1.5m council workers set to strike

story (http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA8285781142419479A0000?source=PA%20Feed)

The state sector pension obligation looks likely to bring this country to it's knees at some point in the future.

This Government continually ducks the issues and panders to the unions to avoid obvious points of conflict.

What would you do, face the problen head on and reform public sector pensions completely, or pacify the unions and pass the problem onto future generations when it will become a far bigger problem?

I'd sort the whole bleedin' lot out!

Get rid of all the public sector 'management' teams and put in some proven corporate leaders who understand the meaning of strategy, planning, accountability and a day's work. :ranting:

I did some work with Tower Hamlets a few years back and had to walk away from it before I killed somebody.

I agree I work for the Home Office and the incompetence is breathtaking. It is also grossly over staffed, if they got rid of half a dozen idiots and replaced them with one efficient person, think of all the tax payers money they could save.

Ooh, I had my e-mail from Dave the Rave Prentis this morning


Dear UNISON member,

I am writing to announce that you and your colleagues have delivered an 80% vote in favour of strike action over cuts to your pension scheme.

The first day of strike action will take place on Tuesday 28th March. This will be followed by a rolling programme of national, regional and selective action. Further details to be announced soon.

We are still pushing the Government and employers to resolve this dispute and give LGPS members the same protection they have granted to civil servants, teachers, police officers, fire fighters and the NHS.

If they do not see sense they will be responsible for provoking the biggest industrial action since 1926, involving over one million public service workers.

This action will be supported by nine other trade unions who today also delivered large yes votes in their strike ballots.

Please speak to as many other UNISON members as possible and encourage them to take part in the action.

The clock is now ticking to the first day of action on the 28th March.

On this day let us together deliver overwhelming strike action as part of our fight to defend the Local Government Pension Scheme.

Many thanks.

Dave Prentis
General Secretary, UNISON


Now, do I take the day off my maternity leave and ask Dave to look after the kids? Can I claim it back at a later date and go on strike when I get back to work? It's all so confusing.

Get rid of all the public sector 'management' teams and put in some proven corporate leaders who understand the meaning of strategy, planning, accountability and a day's work. :ranting:
Good, I know of a bunch of corporate leaders that have been looking for work. Ever since they left Enron ;)

At my previous employer the management savaged the final salary pension scheme. Or more accurately, they savaged the value of the pension for those that were far from retirement. For those near retirement (which, by astonishing coincidence, included all of the upper management) the value of the pension remained effectively unchanged.

Still every cloud has a silver lining. The changes to the pension scheme did wonders for the company balance sheet. Which came in handy when the management flogged off the company a year later (pocketing millions as majority shareholders - bunch of pr!cks :ranting: )

If UNISON has the muscle to stand up for its members' pension rights then best of luck to them.

...that's why I said 'proven' :kid:

You need to be more selective in your choice of employer, perhaps?

The Enron execs were "proven" until it turned out they were a bunch of sheisters.

There's no way of selecting an employer that will guarantee you a safe pension. Final salary pension has been clobbered just about everywhere. Several company pension schemes have gone belly up. The only way of getting any kind of protection is from a Union. So fair play to UNISON - why should its members suffer because every successive govt is incompetent?

So fair play to UNISON - why should its members suffer because every successive govt is incompetent?

The question is Mik, are they defending the indefensible?

One problem with state sector pensions is that they unfunded.

That means that todays taxes pay todays pensions.

Another problem is that there are now so many of them, with New Labour adding nearly 1 million employees to the government payroll since 1997.

Private sector final salary schemes are closing like there's no tomorrow becuase they are too expensive to guarantee.

Do state employees (and their unions) have the right to to insist that this expensive luxury and burdon on our already overstretched taxes remain?

Hello Groucho,

State sector registered pensions are not unfunded.

A proportion of our income taxes is meant to have to been invested to guarantee state pensions and other benefits. Government investments in this respect have faltered.

National insurance contributions are also taken into consideration here, not just for healthcare and NHS costs during our working lives but to some degree in our retirement. On the latter subject there is a seperate debate at present which looks at the NHS swindle on properties belonging to the elderly having to be sold to pay for care. The criteria in this respect is somewhat vague between medical care and ancilliary care.

National insurance contributions are calculated in terms of a percentage of income, the greater the income the greater the National insurance contribution. However, neither income tax or national insurance contributions guarantees an index inflation linked pension. It instead is supposed to guarantee a flat rate. It is the level of that flat rate which is under question also especially since the last 20 years has seen an ageing and healthier population living longer.

Public service worker pensions are funded via Superannuation contributions from employee and a tax incentive allowance from the Government sector being represented, i,e education, the health service, the police, fire brigade. You can carry your Superann forward to another public sector job, but you can not cash it in until you retire.

There is also a limit I gather as to how much you can personally invest in a private pension scheme, it used to be 17.5 % of your gross income. Serps I gather allowed people to benefit greater from there tax and national insurance contributions provided they opted out of having the state pension on retirement.The government would allow you to receive into your private pension plan a fixed figure from your tax and NI contributions.

As a result of the pension quandry the last 10 years has seen a downfall in the numbers taking up private pensions and saving schemes for fear of losing out on the flat rate state pension allowance, this has placed a greater burden on the state tax system and public service workers Superann schemes.

Maureen
Northern angel.

In respect of the above you can get a free pension guide from

0845 731 3233 quoting reference SL24 or you can visit there website at

www.pensionguide.gov.uk

The pension guides available are as follows;-


A guide to your pension options, this gives a general summary of the pension system and suggests points you should think about,

State pensions - your guide, this explains whether you are likely to get a state pension and how they work state pensions out,

Occupational pensions - your guide, this is useful if you are working for an employer running a pension scheme,

Personal pensions - your guide, this is useful if you are thinking about a personal pension scheme,

Pensions for the self employed - your guide, if you are self employed you have fewer options this guide will enable you to make the best possible decisions for you,

Pensions for women - your guide, as a woman your working life pattern will be different from a man's, for example a career break, having a family etc.. this guide lets you know your options.

Contracted - out pensions - your guide, this lets you know how to contract out of the state pension scheme and all the pros and cons of doing it.

Stakeholder pensions - your guide, this guide questions your reasons for joining a stakeholder pension and what is best for you.

State pensions for carers and parents - your guide explains what you are entitled to should you give up work to care for someone, it tries to inform you on how to guarantee the best possible state pension for your uncertain future. *Carers have national insurance payments guaranteed only for the duration of being a carer.


The media in reporting on this highly political subject may be biased.

Read with caution.

Maureen
Northern angel.

[QUOTE=Groucho
Do state employees (and their unions) have the right to to insist that this expensive luxury and burdon on our already overstretched taxes remain?[/QUOTE]

Terribly Sorry Groucho,

Yes, especially since they are paying for it.

If the system is undergoing serious mal administration, it is that which needs overhauling.

Too many over paid chiefs, too many middle managers and administrators, paper shuffling and biding there time - not enough indians to do the work????

Maureen
Northern angel

Thanks for that Mo.

I realise now that I had it all wrong!

All that stuff you've posted has convinced me.:ohmy:



Except..........I dont think I have.


Public sector pensions are broadly unfunded.

This means that the Government meets it's pension obligations out of currents receipts, not a fully invested pension fund.


In the private sector, the retirement age is 65 and less than 15% of workers get a final salary pension.


In the public sector, the retirement age is 60 and over 90% of workers get a final salary pension scheme.

There are 6 miillion public sector workers in the UK.


Yes, especially since they are paying for it.

So, I'd ask you Mo, who exactly is paying for it???

This means that the Government meets it's pension obligations out of currents receipts, not a fully invested pension fund.

This is a serious area of contention, which is why many believe that there pensions are not guaranteed or not covered, and not fully invested. It was suggested that the answer to this lies in the non ordering of the Royal mint to circulate more notes and currency immediately after world war two. Furthermore, in addition to this is the vast amount of current claims made upon past incomplete receipts and present receipts. The past receipts are in fact incomplete because the welfare state failed to consider more than half the population. In the New Jerusalem the golden age. Women.

By the time the welfare state had been reorganised, it had incurred massive debts and running costs - in addition to the many who have abused it and regarded it as a non temporary solution to pensions, unemployment benefits, sickness allowances, business start ups. By the time the tax and national insurance issues for women were sorted the scheme was running at a loss. Given the current trend of the claimant culture and expectancy that rights exist the fund may not sufficiently recover. To guarantee good future investments for the next generation of pensioners.

In the private sector, the retirement age is 65 and less than 15% of workers get a final salary pension.

In my view which may be wrong here, I have strong feelings that the workers are paying for the lot. Via the amalgamation on both public and private investments courtesy of taxation.

Less than 15% of private sector workers do not get pensions because they have not opted out of receiving the state pension.They refuse also to pay into private pensions as they feel that there incomes must cover the basic costs of present day living. They have no contingency funds for health, insurances, loss of income, the rainy day or home repairs.

Many part time workers do not earn sufficient to pay national insurance so this becomes an additional credit taken from those who pay, so when retirement comes this group will be reliant on the social security payments of income support as opposed to a state pension.

In the public sector, the retirement age is 60 and over 90% of workers get a final salary pension scheme.

The only reason why the public sector can retire early and receive a final pension scheme is due to there agreement to pay into Superanuation schemes whilst there employer the state receives a tax incentive to make occassional subscriptions to enhance there superannuation pension schemes or maybe in reducing the number of fixed pay deals over time.

There are 6 miillion public sector workers in the UK.

So, I'd ask you Mo, who exactly is paying for it???

The workers are paying for it, but there is a serious level of maladjustment needed within the welfare state, before my generation will see the benefit of our payments. If we ever do.

To all intensive purposes the documents I have formerly listed are accurate to 2004/2005. I hope that my posts have not unduly upset anyone, but I have tried to view it as a business that needs to pull its socks up, balance itself than go for profit.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Apologies for length. I don't think its a topic that can be viewed in one or two paragraphs.:wink_kiss

I'm sorry Mo.

You've clearly neither properly read, nor understood my previous post.

We cant go on like this.

Groucho
Life is too short for this.

There's no way of selecting an employer that will guarantee you a safe pension. Final salary pension has been clobbered just about everywhere. Several company pension schemes have gone belly up. The only way of getting any kind of protection is from a Union. So fair play to UNISON - why should its members suffer because every successive govt is incompetent?

Hello Mikado and fellow surviviors,

There is no clear answer to the problem of pension guarantees. I tend to think for those who have bought into the idea of a private pension that it will be subject to the interest rates, rates at which money is guaranteed not to fall below in terms of value. Secondly in addition to this there is no guarantee on how the stock market will treat our pension investments so they could as you suggested go belly up. Let the buyer beware.

I don't think I could whole heartedly blame the government either when the issues they face are far broader.

Let us consider Government income.

Government income,whether we like it or not comes from taxation.
The aims of that taxation is to provide money for Government spending, to discourage the buying of harmful substances and goods, to influence the level of supply and demand and ultimately to redistribute income from rich to poor.

The principles of taxation ,is that it has a recognised economical certain and convenient method of collection, and that it should be fair and equitable. It should not discourage working or investment and it should be flexibe enough to fit in with the changing economy.

Main revenue raisers,Income tax applies after a set allowance figure, VAT runs at 17.5% on goods and services, Duties are applied to the sale of luxury goods, Council tax is a according to property value, Corporation tax is levied against company profits at 20% or varies according to profit margin, Petroleum revenue tax is levied on North sea oil exploration and extraction, Inheritence tax again against the value of property.

Indirect taxation also exists as a revenue raiser, i,e charges made by Customs and Excise.

Every year a budgetry assessment is made to cover the costs of all related areas of Government spending. Education, Welfare, NHS etc You name them. The budget report becomes the basic folio document on the collection of revenue to support it.


Reflectionary or deficit budget, gov't spending is greater than income.
(These increase total demand in the economy)
Deflationary or surplus budget, Income exceeds expenditure.
(Demand falls and economy failing)
Neutral budget - the books have balanced Income = expenditure.
(Demand stays constant)


Other sources of income,come from borrowing. Borrowing is done to cover PSNCR Public sector net cash requirement.

Selling National savings and Gov't bonds,
Selling treasury bills i,o,u.,
Selling securities i,o,u,'s
(Interest is paid yearly on all three in the form of gilts, stocks, and bonds.


Britain can increase her income by increasing her National Debt. The National Debt is money owed to foreign citizens and countries with whom we have an alliance, as debtors. Money is raised against Capital goods, and increase in productivity, and hence we only pay the interest on the accumulating debt. The balance of payments is the major problem here it is never level and taxation must increase annually to pay the interest.

Britain also receives money from the European Regeneration Programme. This covers some subsidies to land based economy, Welfare, Business regeneration, Neighbourhood Programmes and far to many to list here.

When so much money is coming in, the real problems arriving is in allocation of it. The Government do hold some healthy contingency funds and also retain unclaimed funds from those not aware of there entitlements. Against this back drop one would imagine that there should be no pension problems whatsoever. But I tell you what, I'll leave that up to you to deliberate on.

Maureen
Northern angel.
This taxation list is only the tip of the iceberg.
(I think my social policy students are all aiming to be politicians and not social workers.)

This is a serious area of contention, which is why many believe that there pensions are not guaranteed or not covered, and not fully invested. It was suggested that the answer to this lies in the non ordering of the Royal mint to circulate more notes and currency immediately after world war two. Furthermore, in addition to this is the vast amount of current claims made upon past incomplete receipts and present receipts. The past receipts are in fact incomplete because the welfare state failed to consider more than half the population. In the New Jerusalem the golden age. Women

Maureen are you on the drugs again?

There is no clear answer to the problem of pension guarantees. I tend to think for those who have bought into the idea of a private pension that it will be subject to the interest rates, rates at which money is guaranteed not to fall below in terms of value.

This is complete gobeldeygook!

Interest rates are the amount of money you get on cash deposits.
"rates at which money is guaranteed not to fall below in terms of value" doesn't mean anything!



Government income,whether we like it or not comes from taxation.
The aims of that taxation is to provide money for Government spending, to discourage the buying of harmful substances and goods, to influence the level of supply and demand and ultimately to redistribute income from rich to poor.

No, no and no again!

The aim of taxation is to provide the equal distribution of the burdon of a civil society and regulate the national economy.

Harmful substances???? What the f*** have you been taking Mo?

It is not to redistribute income from rich to poor, otherwise the would be no point in aspirational people trying to become rich, hence no higher rate tax payers!

The principles of taxation ,is that it has a recognised economical certain and convenient method of collection, and that it should be fair and equitable. It should not discourage working or investment and it should be flexibe enough to fit in with the changing economy.

At last a valid point!

Main revenue raisers,Income tax applies after a set allowance figure, VAT runs at 17.5% on goods and services, Duties are applied to the sale of luxury goods, Council tax is a according to property value, Corporation tax is levied against company profits at 20% or varies according to profit margin, Petroleum revenue tax is levied on North sea oil exploration and extraction, Inheritence tax again against the value of property.

So what?

Indirect taxation also exists as a revenue raiser, i,e charges made by Customs and Excise.

Even so-er what??

Every year a budgetry assessment is made to cover the costs of all related areas of Government spending. Education, Welfare, NHS etc You name them. The budget report becomes the basic folio document on the collection of revenue to support it.

FFS, what has this got to do with anything?????? This isn't a third year economics class!

Britain can increase her income by increasing her National Debt. The National Debt is money owed to foreign citizens and countries with whom we have an alliance, as debtors. Money is raised against Capital goods, and increase in productivity, and hence we only pay the interest on the accumulating debt. The balance of payments is the major problem here it is never level and taxation must increase annually to pay the interest.

This is how we end up massively in the sh!t!

Britain also receives money from the European Regeneration Programme. This covers some subsidies to land based economy, Welfare, Business regeneration, Neighbourhood Programmes and far to many to list here.

Find me some!

When so much money is coming in, the real problems arriving is in allocation of it. The Government do hold some healthy contingency funds and also retain unclaimed funds from those not aware of there entitlements. Against this back drop one would imagine that there should be no pension problems whatsoever. But I tell you what, I'll leave that up to you to deliberate on.

This government is broke!

The have run out of cash.

That is why from next year, as a percentage of GDP, our national tax bill will be the highest in our history.

And what do we have to show?

Teacher shortages and bankrupt hospitals.

It was suggested that the answer to this lies in the non ordering of the Royal mint to circulate more notes and currency immediately after world war two.

This statement could only possibly be made by someone with no understnding of monetary theory whatsoever!

Printing money is never the answer!

Maureen are you on the drugs again?

Hello survivorfan,

I know its a bit much all at once.

In answer to your question no, but I wish I could be prescribed more regularly stronger acid relief inhibitors.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Hello survivorfan,

I know its a bit much all at once.

In answer to your question no, but I wish I could be prescribed more regularly stronger acid relief inhibitors.

Maureen
Northern angel.

I'd been waiting for you to refute Groucho's claim that public sector pensions are unfunded, but was disappointed with your answer. Will you be revisiting the subject or have you by default conceded the point?

Hello survivorfan,

I have only just tipped my toes in the water, I will be revisiting the subject later. :wink_kiss

Maureen
Northern angel.

I will be revisiting the subject later. :wink_kiss



Show me the way to go home:drinking:

I'm tired and I want to go to bed!:whistling:

I can't wait for the next instalment.This is class!:)

I can't wait for the next instalment.This is class!:)

Hello Groucho, Survivorfan, and Aondeag,

Many years ago, I was offered 'Politics' (Political theories surrounding, What is Politics? The ism's which all sounded like diseases.) 'Political Demography of Industrial Society' Social economics of industrial society and numerous other topics for debate. Needless to say like most students at the time, I used the time wisely to catch up on my sleep. Some of the module titles were equally boring to do.

Low and behold, after graduating I started being offered lecturing posts part time on certain modules, "Social Policy years 1 and 2". Fifteen week Semesta modules each carrying 20 points towards a BA degree. In Sociology, Economics and Politics. I have been lecturing and running seminars, now for almost 6 years. I also teach one History module and one Crime and deviance module throughout the running of one year.

When I was given the original module folder and guide, with the most enormous lists of boring heavy text books, I could have cried. I was horified that the material was almost identical to that which would send me to sleep.
I decided the modules needed reviewing in such away that it would stir anger, and my students wouldn't want to fall asleep. I also wanted year one to look more lucrative and desirable to do. In other words a non examination module, like a few others in Sociology as its main core, one which would be marked in accordance to course work. A module which would encourage students not to drop out after year one.

Discussions for these changes were undertaken with the other Sociology, Economics and Politics lecturers who were either a redrafting the modules they'd been given or making slight modifications. All in all, the changes went ahead, and I have had no Sociology Students dropping out in six years, three politics students have opted out and one Political Economics student.

Post 15 which I have given you, contains a recent adaption of my first lecture - given by two students who have successfully gone on to complete Political Economics courses who now work in local Government, who occassionally tap up there notes up via the internet. The seminar topic to follow that simply asked the students to list the areas Central government spends our money.

Nothing technical, no legal or political jargon, no grand hypothetical theories,
or concepts of Money Circulation or cycle, Equilibrium, Monetary, Empirical testing, Monetary theory of production. No Mercantalistic balance theory, No General theories of Employment interest and money etc...

Nothing of Macroeconomic theory or practices. No Keynes, Hayek, Adams, Hume, Locke, Wickensian. Instead this was Microeconomic, and subjective of who we are, where we have come from and where we hope to go next. Sociology is a science that is about people. Social Policy is about policies which affect people and the attempt at solving social and political problems in society. Not always by throwing money at it.

What I have felt though for years is that as we live a growing claim culture and the air of expectancy is for what one can get, it pays to know exactly where the money is coming from and who is paying for all these socially problematic and political areas.

I delivered a very short lecture on wages and salaries. The home Budget though was next on my list, and you know at the bottom of it listed by these students came;- home insurance policies, car insurance, income protection schemes, ISA's, savings bonds, Pensions and *Life insurance, medical schemes, but only if we have surplus cash after the other costs of living. But I thought lets have some fun, can we do some living.

90 students in a lecture theatre all in smaller seminar groups were asked to look at various scenarios and prepare the next lecture three weeks away that they were facing a presentation task. In it they could be as creative as they liked, drama, role play, television debate some groups felt so confident they were able to take questions from the floor. The scenarios given ranged from being an unemployed offender having to apply for access to a benefit. A pensioner claiming a community charge rebate, A successful business man planning for his retirement. Those going on to Year two get to do it again and it becomes a media exercise for video film.

Can anyone see where this is coming from? The individual subjective view of social economics, comes from who you are, and where you are at. People also base there views on how easy or difficult situations are to access. Sometimes, we don't just fail to understand the other persons stand point we ignore it.

The 85 rule that exists with Public sector workers that allows retirement at 60years of age, only stands if you have 25 years in service to that job. That means most of those 'Civil servants' it doesn't matter whether I am critical of them or not, as they represent a faceless administrative body applying rules some department head has drawn up, 'Nurses' slogging there guts out, or 'teachers' puting up with unruly pupils which is far more than I'm prepared to do, (I much prefer unruly adults the entertainment value is higher) have all paid there dues. Some nurses pay with there health, and you know something the NHS does not go in for making redundancies as it can't or won't make the legal payments. They are entitled to retire at 60, and pick up there private pensions and superann contributions. For the majority of those who do not pay into a private pension at all, than 65 is the earliest the state pension can be claimed. I dare you, take a look at your pension allocation apply for one of the booklets listed earlier.

Anyone who has paid into a private pension, do you know how many penalities that still exist for you when you come to retire in relation to allowances and tax, because you have tried to make plans and saved?

The 28th of March is looming and I will be out on a picket line.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Crap budget this week. :ranting: :ranting: :ranting:

Show me the way to go home:drinking:

I'm tired and I want to go to bed!:whistling:


Hello Groucho,

My mother used to say if you weren't in bed by 10pm you should come home.

:naughty: So who's bed were you in after 10.50pm the other night?

:wink_kiss Maureen
Northern angel.

I agree I work for the Home Office and the incompetence is breathtaking. It is also grossly over staffed, if they got rid of half a dozen idiots and replaced them with one efficient person, think of all the tax payers money they could save.

Hello MariaRob,

In some ways I agree with this comment in others I don't.

When a department fails to work properly its due to lacking direction from management. In fact many a possibly good middle line management person will be well acquainted with the term mushroom management. He is kept in a darkened room and then suddenly allowed out and the sh!t hits the fan. Then you have pandemonium and serious questions about, Who was to blame, who shall we blame, where is our scapegoat?

Blame the management, shuffle them off somewhere else to mess up. Change his or her job title so it still sounds impressive, but really its a 'demotion and not a promotion'. Give the staff something to worry about talk to them about acountability and numbers. No dying allowed on the job. Oh god help the poor sods. Is it there fault they haven't got clear directives, to work to? Is it there fault that fewer workers could maybe do the job equally or better then them?

So if it is possible that one person can do the work of ten, why is it one person wasn't employed to do that in the beginning. Or is it that having x amount of staff below a department head just looks good on paper, must spend this money somehow,eh...doesn't matter about the performance. But if in fact one person could do the work of ten not only would it be grossly unfair an stressfull on his or her health. Would he or she, not expect to be paid the wages equating to twelve members of staff?

Think of the increase upon the tax payer. Wouldn't it be better to employ someone to look after job training of the six idiots and get it right? No reason, why the management shouldn't look in either, let's not keep them in the dark allowing then to long drinking coffee all day, doesn't really encourage a good working attitude. A good boss isn't always an inactive one that sits back and lets you get on with it.

Maureen
Northern angel.

This is complete gobeldeygook!Really, are you sure you aren't reading into it from your financial and political stand point?

Interest rates are the amount of money you get on cash deposits.
"rates at which money is guaranteed not to fall below in terms of value" doesn't mean anything!

I know you do. But the Government is responsible for paying via investment for those interest rates if you own Bonds or Gilts. As this is money the government borrows from you. Money also devaluates over time, it does not increase in value. A pension scheme that is ten year old will have had to increase the amounts paid in to retain value at the same rate. [/COLOR

No, no and no again!
[COLOR="DarkRed"]I like men who are very emphatic. To many negatives mean a positive. :wink_kiss They don't always of course.

The aim of taxation is to provide the equal distribution of the burdon of a civil society and regulate the national economy.

Oh I forgot that this was one of the reasons, the burden of taxation is variable according capital wealth, liquid assets wages. Equilibrium thesis is it not?

Harmful substances???? What the f*** have you been taking Mo?

Not heard of the budget. 1p drat on a pint, 4p on wine by the glass, 9p on cigarettes.

It is not to redistribute income from rich to poor, otherwise the would be no point in aspirational people trying to become rich, hence no higher rate tax payers!

The poor or those in lower income groups can keep more of there income, as this encourages spending. The variable tax rates set off against income enables redistribution evidental in the presence of luxury goods in working class households, the indices of wealth in a democratic country.

Indirect taxation also exists as a revenue raiser, i,e charges made by Customs and Excise.

Even so-er what??

You know I wrote to Customs and Excise recently, to complain. Why was that? Well I'd ordered some Josh Grohban Sheet music and Manuscripts, plus some Bach, and my purchases came to $98 dollars. I can't remember off hand what the limit is for goods ordered via the internet. But the post office refused to deliver my parcel until I called to pay 11. 30 pounds and thirty pence. Customs duties and handling.

FFS, what has this got to do with anything?????? This isn't a third year economics class! It looks like a foreign language 3rd year University level Social and political economics, theres no mercy at that level.
Study of those Austrian, German, American, Italian, Cambridge and you name it, is compulsory Grand theorists of Macroeconomics.

Has no one ever mentioned that the world is ruled by economists, and there forte is in drawing up schemes which demand taxes be paid to govern public sector spending costs, which hopefully doesn't knacker up industrial production and future investment.

This is how we end up massively in the sh!t!

How right you are. But I hope you aren't confusing this with the 14 million pound Labour party loans issue over donations for peerages. The Conservatives did have the same problem several years ago to the tune of 18 million. Mr Cameron wants to see this matter conveniently sorted out, before the next election.[/COLOR

This government is broke!
The have run out of cash. [COLOR="DarkRed"]They can't stop this holding out a cap can they?
That is why from next year, as a percentage of GDP, our national tax bill will be the highest in our history.
And what do we have to show?
Teacher shortages and bankrupt hospitals.Too many non medical staff employed in hospitals all on extremely lucrative wages.
This statement could only possibly be made by someone with no understnding of monetary theory whatsoever!
Printing money is never the answer!

I see you like having a good rant aswell. Good for you.

Ooh I know, but wouldn't it be lovely if they'd done just that. Two world wars and the costs of rebuilding cities, homes fit for heroes, the costs of rebuilding hospitals and retraining people in jobs. It was absolutely enormous and you know as a Historian, I do realise that inflation would have risen but surely that would have been better for a short while rather than to have secured Britains first loan from America. In 1946 through two years of John Maynard Keynes efforts to secure 'The White Plan' which was an attempt to secure exchange rates for stirling against the dollar. Placing Britain back on the gold standard, with Stirling valued high. Leading to the founding of IMF and the World Bank 1944.

Leading to today, an even larger National Debt and not a possibility of even clearing half of it. The mint should have had a Royal order to print. After all how many people would start a business with no money in it. The Welfare state to follow began with no money. The National health service began with no money and the BMA objected to it. Pardon me it was borrowed. The way dentists object today to there newly drawn contracts. No wonder women married or otherwise had a non existent pension plan then. Some pensioners still don't today, but don't know it. The pensioners of tomorrow are in a quandry as there taxes are being eaten by the pensions and abuses of today.
But they are still paid for.

Money is not guaranteed to circulate, it can get stuck.Ever looked up any websites that promise to check out old bank accounts, there's literally millions stuck with no where to go in obsolete accounts.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Hello Groucho, Survivorfan, and Aondeag,

Many years ago, I was offered 'Politics' (Political theories surrounding, What is Politics? The ism's which all sounded like diseases.) 'Political Demography of Industrial Society' Social economics of industrial society and numerous other topics for debate. Needless to say like most students at the time, I used the time wisely to catch up on my sleep. Some of the module titles were equally boring to do.

Low and behold, after graduating I started being offered lecturing posts part time on certain modules, "Social Policy years 1 and 2". Fifteen week Semesta modules each carrying 20 points towards a BA degree. In Sociology, Economics and Politics. I have been lecturing and running seminars, now for almost 6 years. I also teach one History module and one Crime and deviance module throughout the running of one year.

When I was given the original module folder and guide, with the most enormous lists of boring heavy text books, I could have cried. I was horified that the material was almost identical to that which would send me to sleep.
I decided the modules needed reviewing in such away that it would stir anger, and my students wouldn't want to fall asleep. I also wanted year one to look more lucrative and desirable to do. In other words a non examination module, like a few others in Sociology as its main core, one which would be marked in accordance to course work. A module which would encourage students not to drop out after year one.

Discussions for these changes were undertaken with the other Sociology, Economics and Politics lecturers who were either a redrafting the modules they'd been given or making slight modifications. All in all, the changes went ahead, and I have had no Sociology Students dropping out in six years, three politics students have opted out and one Political Economics student.

Post 15 which I have given you, contains a recent adaption of my first lecture - given by two students who have successfully gone on to complete Political Economics courses who now work in local Government, who occassionally tap up there notes up via the internet. The seminar topic to follow that simply asked the students to list the areas Central government spends our money.

Nothing technical, no legal or political jargon, no grand hypothetical theories,
or concepts of Money Circulation or cycle, Equilibrium, Monetary, Empirical testing, Monetary theory of production. No Mercantalistic balance theory, No General theories of Employment interest and money etc...

Nothing of Macroeconomic theory or practices. No Keynes, Hayek, Adams, Hume, Locke, Wickensian. Instead this was Microeconomic, and subjective of who we are, where we have come from and where we hope to go next. Sociology is a science that is about people. Social Policy is about policies which affect people and the attempt at solving social and political problems in society. Not always by throwing money at it.

What I have felt though for years is that as we live a growing claim culture and the air of expectancy is for what one can get, it pays to know exactly where the money is coming from and who is paying for all these socially problematic and political areas.

I delivered a very short lecture on wages and salaries. The home Budget though was next on my list, and you know at the bottom of it listed by these students came;- home insurance policies, car insurance, income protection schemes, ISA's, savings bonds, Pensions and *Life insurance, medical schemes, but only if we have surplus cash after the other costs of living. But I thought lets have some fun, can we do some living.

90 students in a lecture theatre all in smaller seminar groups were asked to look at various scenarios and prepare the next lecture three weeks away that they were facing a presentation task. In it they could be as creative as they liked, drama, role play, television debate some groups felt so confident they were able to take questions from the floor. The scenarios given ranged from being an unemployed offender having to apply for access to a benefit. A pensioner claiming a community charge rebate, A successful business man planning for his retirement. Those going on to Year two get to do it again and it becomes a media exercise for video film.

Can anyone see where this is coming from? The individual subjective view of social economics, comes from who you are, and where you are at. People also base there views on how easy or difficult situations are to access. Sometimes, we don't just fail to understand the other persons stand point we ignore it.

The 85 rule that exists with Public sector workers that allows retirement at 60years of age, only stands if you have 25 years in service to that job. That means most of those 'Civil servants' it doesn't matter whether I am critical of them or not, as they represent a faceless administrative body applying rules some department head has drawn up, 'Nurses' slogging there guts out, or 'teachers' puting up with unruly pupils which is far more than I'm prepared to do, (I much prefer unruly adults the entertainment value is higher) have all paid there dues. Some nurses pay with there health, and you know something the NHS does not go in for making redundancies as it can't or won't make the legal payments. They are entitled to retire at 60, and pick up there private pensions and superann contributions. For the majority of those who do not pay into a private pension at all, than 65 is the earliest the state pension can be claimed. I dare you, take a look at your pension allocation apply for one of the booklets listed earlier.

Anyone who has paid into a private pension, do you know how many penalities that still exist for you when you come to retire in relation to allowances and tax, because you have tried to make plans and saved?

The 28th of March is looming and I will be out on a picket line.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Crap budget this week. :ranting: :ranting: :ranting:

Originally Posted by Groucho
This is complete gobeldeygook!Really, are you sure you aren't reading into it from your financial and political stand point?

Interest rates are the amount of money you get on cash deposits.
"rates at which money is guaranteed not to fall below in terms of value" doesn't mean anything!

I know you do. But the Government is responsible for paying via investment for those interest rates if you own Bonds or Gilts. As this is money the government borrows from you. Money also devaluates over time, it does not increase in value. A pension scheme that is ten year old will have had to increase the amounts paid in to retain value at the same rate. [/COLOR

No, no and no again!
I like men who are very emphatic. To many negatives mean a positive. They don't always of course.

The aim of taxation is to provide the equal distribution of the burdon of a civil society and regulate the national economy.

Oh I forgot that this was one of the reasons, the burden of taxation is variable according capital wealth, liquid assets wages. Equilibrium thesis is it not?

Harmful substances???? What the f*** have you been taking Mo?

Not heard of the budget. 1p drat on a pint, 4p on wine by the glass, 9p on cigarettes.

It is not to redistribute income from rich to poor, otherwise the would be no point in aspirational people trying to become rich, hence no higher rate tax payers!

The poor or those in lower income groups can keep more of there income, as this encourages spending. The variable tax rates set off against income enables redistribution evidental in the presence of luxury goods in working class households, the indices of wealth in a democratic country.

Indirect taxation also exists as a revenue raiser, i,e charges made by Customs and Excise.

Even so-er what??

You know I wrote to Customs and Excise recently, to complain. Why was that? Well I'd ordered some Josh Grohban Sheet music and Manuscripts, plus some Bach, and my purchases came to $98 dollars. I can't remember off hand what the limit is for goods ordered via the internet. But the post office refused to deliver my parcel until I called to pay 11. 30 pounds and thirty pence. Customs duties and handling.

FFS, what has this got to do with anything?????? This isn't a third year economics class! It looks like a foreign language 3rd year University level Social and political economics, theres no mercy at that level.
Study of those Austrian, German, American, Italian, Cambridge and you name it, is compulsory Grand theorists of Macroeconomics.

Has no one ever mentioned that the world is ruled by economists, and there forte is in drawing up schemes which demand taxes be paid to govern public sector spending costs, which hopefully doesn't knacker up industrial production and future investment.

This is how we end up massively in the sh!t!

[color="DarkRed"]How right you are. But I hope you aren't confusing this with the 14 million pound Labour party loans issue over donations for peerages. The Conservatives did have the same problem several years ago to the tune of 18 million. Mr Cameron wants to see this matter conveniently sorted out, before the next election.[/COLOR

today to there newly drawn contracts. No wonder women married or otherwise had a non existent pension plan then. Some pensioners still don't today, but don't know it. The pensioners of tomorrow are in a quandry as there taxes are being eaten by the pensions and abuses of today.
But they are still paid for.

Money is not guaranteed to circulate, it can get stuck.Ever looked up any websites that promise to check out old bank accounts, there's literally millions stuck with no where to go in obsolete accounts.

Maureen
Northern angel.


So - do you still disagree with Groucho's point that public sector pensions are unfunded?

Hello survivorfan,

A most emphatic YES. Hand on my heart and all that, YES. I do disagree with Groucho stating that Public Sector Pensions are unfunded.

However, I do agree that they are in serious need of revising to fit in with Private Sector Investor pensions and across the board could do with being secured against inflation, index linking. Money does devaluate and amounts paid in, need to be raised each year to allow for the devaluation. The probem is employees expect monies paid to stay constant, when this happens they are absolutely shocked when there pensions are reduced in accordance. Hence, a week or so ago 85.000 private pension holders have actually lost out, not just because of devaluation but a down turn from there respective financial services providers investments and employers who have borrowed from their employees pension funds and then in turn gone bankrupt or liquidated themselves. The pension issue is bigger than you think.

I do think the 85 rule is fair, but should be optional, not enforced. I would like to see the 10 year rule with reference to women abolished. Just in brief, (How dare she, be brief is it possible?) the ten year rule is unfair to women as it makes no adjustment or allowances inconsideration of women who have taken time out from work to raise their children. Those women in the lower income groups therefore will have the worst possible pension scenarios.

I would also like to see National Insurance contributions credited to those on very low incomes irrespective of whether they receive other benefits to top up. At present they are only credited to those in receipt of a benefit alone, or those who have opted for the lowest NI band in relation to being self employed. But the latter means they have sacrificed some of there benefit or pension rights if they do not make adequate plans for there own security.Tax allowances could also have done with a revision again in respect of those in really low income groups for part- time work, not just full time workers. There are millions of women caught in this part-time work scenario trap, because it is flexible and can fit in with other responsibilities towards children and looking after Granny or Grandad.

Raising the tax allowances is a good move, but I can't wonder at what point is it going to be clawed back, from who and on what? Will have to wait and see.

I'd just like to briefly revisit the point where Governments reach out to you, to borrow from your savings, your investments, etc. Ernie is a Tax free bond which you could at one time buy in quantities of 10 = ten pounds. Each month a few numbers would be drawn, who would then win a tax free amount of money. The winnings in this respect are a small percentage of the interest on the numbers of bonds owned, this is the payback on that. National savings which very few people have nowadays, did have the inbuilt security that they would never collapse even though the interest payable was minimal and fixed each year. This was a financial product of a bygone age, not a great deal removed from investments in early friendly societys or co operatives of the Victorian Era, or even the days when large firms would print there own notes for bartering for goods. Another service provided by the old post office of many years ago prior to its privatisation, but again you would be loaning your money to the Government was done through there very own Bonds/Stocks/Gilt/PEP's, these are still available today but the returns vary according to Government investments on the Stockmarket. It is no longer fashionable to call them PEP's, and other financial institutions offer them as ISA's.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Hello survivorfan,

A most emphatic YES. Hand on my heart and all that, YES. I do disagree with Groucho stating that Public Sector Pensions are unfunded.


Civil servants, NHS staff, teachers, fire fighters, the armed forces and police officers are all in schemes where the pension is paid directly out of contributions from current staff and their employers.

So to all intents and purposes they are funded by tax and council tax payers. BBC Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4378366.stm)

Just a couple of points of order here Mo.

1. If you dont understand the question, dont be afraid to put your hand up and ask.

2. devaluate isn't a word in the English language.

3. I strongly suspect that you are not authorised to offer investment advice by the Financial Services Authority and should therefore be careful when spouting off bullshít financial advice to other members of this message board.

4. Your experiences are your experiences and that's all.
They are not a cast iron model for the rest of the world.

5. Acres of print and links to other sites are not an adequate substitute for for a well informed opinion.

:bye:

Think of the increase upon the tax payer. Wouldn't it be better to employ someone to look after job training of the six idiots and get it right?

Good idea.

They could also employ someone else to set some targets for the idoits and someone else to measure their results!

That should make things more efficient at the coal face. :glare:

BBC Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4378366.stm)

Just a couple of points of order here Mo.

1. If you dont understand the question, dont be afraid to put your hand up and ask.

2. devaluate isn't a word in the English language.

3. I strongly suspect that you are not authorised to offer investment advice by the Financial Services Authority and should therefore be careful when spouting off bullshít financial advice to other members of this message board.

4. Your experiences are your experiences and that's all.
They are not a cast iron model for the rest of the world.

5. Acres of print and links to other sites are not an adequate substitute for for a well informed opinion.

:bye:


Hello Groucho,

I sense that our dear Groucho is angry. Angry because you have just read a great deal of background to some areas of debateable social policy. I also sense that you have read into some of it 'what is not there'. From your stand point, something which is understandable. All of us are guilty of this bias.

No where have I indicated or advised individuals to seek financial planning advice for any insurance protective package, or bank or building society product that one should or shouldn't buy into. Indeed you are correct in that respect I am not qualified to indicate which deal or option would be the best to take. Hence, I would not dream of advising anyone on any personal financial matters in that respect. Instead I would rather suggest they seek further information on such matters that interest them from those recognised sources on the high street, the bank, the building society, the post office, an indepedent financial services company or in relation to a state benefit or pension the DHSS or DWP. Something I believe I have already listed.

A curious word devaluate, does it not exist in your home dictionary, it does mine and has been in my vocabulary for years?

Again I haven't given an example of a cast iron prototype anywhere in this thread a subject such as this one is so vast, to do this would be impossible.
On the subject of pensions/social policy as applied and accessed/social policy and law/civil rights/ social problems that require policy to assist in solving them/ social and political economics/monetary theories..I have loads of material and no need to search for internet files.

Public service workers are classed as important, they are part of the mechanisations of state. It would be expected that there salaries would come from Government income, but in return they would also have to contribute to this self perpetuational nature of there jobs. They too, pay taxes and other contributions, not just so that they benefit from a pension at the end of it, but so that these departments remain functional. After all they are not voluntary workers and expect to take home a salary for the services they provide.

Hoping your short and curlies have not met the coal face and that they never do. :ohmy: ;)

Maureen
Northern angel.

You know I wouldn't be surprised if we both vote the same, yet we have such a dividing point.

Hello Groucho,
Public service workers are classed as important, they are part of the mechanisations of state. It would be expected that there salaries would come from Government income, but in return they would also have to contribute to this self perpetuational nature of there jobs. They too, pay taxes and other contributions, not just so that they benefit from a pension at the end of it, but so that these departments remain functional. After all they are not voluntary workers and expect to take home a salary for the services they provide.Maureen
Northern angel..

I reckon he knows that already Maureen. That isn't how he defined 'funded'.

A curious word devaluate, does it not exist in your home dictionary, it does mine and has been in my vocabulary for years?

It's an archaism Mo. Rarely used now in the real world.

I have a civil service pension but am concerned about what I'll do if I ever want to leave this job! :unsure:

Mo, the only time I have done any extensive reading with regard to this subject has been when trawling through your unfathomable posts.

I'm going to have one more try, as I feel that my point in starting this thread has gone so far over your head, that you'll get neck ache trying to retrieve it.


Public sector pensions are by and large unfunded.

That means that there is not a pot of investment that the pensions get paid out of.

A former soldier, fireman or teacher etc's current pension comes from current income tax receipts.

What this means is that as the public sector grows (and it has grown by about 1 million jobs since New Labour came to power in 1997) and they continue to be entitled to final salary pensions from the age of 60, the future burden of paying these pensions is likely to criple the economy in 25 or 30 years time.

A disproportionalte amount of that burden is likely to fall on the taxes being paid by the poor old private sector emplooyee who will be unlikely to start receiving his pension until the age of 68 or 70.


That, more of less, is my point.

Now please, for the love of Christ, try reading this post through a few times before you start typing.

If it's still not clear PM me.

If you do decide to reply - and it is by no means mandatory, ffs, try and stay on topic!

It's an archaism Mo. Rarely used now in the real world.


Hello Fee,

Yes spot on. A very old word not used today, it has sadly fallen out of fashion. But in actual fact quite an apt old word for the description of some of the thread details in relation to money. Devaluate.

You rarely hear of profit and loss adjustors today either, accountants who specialise in nothing else but loss adjustment or quantum assessment of insurances and pension claims.

Well spotted.

Maureen
Northen angel.

Mo, the only time I have done any extensive reading with regard to this subject has been when trawling through your unfathomable posts.
I'm going to have one more try, as I feel that my point in starting this thread has gone so far over your head, that you'll get neck ache trying to retrieve it.


Truly Groucho, your thread has not gone over my head. We must have an agreeance to differ. Such is the beauty of SO. I love a debate and we have certainly had one.

Public sector pensions are by and large unfunded.

Public sector pensions....... ooh only public sector pensions. All pensions inclusive of some private pensions are "under funded", not unfunded.

Why? ....because of the demands made against taxation.Taxation as an income has too many costly overheads and abuses. Public spending is a headache.There are lessons to be learnt from the private sector which must be considered in the non to distant future. For all our sakes.

That means that there is not a pot of investment that the pensions get paid out of.

A former soldier, fireman or teacher etc's current pension comes from current income tax receipts.

The state is also an employer and it is a percularity of its nature that it is responsible for past, present and future pension payments of all its employees. An old war horse as it may seem a very heavy and luxurious burden to carry. But did you know that one sector does not offer voluntary redundancies because it can not afford the payments? The NHS would rather move its employees around or alter the hours and shifts than to pay off surplus staff. Some councils in charge of there own regional funding do the same.

What this means is that as the public sector grows (and it has grown by about 1 million jobs since New Labour came to power in 1997) and they continue to be entitled to final salary pensions from the age of 60, the future burden of paying these pensions is likely to criple the economy in 25 or 30 years time.

Are you not confident that this problem will sort itself out? You and I, I detect are in the same camp - all we have is a serious difference of opinion - you from a financial and political viewpoint, and I - from a sociological turn point with credit given to the abuses and mistakes of social and economic history for which we are also a part.

A disproportionalte amount of that burden is likely to fall on the taxes being paid by the poor old private sector emplooyee who will be unlikely to start receiving his pension until the age of 68 or 70.

Yes sadly, this is true but we must not forget our public sector workers also pay taxes. The burden of which is proportionate to wages. I am confident that this will change, when we in finally get a change of government. There is no reason why in my own personal view why retirement age should not be reviewed again and a compromise reached between the private and public sector so that we could maybe all retire at say 64. Provided we have all had the same length of time in employment. Exception granted to women who have raised there own children.In other words I am advocating the keeping of the 10 year ruling for the purpose of allowing it as an exception. National insurance must therefore be credited.

That, more of less, is my point.

Now please, for the love of Christ, try reading this post through a few times before you start typing.

If it's still not clear PM me.

If you do decide to reply - and it is by no means mandatory, ffs, try and stay on topic!

I believe I have said it already, the actual price or costs of our history was not totally considered in the drawing up of the Welfare state, for which pensions and benefits for those out of work or on the sick were only meant to be a temporary stop gap. This area needs to be seriously overviewed and cut back. So that those who are needy are assisted, there are to many abusers of the system - some who have never even contributed.

What would you and our fellow survivors like to see, take place with reference to

a) the retirement age?
b) state pensions/private pensions?
c) benefits and those who claim them?

Maureen
Northern angel.

I'm going to bed. I've got a headache.:wallbash:

Maureen, have you started another uprising in the threads?? Tsk, tsk, tsk. :unsure:

Janey Mack...I've lost my lovely buzz from my mega white russian I partook of today and have a headache after reading all this!! Coastie doesn't put this much into the Somba Tale. Lawdy, lawdy.

APOLOGIES GROUCHO

I AM SORRY GROUCHO THAT THIS WONDERFUL THREAD OF YOURS HAS STARTED GOING OFF TOPIC. IT IS IN PART MY FAULT AND I AM THEREFORE APOLOGISING TO YOU FOR THAT.

I TRUST THAT THIS THREAD WILL RECOVER OR ANY OTHER THREAD YOU HAVE WILL STAY ON COURSE.

APOLOGIES.

MAUREEN
NORTHERN ANGEL.:wub:TO YOU AND YOURS BEST WISHES.

Hi all
Ive removed one or two posts from this thread because things were getting very heated and unnecessarily personal.

Please stay on topic and treat each other with respect.

Thank you

Pan xx

Hi all
Ive removed one or two posts from this thread because things were getting very heated and unnecessarily personal.

Spoilsport :devil:

Hi all
Ive removed one or two posts from this thread because things were getting very heated and unnecessarily personal.

Please stay on topic and treat each other with respect.

Thank you

Pan xx

d'oh! do you mean I missed the good bits!

I AM SORRY GROUCHO THAT THIS WONDERFUL THREAD OF YOURS HAS STARTED GOING OFF TOPIC

It's not my thread Mo, it belongs to anyone who wants to post in it or read it, so no apology necessary.

I'm not really bothered that it drifts off topic a little either.


However, this does bother me a bit:

All pensions inclusive of some private pensions are "under funded", not unfunded.

It seems to me that you either dont understand what I'm saying, or are deliberately ignoring the point.


I'm going to try one more time because it's important.

I have a private pension plan.
Every month my employer pays a cash amount to a pension fund manager and he invests it.

When I retire I will have a pot of money invested that will provide my pension, or part of it at least.

It may not be worth what I would like it to be worth, but it will be a fully funded pension plan and it wont cost the tax payer a penny.


My mate is a copper.

He is paid by the Government.
They dont put anything aside for his pension. Not a penny. Nothing at all.

When he retires his pension will be paid out of the next generations income tax.

That is an unfunded pension plan and it's going to cost the tax payer a fortune.



That's about as clear as I can make it I'm afraid Mo.

It's not about who gets a pension, or whether they deserve it.

It's about what type of pension and how it's paid for.

Hello Groucho,

You are right it is improtant. You have described what appears to be an excellent fully paid up pension.

The reason why I have described Public service employee pensions as being under funded, is due to the fact that an additional contribution is taken from there salaries, towards an invested Superannuation based pension, which is transferable from post to post but not available to be accessed until retirement. Some are also known as savings schemes and at one time a young Superann scheme could be cashed in. Employees are given the choice as to the manner they wish to receive it. As a tax free lump sum on retiring plus small top up pension to a state pension or jointly inclusive of there state pension.

I can't remember what percentage of income is taken as a superann payment, but it does not prohibit individuals from taking out a private pension.
Many public service workers collect on more than one pension, and can still be liable to paying tax, when they retire.

My friends are also teachers, policemen and nurses, and they also feel that there is a heiracrchy which has always benefitted more, come retirement from a combination of pension funding, inclusive of one off payments. My own will come from a combination of sources.

An individual however who has never paid into a Superann scheme or a private pension plan, will receive nothing else other than the basic state pension provided all there National insurance contributions have been fully paid or credited.

Maureen
Northern angel.

The NHS Pension Scheme
All staff who have contracts of employment with the NHS automatically become members of the NHS Pension Scheme. As a member you get an excellent package of pension benefits, fully protected against inflation and guaranteed by the government.
Link (http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/nhs/index.html)......

Actually thanks for that link Groucho.

I see they are in the process of changing the NHS pension scheme, and bu**er me of course I'm going to be starting my job after April 1st so will come into the new scheme. Which I'm sure isn't going to be as good as the old one.

But I wonder because I've already paid some in, during my previous posts, whether I'll be able to get the old deal or not.

I will be reading with interest.

Good luck Andrea.

Lets see what Tuesday brings apart from organised havoc.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Hmm, pensions.

There are two types:

1) Defined Contribution
- by definition fully funded as the contributions are invested just like groucho says

2) Defined Benefit
- these are the problem ones
- problem is that a pension is defined some how. It can be a fixed amount, or defined related to salary, eg final salary, average over a number of years or something along those lines
- so, the actuary has to project how much these will cost, and how much to stash away to meet the future expected liabilities
- the problem is when the investments don't grow as expected and the plan becomes "under-funded", ie not enough dosh there to meet the expected liabilities. Lots of defined benefit company schemes are finding themselves in this situation recently.
- many state pensions are indeed completely unfunded, in that there is no money put away to meet the future liabilities. In these cases, the future liabilities are expected to be met by tax contributions. These pensions are classified as "pay-as-you-go", and there is indeed zilch funding in the background.

Thats about as complicated as it gets! The rest is all technicalities that vary from pension scheme to pension scheme. Almost all companies have migrated away from defined benefit schemes because of the funding problems - the ones that haven't have financial headaches. The state pensions - fewer workers in the future, more retirees to support....oops.

I have a final salary pension that is worked out in 60ths. One 60th for each year with the company, therefore 30 years would give me a pension of half the salary I was earning if I understand it correctly.

I have been with the company 22 years and for the first 18 years it was a non contributary pension. They saw the writing on the wall for these pensions and realised something had to be done so I now have to work until I am 63 instead of 60 and contribute 5% of my salary to my pension.

We have been told that next year it will be 6% and probably will keep going up. The scheme is now closed to new workers although they do have a different sort of scheme for them.

I don't mind working until I am 63 for the company pension as then it will tie in with the government one thats if it still exists by then for those of us that will have a pension from elsewhere.

Hello Mazwad,

I just heard on the news tonight that pensions are being viewed now by the government, and it appears that they are looking at a retirement age of 68 not 63. To qualify for state pension which all of us contribute to via our taxes and national insurance contributions.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Fortunately I am not that young that it will affect me, they have moved my goalposts once already. Mind you they can do a lot in the next 11 years and probably will.

Hello Mazwad,

I just heard on the news tonight that pensions are being viewed now by the government, and it appears that they are looking at a retirement age of 68 not 63. To qualify for state pension which all of us contribute to via our taxes and national insurance contributions.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Thats what the US did, start pushing the retirement age back. I looked up what the Japanese are doing seeing as I am in Tokyo for a while, as they have the longest life expectancy in the world I think and a huge pension promise. They acknowledge the problem but seem to have done nothing about it yet..watch this space!!! The Japanese are still quite resistant to immigration and the birth rate is low, so fewer taxpayers, more retirees, math doesn't work. Japan has changed a lot in the last 10 years, and they are warming to foreigners a lot, and with the birth rate their only solution is to open the borders and crank up immigration to bring in foreign workers. Bit the one thing I am learning in Japan is that the Japanese move sloooowly on these things. Something to do with an isolationist past and it taking just a little bit longer to get used to the idea of accepting non-Japanese ideas.

I am finding the Japanese to be extremely nice people though. Only one or two problems with my slightly darker skin shade, but that was with 90 year old biddies who seem to be rude everywhere else on the planet too (my grandmum comes to mind! At what age does that rudeness gene kick in?).