Poor, poor strikers go shopping

[DodgyAgent]

Both of you make the case that existing pension commitments are unaffordable. Assuming that is the case and it's not simply a question of seizing an opportunity to increase profit, how can companies afford to pay people enough that they can afford a decent pension? The answer of course is that they cannot, therefore the state (and therefore all taxpayers) will have to pick up the shortfall when people reach old age. You may object to the sensible option of investing now to provide a worthwhile pension for public sector workers, but the reality is that by allowing this to happen you're simply picking up the tab for both public and private sector later, without making any provision to do so.

The other side of the coin is that by reducing payments into pension funds you are, purely and simply, reducing investment in the future to increase returns on the investments of the past. These savings of billions of pounds are actually a reduction in investment of billions of pounds.

If the money is not there how on earth can it be paid? It is all very well to roll out the "profits of a company being maximised" as if it is a crime to make a profit, but you seem to ignore the fact that these profits are paid as dividends that go to pay pensions. Your attitude to profit is wrong the problem this country has is that there are too few people making profits and too many spending them. This has to change and it wont change whilst we are paying public sector worker entitlements.

If you are so wound up about feeding the entitlement of public sector workers why don't you write out a monthly cheque to Unison or whoever

And here's another example of the waste we have to pay for:

'Disastrous' £11.4bn NHS IT programme to be abandoned - Telegraph

[BlasterBates]

Both of you make the case that existing pension commitments are unaffordable. Assuming that is the case and it's not simply a question of seizing an opportunity to increase profit, how can companies afford to pay people enough that they can afford a decent pension? The answer of course is that they cannot, therefore the state (and therefore all taxpayers) will have to pick up the shortfall when people reach old age. You may object to the sensible option of investing now to provide a worthwhile pension for public sector workers, but the reality is that by allowing this to happen you're simply picking up the tab for both public and private sector later, without making any provision to do so.

The other side of the coin is that by reducing payments into pension funds you are, purely and simply, reducing investment in the future to increase returns on the investments of the past. These savings of billions of pounds are actually a reduction in investment of billions of pounds.

Well the answer is that we will all be working longer, people our age should in any case be retiring at 67 and I think that will be the average, i.e. some people will be working into their 70's. I don't have a problem with that, and demographics will mean it's necessary.

The positive side is that as the population ages, it will be much easier for older people to find jobs and the shortage of labour will drive up incomes.

No too long ago people retired at 65 and lived 5 years. Now people retire and live 20 years.

[doodab]

It is tired rhetoric and you seem to skip coming up with any supportive, logical argument that suggests that public sector delivers its services efficiently. I would turn your statement around and say it contains a few good eggs.

Public sector workers take far more days off sick
Public sector workers work shorter hours
Kids coming out of public sector schools are far less likely to have achieved academic success than those educated in private schools
And the UK's border controls functioned better with volunteers than it did with regular staff.
People in the public sector cannot be sacked

I once interviewed 5 people from the public sector and hired one - big mistake. he was obsessed with his "entitlements" and had no idea of how to take responsibility for anything - he didnt last long.

So rather than address the problem or look at issues with how these are run we should maintain the status quo and claw back our losses by making a grab at pensions? That's not a logical argument either, it's a lazy way out.

I'd be quite happy to see private healthcare insurance and private pension provision with workers given choice of where to invest their existing ni contributions. How about that for breaking state monopolies?

[Mich the Tester]

'Disastrous' £11.4bn NHS IT programme to be abandoned - Telegraph

This is indeed an unbelievable amount of money to spend on an IT project with no obvious benefits above the service provided beforehand. It's also something that many large corporations have managed to put in place at much lower cost.

Absolute disgrace, and it's an ugly smear on the IT industry as well as on the politicians.

[DodgyAgent]

So rather than address the problem or look at issues with how these are run we should maintain the status quo and claw back our losses by making a grab at pensions? That's not a logical argument either, it's a lazy way out.

I'd be quite happy to see private healthcare insurance and private pension provision with workers given choice of where to invest their existing ni contributions. How about that for breaking state monopolies?

So what you are saying is that for some reason we must at all costs keep paying the public sector workers their payments? or are you suggesting we bring in Merlin the fuc*ing magician to plant some money trees?

[BlasterBates]

A medical record system which could probably have been implemented for a few thousand pounds, i.e. a server with a database and simple document for each patient registered.

[BrilloPad]

I'd be quite happy to see private healthcare insurance and private pension provision with workers given choice of where to invest their existing ni contributions.

But ni is designed to pay for those who have already retired, not for the person paying the ni.

omething has to give sooner or later...

[The Spartan]

I hope it's Civil Servants Pensions as they contribute very little to them, as for Teachers, Nurses and Police/Armed forces I know they put a fair bit into theirs so I believe they should be able to keep them

[doodab]

So what you are saying is that for some reason we must at all costs keep paying the public sector workers their payments? or are you suggesting we bring in Merlin the fuc*ing magician to plant some money trees?

No, i'm suggsting that government looks at actual reform rather than continued failure covered up by pot shots at easy targets. You aren't going to solve the problems of mismanagement and waste in the public sector simply by cutting pensions. If anything you will simply drive out the good and encourage the bad.

[doodab]

If the money is not there how on earth can it be paid? It is all very well to roll out the "profits of a company being maximised" as if it is a crime to make a profit, but you seem to ignore the fact that these profits are paid as dividends that go to pay pensions. Your attitude to profit is wrong the problem this country has is that there are too few people making profits and too many spending them. This has to change and it wont change whilst we are paying public sector worker entitlements.

If you are so wound up about feeding the entitlement of public sector workers why don't you write out a monthly cheque to Unison or whoever

And here's another example of the waste we have to pay for:

'Disastrous' £11.4bn NHS IT programme to be abandoned - Telegraph

I'm not wound up about the entitlement of public sector workers. I'm wound up that the ******* over of private sector workers is now being used to legitimise it. I've no objection to people making a profit as long as they cover their costs and don't transfer them to society at large. One main reason private sector pensions became unaffordable is because companies stopped paying in, and even made withdrawals, when the stock market was doing well. They failed in a duty of care to those on whose behalf those funds were managed. Allowing them to get away with it is simply market distortion, because it's the taxpayer who will have to make up the shortfall when people retire in poverty.