You might also be interested in
Replies (4)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Flawed concept ...
Do we really think that '.. introduce a tax on financial transactions ..' would do anything to curb the excesses of the financial sector?
Yes, it would raise revenue for the exchequer but in reality it would have very little impact on those with the '.. broadest shoulders ..' who would get the same cut anyway
The real impact would be on any member of the public making a financial transaction who would be clobbered - this includes private investors, pension funds etc.; so if you want your private sector pension to be hit yet again (after GB's tax credit raid) then by all means go for it!
On the subject of fairness, the current public sector pension liability is enormous and in many cases the benefit far outstrips what the country can afford as well as any equitable comparison with private sector pensions; ultimately this may mean that those in the private sector are reduced to penury in their old age to 'pay for' unsustainable public sector pensions - so effectively the disorganised private are being bullied by an organised & focussed public sector holding them to ransom
The solution - maintain existing public sector pensions for those already in the system and close the final salary basis for new entrants with immediate effect - thereby placing a finite cap on the public's liability in this area
It is all about cutting costs and not being the either entire worlds free health service or free educational system (quantify the education grant recovery from foreign nationals one they have obtained their degree and left the country)
Again, why is the UK so attractive to migrants from other countries and could it be the benefit system? The solution is to have a period where no benefits are payable to foreign nationals entering the country before they have been here 5 years in order to make the gravy train less profitable and curb the 'human traffic in children' to play the system
All in all it is not solely about going for those CEO's on the gravy train but also a more rounded approach to cost cutting and preventing abuse of the existing systems
Furthermore, a disproportionate increase in population also brings other issues such as housing, services, availability of water etc. which all need to be accommodated with finite resources
...and a flawed response
For the vast majority who get them, public sector pensions are not enormous But those whose pension savings have been raped by either their employer, eg British Airways, or fund managers over whom they have little control, can only look with envy at public schemes that haven't suffered those vicissitudes. Is the problem the cost of paying public sector pensions or the appalling performance of private sector pensions over the last 10-15 years?
As it has done with those who receive benefits, the coalition demonises recipients of public pensions in the eyes of those who work in the private sector, effectively setting neighbour against neighbour. Rather than address what has happened to private sector pensions, it manipulates popular opinion so that opinion will accept a race to the bottom, ie the lowering of public sector pensions to the appalling level of private sector pensions. And this is leadership?
Repeating the lies peddled by the super rich
Attacking those at the bottom is falling into the media's trap and usually arises from blindly lapping up the lies of the establishment-owned medai. Why not tackle the problem of the super rich before saying we can't afford to pay decent pensions to public servants?
Addressing inequality between average people ....
Not an attack but rather a statement of fact that all employees are not on a level playing field so far as pensions are concerned and something really needs to be done to redress the balance
@nickja
‘..Is the problem the cost of paying public sector pensions or the appalling performance of private sector pensions over the last 10-15 years? ..’
The Private Sector has closed down (and continues to) ‘Defined Benefit Schemes’ simply because it deems them unsustainable. With this in mind why are the equivalent Public Pension Schemes regarded as acceptable and not in line with Private Sector thinking?
@chatman
Unfortunately using extremes at either end of the scale is frequently used to distort the facts to favour one’s own argument. Yes there is a gross disparity between the average person and the very rich but is that really a reason to ignore equity further down the scale between average people? Address this inequality first and then look at the issue of the very rich
The average Public Sector Pension for ‘Final Salary Scheme’ is worth approximately £7,800 pa. (based on their salary at the point of retirement, the number of years they have belonged to the scheme and the accrual rate)
The average Private Sector Pension for ‘Defined Benefit Schemes’ (final salary scheme- similar to that of the Public Sector) is worth approximately £7,467 pa
However, most ‘Defined Benefit Schemes’ in the Private Sector have been closed because they are deemed unaffordable by the Private Sector, which is driven by performance and profitability
Therefore the majority of Private Sector workers are in ‘Defined Contribution Schemes’ and have an average pension worth approximately £1,400 pa from a pension pot of £20,000 (money purchase - where the eventual retirement income is based on the amount of money paid in and the amount by which that money grows)
Public sector pensions are more generous than private sector ones because
They are far more likely to have oneThey have a Defined Benefit, rather than Defined Contributions scheme which links their pensions to their final salary and is more generous
Finally in order to get the equivalent of an income of £7,800, a Private Sector pension pot would have to be approximately equal to £142,000
These are facts and not lies peddled by the super rich
So the real question that no-one wants to answer is:
If the Private Sector is closing down ‘Defined Benefit Schemes’ because they are unsustainable why does the Government persist in maintaining the equivalent Pubic Service ‘Final Salary Schemes’ when they are equally unsustainable ?
Could it be that the taxpayer is able to provide limitless resources to fund these unviable schemes whereas Private Sector companies are driven by affordability ?
Clearly double standards which adversely affect the taxpayer