Reply to: Them poor public sector pensions we are all paying for

[doodab]

Well the surplus comes from the 14% employer contributions - which is paid for by the taxpayer.

But even so, the surplus is because over the past few years we have added hundreds of thousands of new contributors to the scheme, so in the short term, the NHS scheme is "affordable".

But unless the NHS continutes to grow at the same rate it has done, that £2Bn per year surplus will turn into a whopping deficit in the medium to long term.

It is only "affordable" because we enticed a new layer of suckers to the pyramid with the promise of high returns that are not possible elsewhere.

If a private business had done this, the directors would have been locked up.

Tis true.

The latest OBR forecast shows that by 2015-16 the NHS surplus will be reduced to circa
£150m and over the next decade the scheme is likely become a net cost to the taxpayer as
more members retire.

http://www.onelcommunityservices.nhs...Q-28July11.pdf

[Doggy Styles]

Well the surplus comes from the 14% employer contributions - which is paid for by the taxpayer.

But even so, the surplus is because over the past few years we have added hundreds of thousands of new contributors to the scheme, so in the short term, the NHS scheme is "affordable".

But unless the NHS continutes to grow at the same rate it has done, that £2Bn per year surplus will turn into a whopping deficit in the medium to long term.

It is only "affordable" because we enticed a new layer of suckers to the pyramid with the promise of high returns that are not possible elsewhere.

If a private business had done this, the directors would have been locked up.

You are wasting your time replying to people who just don't 'get' finance.

But we all do it.

[centurian]

Very last sentence of the Daily Fail article

'‘Over the next five years, the NHS pension scheme will actually provide a positive cashflow to the Treasury of over £10billion."

So the inevitable headline-grabbing outliers nothwithstanding, on aggregate, 'we' are not paying anything for NHS pensions.

Well the surplus comes from the 14% employer contributions - which is paid for by the taxpayer.

But even so, the surplus is because over the past few years we have added hundreds of thousands of new contributors to the scheme, so in the short term, the NHS scheme is "affordable".

But unless the NHS continutes to grow at the same rate it has done, that £2Bn per year surplus will turn into a whopping deficit in the medium to long term.

It is only "affordable" because we enticed a new layer of suckers to the pyramid with the promise of high returns that are not possible elsewhere.

If a private business had done this, the directors would have been locked up.

[DimPrawn]

He won't bother reading this far

WHS.

[NickFitz]

Now then, don't be mean about the prawn.

He won't bother reading this far

[Old Greg]

Standard for the Fail: a large number of their stories contain the essential fact that proves the headline to be a gross misrepresentation of matters, but they bury it right at the end on the assumption their readers are too lazy to read that far once their moronic prejudices have been confirmed by the first few words.

Now then, don't be mean about the prawn.

[NickFitz]

Very last sentence of the Daily Fail article

'‘Over the next five years, the NHS pension scheme will actually provide a positive cashflow to the Treasury of over £10billion.’

So the inevitable headline-grabbing outliers nothwithstanding, on aggregate, 'we' are not paying anything for NHS pensions.

Standard for the Fail: a large number of their stories contain the essential fact that proves the headline to be a gross misrepresentation of matters, but they bury it right at the end on the assumption their readers are too lazy to read that far once their moronic prejudices have been confirmed by the first few words.

[d000hg]

I am afraid that once you depart from the market forces valuation of someone's worth then you are getting into very sticky territory. Whilst I accept that paying someone purely according to market forces is extreme and inappropriate in certain cases, I do think that as a basis of paying someone the markets are the soundest way to decide.

Isn't this WHY doctors get paid a lot though? i.e. the long education needed isn't why we pay them a lot, but directly leads to their market price being high because otherwise not enough people would bother training?

Trying to justify the morality of IT contractor pay, for example, would be particularly difficult - so dont bother attempting it.

There's nothing moral about how much contractors get paid.

[vetran]

Same argument could be said of electricians, nurses, porters, cleaners

Actually the argument is, should an employee make as much as a business?

Some Electricians do make as much as that but not on the cards. I'm sure the manager of a free lance nursing business makes that kind of money.

If a person starts a cleaning business then I see no reason why they shouldn't earn as much as a GP or contractor.

Contractors and GP's fall into the same slot in most people's minds, they are seen as disguised employees. The difference many may not see is that the big costs of training GPs are met by the government and repayment is not part of the pact so are they more of a business or less? It doesn't however change the basic fact they have different legal statuses to most nurses or cleaners.

The thing people forget is employees pay normally reflects a balance between the value they provide to the employer, the risks they mitigate & take, the costs of managing them and the cost of replacing them.


Cleaning has a low barrier to entry, risks while high in medical situations are easily manageable and the cost of replacing them is therefore low.

IT requires specialism, the monetary value of risks and complexity are high (but measurable if not manageable) so the pool is smaller and the remuneration is normally higher.

As a business you have overheads which employees contribute to.

So suggesting employed cleaners should earn the same as a contractor businesses however disguised seems against basic capitalist tennents, you are worth what you can command. If you can set your value as a business you are likely to get more than those taking the 'security' and missing the overheads of employment.

Edited - DA changed tack, I hadn't realised he was playing Agent Provacateur.

PJC - how can that be? It seems to fly in face of all the evidence.

[Spacecadet]

Trying to justify the morality of IT contractor pay, for example, would be particularly difficult - so dont bother attempting it.

How is it immoral?
We don't go round ripping off little old ladies
We do charge large organisations to complete work for them at a price which they are willing to pay and at a price which (for commercial organisations at least) still allows them to make a profit.

I'd argue that if we charged less then all that would mean is slightly higher dividends bonuses for the already wealthy and so be more immoral.

[DodgyAgent]

When their profession takes nearly a decade of studying, and when the government needs to make it financially attractive to get people in those jobs, I'll agree with you. I wasn't playing the "they do an important job" card, though you can be forgiven for making such an assumption and issuing a pre-canned response without bothering to check first.

I suppose this makes me a socialist in some way? Most viewpoints you don't agree with seem to

I am afraid that once you depart from the market forces valuation of someone's worth then you are getting into very sticky territory. Whilst I accept that paying someone purely according to market forces is extreme and inappropriate in certain cases, I do think that as a basis of paying someone the markets are the soundest way to decide. Trying to justify the morality of IT contractor pay, for example, would be particularly difficult - so dont bother attempting it.

[d000hg]

Same argument could be said of electricians, nurses, porters, cleaners

When their profession takes nearly a decade of studying, and when the government needs to make it financially attractive to get people in those jobs, I'll agree with you. I wasn't playing the "they do an important job" card, though you can be forgiven for making such an assumption and issuing a pre-canned response without bothering to check first.

I suppose this makes me a socialist in some way? Most viewpoints you don't agree with seem to

[pjclarke]

Very last sentence of the Daily Fail article

'‘Over the next five years, the NHS pension scheme will actually provide a positive cashflow to the Treasury of over £10billion.’

So the inevitable headline-grabbing outliers nothwithstanding, on aggregate, 'we' are not paying anything for NHS pensions.

[Old Greg]

What kind of public pension do they get? Some final salary thingie, or a more regular pension where the government simply makes a significant matched payment?

Final salary. Hugely inflated by recent large increases in GP salaries (yes, I know they're self-employed - it is a very peculiar set up).

[DodgyAgent]

I found this book pretty interesting: Confessions of a GP eBook: Benjamin Daniels: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

Don't see any reason a GP shouldn't earn as much as an IT contractor.

Same argument could be said of electricians, nurses, porters, cleaners