government makes 25% job cuts is absolutely massive. Morale was already rock-bottom and I suspect that right across the public sector any tiny remaining shreds of goodwill - on which both public and private sectors depend - have now completely gone. The next time a Minister makes a foul-up and wants me to sort it out over the weekend, he can do it himself.

The Prime Minister cannot honestly say that the Government had no choice either. They could have lowered the 50% tax band to £100k; introduced the mansion tax; lowered the inheritance tax threshold slightly or cracked down on tax avoidance by the super-rich. None of these would have affected 98% of the population but obviously this Government would rather crucify the public sector than ask the rich to pay slightly more.

#16. Kevinb wrote:

"#13 Don't underestimate what that £10K pension is worth!!

You would probably need a pension fund well in excess of £350K to provide this, based on current annuity rates"

You might get one at 65, male, single life, RPI indexed for a bit less perhaps £275K. for a £10k pension - (but the annuity market is currently pricing in an increase in interest rates in offering this rate of 3.6% -unlike you!)

The point is that annuity rates reflect and are related to interest rates - so unless interest rates rise (and inflation does not rise dramatically) then pensions become less expensive to buy. Now you know where I am going with the argument don't you KevinB - your blind pursuit of maintaining (for personal reasons) derisory, almost nugatory, interest rates so devalues and under-prices money as to make annuity rates possibly fall further. This is why I see that interest rates must rise to rebalance the economy - if they don't and soon, most company and all personal pension plans will almost inevitably collapse. This is apparently what you want!!!!

This is lovely, because private companies have been plundering the pension funds, failing to invest and paying directors huge bonuses the government must be nasty to Civil Servants. Very noble.

So work for 35 years receiving below inflation payrises in good times to avoid "overheating the economy" and then take below inflation payrises in the bad times "because the country cannot afford it".

Whats the bet it doesnt apply to MPs?

Remind me: if its okay for todays Civil Servants to have a pay freeze and their pensions slashed why shouldnt the whole private sector? How about a national pay policy?

Are we not all in this together?

I bet the heads of the CBI are doing very nicely thanks. They cannot be expected to slum it by using a mere 4 star hotel when they next have a month in Barbados.

This is a bunch of rich Etonians hitting out at people who do not genuflect to them. Nothing noble. Nothing constructive. Base ideology.

62 DisgustedinDERRY

"Does it not make sense for the British government to bring home the British army and keep its big nose out of other countries affairs."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you do not consider yourself British then maybe you should keep your "big nose" out of British tax and spend matters.

67 Kev

Well lets try the 1986 Social Security Act for starters and see where we go from there.

Sorry got to go but hope you caught hold of Newsnight tonight. The whole budget relys on Growth and specifically exports in the Private Sector and within 3 years. Big ask wouldn't you agree? Impossible would be my opinion but as an exporter what would I know.

Regards

Mr N.

"Many in the public sector will sadly start to abuse the generous sickness scheme, as many of your colleagues are unable to understand that mathematics, not politics makes this change necessary"

If only you understood the mathematics and politics that make your comment intellectually redundant.

As MPs and PMs are public sector worker - will the cut pensions also apply to them?

What the ConDems seem incapable of understanding is that the public sector is propping up this economy and has been for years. We can argue over the nature of the jobs that have been created and their usefulness, but the fact is that these people have been spending their money in the wider economy and sustaining what is left of the private sector. Take this away and the economy will go into a freefall decline.

The reality is that the private sector has not been creating high-skilled, high paid jobs on these shores. Globalisation has enabled firms to exploit loopholes and locate abroad in China, India and Eastern Europe where they can get away with paying low wages, and import their goods at highly inflated prices. Any jobs have been low-paid service-sector. How exactly do they expect this to change? Are they seriously expecting firms to change tack and locate here? Are they also expecting China, India and Eastern Europe to stop producing and instead buy our goods? If so, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Add the increases in VAT and consumption will fall and more jobs in the private sector will go.

The mess we are in is less a reflection of Labour's mis-managaement, but more one of a realisation that the world (private sector) economy needs considerably less labour, whilst the population is expanding. The economic model is no longer fit for purpose.

Unless my memory serves me wrong, when I entered the public sector after fifteen years in business, I accepted a drop in income because I knew the security of the job and the pension scheme was the other side of the coin. Now, when public sector pay for any skilled or professional role is the equal of, or more than a private sector jobs, why do people in the public sector STILL expect gold-plated pensions? The last government are proud of what they did for the benefits system(see Ed Balls on Newsnight tonight for confirmation of that), yet did it by almost bankrupting the economy. The country just can't afford this any more - specially when the state pension is so derisory. When will the penny drop?

For God's sake, does anyone in this country think about anyone other than themselves. Our boys are being blown up abroad and people are worried about benefits and gold plated pensions, this is how it is so postpone your next plasma or holiday and suck it up.

Why are these people moaning. Labour brought this mess upon in the lat 13 years. The new government have been in power for a short period and are having to answer questions that a previos regime put is in. Whoever is in government had to make these cuts to protect out great country. Because of the overspending by Labour we have to pay the price now. I am glad that change has happened but it's too late and to penalise the new government for these cuts are ludicrous. If nothing happened in this country then Greece springs to mind but 50% worse. I am not a high earner, but am a mortgage holder and a full taxpayer. Deal with the cuts and increases as we all have to thanks to a poor Labour goverment. Why is Gordon Brown not up there answering questions? Did everyone imagine that David Cameron & Nick Clegg were going to arrive with £100,000,000 in a treasure chest and eveything was going to be OK. Blame Labour and let this new government get on with rectifying the poor leadership of the last 13 years.

2 and 61 saga

"Cool heads required on public sector pensions. Easy to get it wrong."

"I’d like our brave and reforming Coalition to look at a model whereby you contribute while working (as heavily as you can afford, but flexibly, and also with some compulsion) and the money goes into a pot to be managed by a suitable government agency."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You demonstrated how easy it is to get it wrong with your idea in 61.

I don't want "some compulsion" to have my pension managed by a suitable government agency (G Brown Investment Managers anyone?), who will decide what is best for me and act accordingly. I want to choose from the market, which may be provider X , do it myself via a SIPP etc.

It is pretty clear that most people who have final salary benefits have absolutely no idea how much they cost to provide.

delta31 @ 41, you sound like you are a member of the 1987 Police Scheme and will be able to retire at 55 having paid 11% of salary for 30 years -this is roughly 3.5 years worth of pay to fund a pension of 66% of salary for the next 30 years or so.

Why shouldn't you do a desk job until 65 (4.5 years of pay to fund a pension for 20 years) freeing up younger officers to fight crime on the streets rather than doing paperwork, and making your pension benefits more affordable into the bargain?

Cameron has told a blatant lie in his comment that he would not touch accrued pensions. That's exactly what the Tories did yesterday linking pensions to CPI rather than RPI because it saves several billion a year.

I do not know why there is all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about pension cuts. I was told over 30 years ago at a course run by one of the less salubrious higher education establishments that I would be lucky to get a pension. It is not so much the economic climate that necessitates the cuts ( although it does aggravate the matter), it is pure demographics - the number of people in work paying to support the population of pension age. And this comment was made before life expectancy was as high as it is now. The working population should have had this drilled into them sooner and more frequently in order to lessen expectations. It would have been kinder but less politically acceptable.

@64 kevinb
"We want the bankers to earn a lot, then they will pay a lot of tax"

So WE pay them a lot of money, so that we get a small proportion (they can afford good tax accountants) back in tax.

Incidentally, why does this argument only apply to bankers?

rjw times @ 71

"This Government makes me quiver with rage."

Yes me too. They've only been in seven weeks and I've gone right off them.

Great budget by the Conservative govt (there is no meaningful Lib Dem input).

Even better were the cynically cherry picked 'readers reactions' on the beeb website. Great stuff.

First off, you cut back on already squeezed Public sector budgets and claim this won't cause redundancies. Good move - unless of course you ask for real term cuts (ie total spend on a dept) that means services will suffer. This is because the govt (behind closed doors) has told depts there is no money for redundancies.

So, they either cut back on what they can offer, or look to got down the legal battle strewn road of amending contracts.

Let me explain how dumb that is.

On the one hand, if you affect services, the Public loses out, and that means you as a dept become disillusioned, and like any organisation, productivity suffers. How does that help the countries recovery?

On the other, if you end up in court finding endless legal battles over cuts to contractual agreements, ie pay and pensions, that will cost the country millions of pounds and waste everybody's time.

Add in to that mix, the individual tribunal cases for unlawful deductions of earnings and breach of contract and it all adds up to a another colossal waste of tax payers money.

Better still, Osbournes cronies have been laying down the law on the sites of Public sector depts. In a major common sense move, offices are being told they must leave any property privately owned and move into Crown property. Sound good so far? Well yes, part from the fact that each move costs hundreds of thousands of pounds for small depts and millions with larger. Yet private sector rents being paid add up to nowhere near that kind of cost even over a five year period......... and I thought the govt was looking to save money.

At the same time, in a typical Tory move, depts cannot take on new Consultants for business development purposes, yet the govt is dictating that depts 'must' take on firms to consult on efficency savings.

You couldn't make it up could you.........

Back to the cuts. Its great fun watching the private sector 'Daily Telegraph believers' ranting on about how these cuts are a 'good thing', yet seem happy to ignore the fact that 1,000's of jobs will be lost as a result. But not in the Public sector - in the Private.

Many companies rely on govt contracts, in particular in the current climate, to keep them afloat. Some companies, who were looking to take people on as a result of govt tenders, having seen Osbourne snatch them away, are now already looking at redundancies.......

Add in the VAT rise (Can we believe a single word they say - well, no actually) the cuts to benefits, cuts to pay (in real terms) and all that adds up to is a cut in spending power.

Which only affects - the Private sector.

The economy is still very, very fragile. Many companies are teetering on the brink. That budget may well be the death of them.

Did someone say 'double dip recession?

75 muadib2

"This is a bunch of rich Etonians hitting out at people who do not genuflect to them. Nothing noble. Nothing constructive. Base ideology."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It is an attempt to prevent the IMF being called in and as such is both noble and constructive. Whether or not it works will be seen over the coming months and years.

I suspect that when consultation starts on the cuts, there may be more public support for cutting benefit payments rather than public services.

I feel like a lone voice shouting against a storm of anti, (envious? )posters who keep screaming that public sector pensions are unfunded and that massive "pots" are required to give a 10k pension to someone who has contributed 6% plus of their earnings for 30 or 40 years.

If one takes an average income of 10k over 40 years then the pensioner has contributed 26k and, if the employer had not taken a contribution holiday because times were good, then as much again should have gone into the FUND.

All local authority pensions have a fund. The West Midlands fund is over 6bn pounds.

Also PRIVATE concerns are members, organisations providing public type services and contractors to local authorites such as road repairers.

So please stop this envious and largely innacurate bile. There are half a million Civil Servants. There are three and a half million members of the Local Govt pension FUND. The Police , Fire ,NHS etc have their own arrangemnets ALL contributory but not necessarily funded.

Envy , like jealousy, is a destructive force.

currently we have 2 systems to help low income families child benfit and child tax credits, why not scrap child benfit and add it child tax credits therefore cutting out a whole department saving a fortune, also scrap working tax credit and just increase the tax threashold to compensate. there is no point taking money in through tax just to give it back via tax credits your paying 2 departments to do 1 job. Also if i work i get a tax code and if my wife works she gets a tax code however if i work and she doesnt we only get my tax allowance why not merge the tax code regardless of one person working or two, therfore allowing to keep more earnings should one person want to bring our children up? also whats the point of increasing v.a.t in simple terms for example if you get £10,000 in sales you would receive £1,700 in v.a.t when you increase the cost the amount of sales would tumble so say you lose 15% making £8500 in sales you would recive only £1,700 yet you put people into poverty.

As a debauched, overpaid nurse in the NHS can I also point out the frontline staff facing a pay freeze, pension cuts etc. as well as the VAT rise will also have to cope with the coalition's "stealth" cuts. While the NHS is said to be protected from budget cuts we have got to make 20-25% "efficiency savings" over the next five years. Efficiency is good but savings on this scale cannot be made without hitting essential services, for example we are already freezing nursing and medical posts in the community while cutting back on hospital beds. The savings are being arranged by...the managers of course.
I started nursing in 1979. Same old same old!

It is incredible to me to hear people saying openly on the programme that they can't work more as otherwise they will lose benefits. Surely if people can actually find paid work then they should do it, no question, and actively avoid claiming state benefits. I believe in the ethos of welfare state and think contributing is my responsibility as a citizen. However it is evident to me that the system cannot carry on as it is and clearly benefits were never intended for people who are fit for work to receive as an option instead of working. Some people nowadays seem to take this view and this 'entitlement' culture has gone too far .We desperately need to rebuild the values in our society so that people feel motivated /proud to be self reliant. As a nation we need to move away from an invidious parent/ child dependency relationship with the state. Some people , for example, now seem to presume the state is responsible for supporting their children and don't even consider providing for your child financially as part of what being a parent is about. It beggars belief! I believe it is wrong to ask for help from the state when you don't need it . Furthermore the welfare state is being undermined by people who do not share these values and abuse the system. To ensure welfare support continues in the UK, benefits should become a safety net not a way of life. The system needs to be restructured to engage people actively in developing their skills and moving people out of unemployment. No one should be actually discouraged from working by the benefit system. This matter needs urgent attention as I would hate to see the welfare state losing the support of the contributors and benefits reduced or removed from people who have a genuine need for state support.

I wish someone had asked why the depth of these cuts is unavoidable NOW when growth is low and our European markets are also cutting back.

As the Japanese economist on Newsnight pointed out, UK bonds are very marketable and the % interest we are paying on our debt is relatively low, if we continue to come out of recession. But if we are all frightened about losing our jobs, rising prices and salary cuts who will be buying at home or abroad?

Credit is not wrong, its what capitalism is based on but we should take care to spread the repayment of the huge borrowing that we were forced to make to bail out the banks over as many years as possible. Big debts take longer to pay off. If we all tried to pay off our mortgages in four years we would be living on bread and water.

I have just retired from the NHS at 55 my pension is £17K a year after 28 years, the last 10 as a ward manager.'
Private pensions have been destroyed recently, but 1+1 will never equal 5 so they had to be (as public pensions will have to be).
Basically the post-war generation have lived life large and left a debt problem for the next 10 generations of their children.

Retired at 55 after 28 years?
That's good deal. Where could I find it in the private sector?

The post-war generation have lived life large... So you and me both. Except my private sector pension won't be as generous as yours.

And I'm doubtful that anybody's debt will affect 10 generations of children - except that the realisation of appalling mismanaged government spending could live on in a collective memory...
Let's hope so.

How anyone can think of a £5k pension after 30 years service as excessive is beyond me when huge numbers of bankers in the partly-public owned banks, let alone the others, annually receive bonuses many times this amount.

As a nurse with 31 years service myself, I've always generally accepted that the pay's pants but the pension's ok as I also feel that I'm making a contribution to our society (even if I don't "create wealth"!) However while I don't "abuse the generous sickness scheme", dealing with an increasingly abusive public and reading the spite and ire spouted here I feel pretty sick.

81.

A recent review revealed that while pay for unskilled manual jobs is generally better than the private sector (probably because of unionisation), for skilled or professional jobs the public sector is paid less than the private sector.

Quote
Raw data suggests that, when comparing percentile levels of pay, public sector pay is higher than that in the private sector at all but the highest pay levels. However this is before allowing for differences between the profile of jobs, education level and workplace characteristics. For example, compared to the private sector, men in the public sector are more likely to have higher levels of education and to work in most of the occupations associated with higher pay. They are also more likely to be in a union, which is associated with higher levels of pay.
After controlling for those identifiable characteristics, the differences are less clear. For example, highly skilled male employees earn 5.5% less in the public sector, while unskilled public sector employees earn 7.2% more than their counterparts in the private sector.
Low paid workers are less likely than higher paid workers to be a member of a pension scheme in both the public and private sector. However the membership rates are particularly low at low income levels in the private sector where only 20% of employees earning between £100 and £200 a week are members of a pension scheme compared with 70% in the public sector.
(Pensions Policy Institute, ©March 2010 - ISBN 978-1-906284-12-1; Data from the Office for National Statistics -(2009) Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings)

95.

One word. Dogma.

Who believes that in the absence of a banking crisis, an incoming Tory govt. wouldn't have had the same agenda.

Slash and burn.

Clegg and Cameron face the music but public sector pensions and a rebalancing thereof, still seems like a sideshow when you consider that in 2014/15, the National Debt will be around £1400Bn and the servicing of that debt will then consume some £66Bn, and as I suggested earlier in this thread; the Government will probably resort to inflating away the National Debt by simply printing money.