Where are teachers going ?

Sorry, Don, but your "main point" is a fiction that has to resort to metaphors in an attempt to convince - such as "gold plated" and "at the expense of private sector tax-payers". We're talking a simple retrospective and unilateral variation of contract that is diverting funds to manage the effects of an economic policy that is increasingly being seen to have devastating effects due to its simple-minded household economics mindset. 

Modern economics is not about single factors that have defined single consequences, it's about how a whole range of factors interrelate.

For example, an ageing population with pension income that is decreasing in real terms, combined with increasingly high and unpredictable care costs, will have an enduring negative effect on the economy, reducing spending across all age groups except the youngest.

I agree with your sentiment.

Step one is.............?

Cheers

Don

Mike

Your last two paragraphs are simply stating what I have been saying. Retirement, and all that goes with it, now lasts about 20 years rather than the 5 years or so that many pension schemes were based on (including the public sector ones). You seem to agree with my main point, ie the economy has to be revived to enable old age (*) to be properly funded.

The simple-minded household economics relates to the public sector who seem to think that their gold-plated pensions are somehow funded by an inanimate government rather than private sector tax-payers

Cheers

Don

(*) and a thousand and one other problems to be resolved

Don,

Repeating gold-plated put-downs and insulting the intelligence of public sector workers does not promote constructive dialogue. Nor does ignoring how these schemes have been revised over the years. And I write this as a freelance - a freelance who is happy to pay higher taxes to live in a country that does more than pay lip service to being a caring society.

Cheers

Mike

What evidence do you have (not your prejudice) that the Public Sector "seem to think that their gold-plated pensions are somehow funded by an inanimate government rather than private sector tax-payers"?

The Public Sector (who are also tax-payers) know exactly how their pensions are funded and therefore know their sustainability is a political rather than a fiscal issue.

Mike

Gold-plated seems to have upset you. By comparison with the private sector, gold-plated is pretty mild.

Like you, I am more than happy to contribute to a society that is more caring than we have at present. I also endorse the idea that collective taxation is a better way of providing funding for public health, water, sewage disposal, power supplies, roads, railways and airports and a few other things.

But we are dealing with a relatively small group of people who seem to think that the "government" should provide for their future, without giving clear recognition that it is other menbers of this (caring?) society (ie the private sector tax-payers) who will be called upon to provide the necessary funding.

The "government" buggered up the private sector pension funding back in Gordon's time. In a "caring" society we would all be working towards gold-plated pensions for everybody. It is only today's economy that will fund good pensions, not yesterday's savings. So back to my main point - how do we revive the economy?

Cheers

Don

And yes, for Deb's benefit, it would be nice if we could recover the trillions of £££$$$ etc syphoned of by the 1% fat cats in western society, so just make it clear how simple this would be.

Well a low earner on say £14,000 with 30 years service in 1/60 scheme would get pension at £7,000 pa. And a state pension of around £6,000. Pay no income tax on first £10,000 at age 65 and no NI at all. So, that seems comparable no?

err, I don't don't know. That's why I was asking the question!

I agree with the IDEAS of stimulating manufacturing, research, infrastructure and nuclear power (not renewables such as wind-power), but I was wondering what ideas others had as to WHAT we might do and, just as importantly, HOW we set about reviving the economy. I am aware that the government is suggesting £20bn (or is it £40bn?) of tax-payers money be invested in infrastructure over the next 5 years. Would PFI investment be better/easier (I don't think so, but others might have different views). Should we/could we re-join EADS (for example) or should we prevent imports from China/India/Brazil and make our own computers/tele-sales/aircraft (for example)

OK, its a big subject and one-liners on this forum can't possibly do it justice at all, other than to theorise

Cheers

Don

You are right on so many levels there, it is a bigger picture that needs looking at, as well as the perception of individuals about the world around them.

We live in an uncertain world, yet there is this perception by many, living in the modern era, particularly in 'The West', that certainty is a given or a right and at least an expectation. Our lives and the world around us just don't work that way. And Final Salary pension schemes give that perception of certainty but it is all an artifice and like any other construction, occasionally needs propping up or adapting to suit a changing environment. Especially if the ground it was originally built on is sinking. A bit.

You cna't fight boom and bust. That's nature. Like the seasons on a spinning planet. But the world does keep spinning!

So the key is to accept change and adapt, plan but be flexible. Don't have all your eggs in one basket. Hedge your bets. Rely on yourself as much as possible. By all means fight for what you feel is unacceptable but sometimes there's just an inevitability about change. That's a mandate for life not just pensions.

No doubt others will disagree. That's allowed too.

Channel Three this evening 19:00 to 19:30

Public Sector v Private Sector

Basic summary is that it supported all of my views expressed in this thread and other threads

ie Public sector workers

• get paid more
• have more job security
• more flexible working hours
• longer holidays and.............
• massively greater pensions.than private sector.

details probably on their web site

QED (*)

Cheers

Don

(*) except that the young girl trying to decide where to seek employment, decided on the private sector.

Mike

Do your own research.

I've done mine. The evidence is overwhelming. I really don't understand people who simply can't accept things as they are.

of course the programme was biased and they were taking the piss with the two goons parodying John Cleese and Ronnie Corbet, but the facts were there.

Cheers

Don

Mike,

I've done my research. Its up to you to present if you want to convince us of your point of view.

Of course, it wouldn't make a blind jbit of difference to people like you, what evidence someone produced if it didn't accord with your point of view. Just because the programme makers might  be biased, doesn't mean their facts are false. 

Cheers

Don

You are not falling into this trap also? It also doesn't make there "facts " correct either, you accept them because they support your biased view.

I know, a bloke down the pub told you, so therefore it's correct?

Doctors are of course also going to be balloted on strike action over thier pensions. Discuss.

Out of the 130,000 BMA members surveyed recently, only 46,000 responded.  

From that ~60% indicated they would support some form of action if the government did not change its offer.

Assuming the BMA take that (as do all unions) as a majoriity vote, then 30,000/130,000 call the shots. 

Democracy in unions - discuss ?? 

..and not all doctors are BMA members either.

I'll keep my tinder dry on the actual issue for now.

Bruce

Things are more difficult when you are personally affected.

Government does a deal with doctors one year.

Public opinion is angered by the deal and demands a new, less favourable, deal

Doctors have dilema - do they insist on the original deal (a deal is a deal is a deal)

or do they bow to (ill informed?) public pressure and a new deal (with no guarantee that this will last)

Cheers

Don

Typical load of insults rather than facts. Says it all really.

Cheers

Don

Nothing but personal insults again ? perhaps you don't have anything else to conribute?

My intitial post on this thread is deadly accurate.

For my own ammusement (and yours) I had a quick look at your favourite website and the first thing I find is:-

Is public sector pay nearly 8 per cent higher than private sector pay?

The debate over public sector pay reared its head again yesterday when the Mail reported that those in the private sector are paid nearly eight per cent less than their public sector equivalents. Full Fact investigates.

So while a number of difficulties remain in making these kind of comparisons between public and private sector pay, the efforts of the ONS to account for these mean that the Mail's latest report on the issue is better grounded in evidence than previous attempts that we have seen.

Ok, I have cut the waffle out and simply posted the headline, opening paragraph and the conclusion.

Perhaps I should transfer this post and all of your posts into the "joke" thread

Cheers

Don 

Don it sounds like your research has consisted largely of reading the Daily Mail and watching a TV documentary. Try the link below. It's a well written, well researched article and paints quite a different picture from yours. It pretty much confirms what anybody working in the public sector already knows.

It's a direct link to a Word document and is perfectly safe to download.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa...aTRCJVj4SQCAstqULvtA